Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 23 February 2017

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.2

Report No. 13.2 Budget Review - 1 October to 31 December

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2017/51

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 2016/2017 financial year, reviewed as at 31 December 2016.

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 Council authorise the itemised budget variations as shown in Attachment 2 (#E2017/7234) which includes the following results in the 31 December 2016 Quarterly Review of the 2016/2017 Budget:

a) General Fund – $40,900 decrease in the Estimated Unrestricted Cash Result

b) General Fund - $1,716,400 increase in reserves

c) Water Fund - $2,030,600 decrease in reserves

d) Sewerage Fund - $2,876,900 decrease in reserves

2. That Council adopt the revised General Fund Estimated Unrestricted Cash Result of $1,146,500 for the 2016/2017 financial year as at 31 December 2016.

Attachments:

1 Budget Variations for General, Water and Sewerage Funds, E2017/7383 ⇨

2 Attachment 2 - December 2016 Quarterly Budget Review, E2017/7236 ⇨

3 Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (IP&R) Quarterly Review Statement, E2017/7624 ⇨

Report

Council adopted the 2016/2017 budget on 29 June 2016 via Resolution 16-348. It also considered and adopted the budget carryovers from the 2015/2016 financial year, to be incorporated into the 2016/2017 budget at its Ordinary Meeting held on 25 August 2016 via Resolution 16-446. Since that date, Council has reviewed the budget taking into consideration the 2015/2016 Financial Statement results and progress through the first half of the 2016/2017 financial year. This report considers the December 2016 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 29 June 2016 plus the adopted carryover budgets from 2015/2016 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 2017 as at 31 December 2016.

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 2017 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 62 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 first 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 2016 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 October to December 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 2016/2017 financial year projected to 30 June 2017 but revised as at 31 December 2016.

2016/2017 Budget Review Statement as at 31 December 2016	Original Estimate (Including Carryovers) 1/7/2016	Adjustments to Dec 2016 including Resolutions*	Proposed Dec 2016 Review Revotes	Revised Estimate 30/6/2017 at 31/12/2016
Operating Revenue	75,503,200	39,200	1,422,400	76,964,800
Operating Expenditure	76,715,900	(33,900)	2,116,500	78,798,500
Operating Result – Surplus/Deficit	(1,212,700)	73,100	(694,100)	(1,833,700)
Add: Capital Revenue	19,784,900	2,308,100	(9,567,800)	12,525,200
Change in Net Assets	18,572,200	2,381,200	(10,261,900)	10,691,500
Add: Non Cash Expenses	12,515,100	0	0	12,515,100
Add: Non-Operating Funds Employed	1,673,000	0	0	1,673,000
Subtract: Funds Deployed for Non-Operating Purposes	(60,072,800)	(992,300)	7,029,900	(54,035,200)
Cash Surplus/(Deficit)	(27,312,500)	1,388,900	(3,232,000)	(29,155,600)
Restricted Funds – Increase / (Decrease)	(27,350,100)	1,388,900	(3,191,100)	(29,152,300)
Forecast Result for the Year – Surplus/(Deficit) – Unrestricted Cash Result	37,600	0	(40,900)	(3,300)

GENERAL FUND

In terms of the General Fund projected Unrestricted Cash Result the following table provides a reconciliation of the estimated position as at 31 December 2016:

Opening Balance – 1 July 2016	$1,145,200
Plus original budget movement and carryovers	$37,600
Council Resolutions July – September Quarter	0
September Review – increase/(decrease)	0
Council Resolutions October – December Quarter	0
December Review – increase/(decrease)	(40,900)
Forecast Unrestricted Cash Result – Surplus/(Deficit) – 30 June 2017	($3,300)
Estimated Unrestricted Cash Result Closing Balance – 30 June 2017	$1,141,900

The General Fund financial position overall has decreased by $36,300 as a result of this budget review. The proposed budget changes are detailed in Attachment 1 and summarised further in this report below.

Council Resolutions

There were no Council resolutions during the October to December 2016 quarter that impacted the overall 2016/2017 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) $
General Manager	16,700	0	16,700
Corporate & Community Services	230,400	230,700	(300)
Infrastructure Services	(10,408,100)	(10,373,600)	(34,500)
Sustainable Environment & Economy	113,000	135,800	(22,800)
Total Budget Movements	10,048,000	10,007,100	(40,900)

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 Directorate and are included in the overall budget adjustments table above:

General Manager

· In the General Managers Program, it is proposed to increase the budget by $16,600 to fund the temporary positions of the Research Officer and the Digital Media Officer for the remainder of the financial year. These costs are distributed across other programs through support service costs. It is also proposed to transfer $16,700 from the structural change reserve that was restricted at the September 2016 Quarter Budget Review for the purpose of funding additional staff resourcing.

Corporate and Community Services

· In the Councillor Services Program additional expenditure of $66,300 is attributable to the consultation and application of the proposed Special Rate Variation. This can be funded from the Infrastructure Services Carryover reserve where funds were set aside at the end of the 2015/2016 financial year for this purpose.

· In the Financial Services Program there is a proposed budget decrease of $2,300 for expenditure for actual rates valuation fees being under the budget.

· In the Information Services program it is proposed to increase operating income by $1,500 to reflect the income received from the Department of Education for the trainee position in Records. It is proposed to increase operating expenditure by $150,000 due to additional costs incurred to procure technical consultant(s) providing project support and training. These consultants have been assisting council keep various information services projects active. This can be funded from the Information Services Reserve.

· In the Governance Services Program It is proposed to increase operating income by $3,700 due to income received for a procurement rebate.

· In the Community Development Program, It is proposed to increase operating expenditure by $8,800 for additional costs for the Byron Bay Recreation Grounds Plan of Management ($8,800, funded from the Property Reserve).

Infrastructure Services

· In the Supervision & Administration program, it is proposed to reduce operating expenditure by $85,600 as the Paid Parking Officer position funded from the paid parking reserve is to be moved to the Local Roads & Drainage program.

· In the Asset Management Planning program there is no net effect on the budget, but adjustments are required between expenditure numbers for asset management.

· In the Emergency Services program it is proposed to increase income and expenditure by $65,000 due to Rural Fire Service expenses relating to Ballina and Tweed being recouped from Ballina and Tweed Shire Councils.

· In the Depot Services and Fleet Management program it is proposed to increase operating expenditure by $30,000 due to the cost of the new GPS Monitoring system for Council plant.

· In the Local Roads and Drainage program, there are a number of adjustments outlined under Note 14 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 Drainage.

· In the Roads and Maritime Services program (RMS) it is proposed to increase operating income by $899,300 and expenditure by $1,091,500 as the RMS have approved funding for the January 2015 Natural Disaster event ($82,000) and June 2016 Natural Disaster event ($817,300 with $192,000 funded by Council).

· In the Open Space and Recreation program, there are a number of adjustments outlined under Note 16 in the Budget Variations explanations section of Attachment 1. Further disclosure is included in the third page of Attachment 2 under the budget program heading Open Space and Recreation.

· In the Cavanbah Centre program, it is proposed to increase expenditure by $22,000 largely due to damage caused to AFL nets during a recent storm. Some of this is retrievable through an insurance claim.

· In the Facilities Management program it is proposed to increase operating expenditure by $20,000 due to a social enterprise project plan at the old Country Link building in Byron Bay and capital expenditure by $135,000 due to the Foyer and Training room renovations in the Administration Centre ($110,000) and solar installation at the Mullumbimby District Neighbourhood Centre ($25,000).

Sustainable Environment and Economy

· In the Development & Certification program it is proposed to increase operating income and expenditure by $110,000 as there has been a steady and significant increase (25% from last year) in the number of applications for ‘development’ received during the year that has required additional temporary resourcing in the planning, building and environment assessment teams to ensure the timely management and assessment of development, construction certificate and subdivision applications as per statutory requirements and customer expectations.

· In the Planning Policy and Natural Environment Program, it is proposed to increase income and expenditure by $3,000 for the Sustainable House Day Expo. Operating expenditure increased by a further $21,200 due to an additional $6,200 required for the Residential Strategy and an additional $15,000 estimated for the Byron Shire Housing Summit. A budget of $10,000 was allocated for the Byron Shire Housing Summit at the September budget review referencing resolution 16-528. It is anticipated the cost of this summit will be more than the $10,000 allocated at this review.

· In the Environment & Compliance program proposed to increase the budget for overtime and consultants for Environmental Health ($40,000) and the Compliance salaries budget ($50,000). These adjustments can be funded through savings in the Environmental Health salaries due to the ongoing vacant position of the Team Leader Public & Environmental Services. This increase is also due to the steady and significant increase in the number of applications for ‘development’ received during the year that has required additional temporary resourcing in the environment assessment teams to ensure the timely management and assessment of development, construction certificate and subdivision applications as per statutory requirements and customer expectations

WATER FUND

After completion of the 2015/2016 Financial Statements the Water Fund as at 30 June 2016 has a capital works reserve of $2,723,000 and held $10,549,100 in section 64 developer contributions.

The estimated Water Fund reserve balances as at 30 June 2017, and forecast in this Quarter Budget Review, are derived as follows:

Capital Works Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2016	$2,723,000
Plus original budget reserve movement	1,553,000
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2015/2016	(346,800)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(53,700)
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(289.700)
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2016/2017 – Increase / (Decrease)	862,800
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2017	$3,585,800

Section 64 Developer Contributions

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2016	$10,549,100
Plus original budget reserve movement	(7,794,000)
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2015/2016	(383,100)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	1,270,000
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(1,740,900)
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2016/2017 – Increase / (Decrease)	(8,648,000)
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2017	$1,901,100

Movements for Water Fund can be seen in Attachment 1 with a proposed estimated decrease to reserves (including S64 Contributions) overall of $2,030,600 from the 31 December 2016 Quarter Budget Review.

SEWERAGE FUND

After completion of the 2015/2016 Financial Statements the Sewer Fund has a capital works reserves of $5,153,600 and plant reserve of $827,800. It also held $8,760,300 in section 64 developer contributions.

Capital Works Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2017	$5,153,600
Plus original budget reserve movement	814,200
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2015/2016	(96,900)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	1,071,600
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(427,100)
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2016/2017 – Increase / (Decrease)	1,361,800
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2017	$6,515,400

Plant Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2016	$827,800
Plus original budget reserve movement	0
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2015/2016	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 2016/2017 – Increase / (Decrease)	0
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2017	$827,800

Section 64 Developer Contributions

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2016	$8,760,300
Plus original budget reserve movement	(2,785,400)
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2015/2016	(503,200)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	1,074,700
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(2,449,800)
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2016/2017 – Increase / (Decrease)	(4,663,700)
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2017	$4,096,600

Movements for the Sewerage Fund can be seen in Attachment 1 with a proposed estimated overall decrease to reserves (including S64 Contributions) of $2,876,900 from the 31 December 2016 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 general revenue, but can also be 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 2016.

Total Legal Income & Expenditure as at 31 December 2016

Program	2016/2017 Budget ($)	Actual ($)	Percentage To Revised Budget
Income
Legal Expenses Recovered	0	0	0%
Total Income	0	0	0%

Expenditure
General Legal Expenses	200,000	30,501	15.3%
Total Expenditure General Fund	200,000	30,501	15.3%

Note: The above table does not include costs incurred by Council in proceedings after 31 December 2016 or billed after this date.

Financial Implications

The 31 December 2016 Quarter Budget Review of the 2016/2017 Budget has decreased the overall budget result by $40,900. As a result the estimated unrestricted cash balance attributable to the General Fund decreased to an estimated $1,141,900 at 30 June 2017.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

In accordance with Regulation 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 Council is satisfactory for the 2016/2017 financial year, having consideration of the original estimate of income and expenditure at the 31 December 2016 Quarter Budget Review.

This opinion is based on the estimated General Fund Unrestricted Cash Resukt position and that the current indicative budget position for 2016/2017, whilst now a projected deficit of $3,300 still provides that the General Fund Unrestricted Cash Balance will remain above Council’s adopted benchmark of $1,000,000. Not withstanding this, Council will need to continue to carefully monitor the 2016/2017 budget over the remainder of the financial year.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.4

Report No. 13.4 Council Investments January 2017

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2017/119

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 2017 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 2017 be noted. .

Report

In relation to the investment portfolio for the month of January 2017, Council has continued to maintain a diversified portfolio of investments. The average 90 day bank bill rate (BBSW) for the month of January was 1.78%. Council’s performance to 31 January is 2.71%. 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 2017:

Schedule of Investments held as at 31 January 2017

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%	520,000.00
03/06/16	1,000,000	WESTPAC CLIMATE BOND	N	AA-	03/06/21	FRN	2.89%	1,003,730.00
28/10/16	650,000	TEACHERS MUTUAL BANK	N	BBB+	28/10/19	FRN	3.17%	650,000.00
06/01/17	2,000,000	NAB	P	AA-	18/04/17	TD	2.63%	2,000,000.00
04/10/16	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	03/02/17	TD	2.68%	2,000,000.00
04/11/16	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	03/03/17	TD	2.73%	2,000,000.00
05/12/16	2,000,000	BANKWEST	P	A1+	06/03/17	TD	2.60%	2,000,000.00
12/01/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	12/04/17	TD	2.61%	2,000,000.00
23/11/16	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	22/02/17	TD	2.72%	2,000,000.00
02/12/16	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	07/04/17	TD	2.71%	2,000,000.00
04/01/17	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	04/04/17	TD	2.64%	1,000,000.00
07/11/16	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	06/03/17	TD	2.74%	1,000,000.00
05/12/16	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	03/04/17	TD	2.71%	2,000,000.00
04/01/17	3,000,000	ME BANK	P	BBB	04/05/17	TD	2.75%	3,000,000.00
05/12/16	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	06/03/17	TD	2.70%	2,000,000.00
17/11/16	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	29/03/17	TD	2.74%	2,000,000.00
24/11/16	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	22/02/17	TD	2.74%	2,000,000.00
28/11/16	2,000,000	AMP BANK	P	A	29/05/17	TD	2.70%	2,000,000.00
01/12/16	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	02/03/17	TD	2.70%	2,000,000.00
03/01/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	03/04/17	TD	2.65%	2,000,000.00
06/01/17	2,000,000	BANK OF QUEENSLAND	P	A2	06/04/17	TD	2.50%	2,000,000.00
01/08/16	2,000,000	POLICE CREDIT UNION	P	NR	01/02/17	TD	2.85%	2,000,000.00
05/12/16	2,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	05/04/17	TD	2.75%	2,000,000.00
01/12/16	2,000,000	BEYOND BANK	P	A2	01/06/17	TD	2.85%	2,000,000.00
03/11/16	2,000,000	BEYOND BANK	N	A2	01/02/17	TD	2.65%	2,000,000.00
07/12/16	2,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	07/04/17	TD	2.75%	2,000,000.00
08/12/16	2,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	08/03/17	TD	2.65%	2,000,000.00
09/11/16	2,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	09/02/17	TD	2.65%	2,000,000.00
14/11/16	2,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	22/03/17	TD	2.65%	2,000,000.00
29/11/16	2,000,000	BEYOND BANK	N	A2	28/02/17	TD	2.65%	2,000,000.00
04/01/17	3,000,000	BANK OF QUEENSLAND	N	A2	04/07/17	TD	2.75%	3,000,000.00
04/01/17	1,000,000	BANANACOAST CU	P	NR	04/07/17	TD	2.75%	1,000,000.00
08/12/16	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	08/03/17	TD	2.67%	2,000,000.00
18/08/16	2,000,000	AMP BANK	N	A	16/03/17	TD	2.95%	2,000,000.00
02/12/16	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	10/03/17	TD	2.70%	2,000,000.00
27/01/17	2,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	27/04/17	TD	2.65%	2,000,000.00
04/10/16	1,000,000	BANK OF QUEENSLAND	N	A2	04/04/17	TD	2.65%	1,000,000.00
04/01/17	2,000,000	BEYOND BANK	N	A2	04/07/17	TD	2.75%	2,000,000.00
04/10/16	1,000,000	BANANACOAST CU	N	NR	03/02/17	TD	2.75%	1,000,000.00
16/12/16	1,500,000	AUSWIDE BANK LTD	P	A2	28/06/17	TD	2.80%	1,500,000.00
12/12/16	1,000,000	AUSWIDE BANK LTD	N	A2	13/06/17	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
17/11/16	1,500,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	22/03/17	TD	2.75%	1,500,000.00
16/12/16	1,000,000	POLICE CREDIT UNION	N	NR	05/07/17	TD	2.87%	1,000,000.00
20/01/17	1,000,000	AMP BANK	N	A	19/7/17	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
20/01/17	1,000,000	BANK OF QUEENSLAND	N	A2	26/7/17	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
N/A	2,346,213	CBA BUSINESS ONLINE SAVER	N	A	N/A	CALL	1.40%	2,346,213.02
Total	80,496,213					AVG	2.71%	80,519,943.02

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
	FRN	Floating Rate Note	Principal can vary based on valuation, interest payable via a floating interest rate that varies each quarter.
	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 2017, 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 remained the same as December 2016, and is demonstrating a cumulative unrealised gain of $23,730.

Dissection of Council Investment Portfolio as at 31 January 2017

Principal Value ($)	Investment Linked to:-	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
76,000,000.00	Term Deposits	76,000,000.00	0.00
1,650,000.00	Floating Rate Note	1,653,730.00	3,730.00
2,346,213.02	Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	2,346,213.02	0.00
500,000.00	Bonds	520,000.00	20,000.00
80,496,213.02		80,519,943.02	23,730.00

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 month of January 2017 on a current market value basis.

Movement in Investment Portfolio – 1 to 31 January 2017

Item	Current Market Value (at end of month) $
Opening Balance at 31 December 2016	78,216,034.08
Add: New Investments Purchased	22,000,000.00
Add: Call Account Additions	2,500,000.00
Add: Interest from Call Account	3,908.94
Less: Investments Matured	20,000,000.00
Less: Call Account Redemption	2,200,000.00
Add: Fair Value Movement for period	0.00
Closing Balance at 31 January 2017	80,519,943.02

Investments Maturities and Returns – 1 to 31 January 2017

Principal Value ($)	Description	Type	Maturity Date	Number of Days Invested	Interest Rate Per Annum	Interest Paid on Maturity $
2,000,000.00	NAB	TD	03/01/17	183	2.97%	29,781.37
1,000,000.00	NAB	TD	04/01/17	92	2.67%	6,729.87
3,000,000.00	ME Bank	TD	04/01/17	92	2.65%	20,038.36
3,000,000.00	Bank of Queensland	TD	04/01/17	184	2.95%	44,613.70
1,000,000.00	Banana Coast Credit Union	TD	04/01/17	184	2.95%	14,871.23
2,000,000.00	Beyond Bank Australia	TD	04/01/17	92	2.65%	13,358.90
2,000,000.00	Bank of Queensland	TD	05/01/17	182	2.95%	29,502.58
2,000,000.00	NAB	TD	06/01/17	91	2.71%	13,512.88
2,000,000.00	NAB	TD	12/01/17	122	2.64%	17,648.22
2,000,000.00	ME Bank	TD	27/01/17	120	2.65%	17,424.66
20,000,000.00						207,481.77

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 2017 the table below identifies the overall cash position of Council as follows:

Dissection of Council Cash Position as at 31 January 2017

Item	Principal Value ($)	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
Investments Portfolio
Term Deposits	76,000,000.00	76,000,000.00	0.00
Floating Rate Note	1,650,000.00	1,653,730.00	3,730.00
Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	2,346,213.02	2,346,213.02	0.00
Bonds	500,000.00	520,000.00	20,000.00
Total Investment Portfolio	80,496,213.02	80,519,943.02	23,730.00

Cash at Bank
Consolidated Fund	924,190.52	924,190.52	0.00
Total Cash at Bank	924,190.52	924,190.52	0.00

Total Cash Position	81,420,403.54	81,444,133.54	23,730.00

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.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.10

Report No. 13.10 PLANNING - 26.2013.3.1 Planning Proposal for Rezoning of Land at Tallowood Ridge Estate, Mullumbimby

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Fiona Sinclair, Planner

File No: I2017/112

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

This report presents a planning proposal for the expansion of Tallowood Ridge Estate in Mullumbimby. It proposes to alter the land use zones with consequential minimum lot size and floor space ratio changes, where applicable.

An amended version of the planning proposal was supported by Council for Gateway determination (and for public exhibition) at its meeting of 7 April 2016. The gateway determination was issued by the Department of Planning and Environment on 27 May 2016. The public exhibition took place from 4 August 2016 to 1 September 2016 and was consistent with the Gateway determination issued by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment. Six government agency submissions were received along with nine public submissions.

In response to the submissions received an amended planning proposal with eight minor map changes to the publicly exhibited version has been prepared (Attachment 1). The changes are unlikely to affect the lot yield and do not warrant further public exhibition. The outcomes of the planning proposal will remain the same as when it was exhibited, namely:

· increase the opportunity for residential development (by about 65 lots)

· incorporate environmental areas (remnant vegetation and riparian corridors) into an RU2 zone (until further assessment for the purposes of determining environmental zones is done)

· zone public recreation facilities in a public recreation zone

The land has been subject to a range of studies and reports that support the extension of the residential zoned area. An additional ecological assessment requested by NSW Office of Environment & Heritage is attached to this report.

The planning proposal is consistent with relevant State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs). It is consistent with most of the relevant s117 Directions, and where inconsistencies occur they can be justified. An assessment against the Far North Coast Regional Strategy Sustainability Criteria that was part of the public exhibition concluded that the extension to the Tallowood Ridge Estate is appropriate.

There is sufficient information to enable Council to support the planning proposal and proceed to finalise the plan under the delegation issued by the Minister for Planning.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

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

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council proceed to finalise the revised planning proposal to amend Byron LEP 2014 to enable the expansion of the Tallowood Ridge Estate, Mullumbimby, as contained in Attachment 1 to this report.

2. That Council exercise the delegation issued by the Minister for Planning to enable the final plan to be made.

Attachments:

1 Planning Proposal Tallowood Ridge - post exhibition version Feb 2017, E2017/7672 ⇨

2 Gateway determination May 2016, S2016/7621 ⇨

3 Summary of submissions, E2017/7249 ⇨

4 Additional ecological assessment Nov 2016, E2016/106285 ⇨

5 Confidential - Submissions Tallowood Planning Proposal , E2017/6927

6 Form of special disclosure of pecuniary interest, E2012/2815 ⇨

Report

The Planning Proposal

This planning proposal relates to land located at Tallowood Ridge Estate, Mullumbimby, described as Lot 93 and 94 in Deposited Plan 1216681 (refer Figure 1). It also affects an un-made road that traverses north / south through Lot 94 and one that abuts it immediately to the south. Lot 94 is an irregular shaped lot that is in several pieces. It has a total area of 59.1 hectares. Approximately 25 hectares is affected by zone changes in this planning proposal. The balance of the zones within the subject land will not change.

Figure 1: Site Identification Map

Current Zones and Controls

The subject land is currently zoned part RU1 Primary Production, part RU2 Rural Landscape, part R2 Low Density Residential and part Deferred Matter under Byron LEP 2014, as shown in Figure 2. The Deferred Matter land remains zoned Rural 1(a) General Rural under LEP 1988. The Minimum Lot Size (MLS) for the RU1 and RU2 zone is 40 hectares. The MLS for the R2 zone is 400 square metres. The Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for the R2 land is 0.5:1. No FSR currently applies to the RU1 or RU2 land.

Proposed Zones and Controls

Council staff have considered the information submitted by the proponent along with submissions received from government agencies and the general public. An amended planning proposal with eight minor map changes to the publicly exhibited version has been prepared (Attachment 1). The planning proposal seeks to amend the existing zones under Byron LEP 2014 as shown in Figure 3, in order to:

· permit additional residential development on the subject site;

· consolidate environmentally sensitive land (and some steep land) into a single rural zone (until further assessment for the purposes of determining environmental zones is done);

· allocate a public recreation zone to sports fields that are under construction;

· allocate a rural zone to a riparian corridor that passes through the site and link it to some environmentally sensitive land.

The amended planning proposal will rezone:

· approximately 4.5 hectares of the existing R2 Low Density Residential zone to RU2 Rural Landscape;

· approximately 8 hectares of the RU1 Primary Production zone to RE1 Public Recreation and RU2 Rural Landscape;

· approximately 12 hectares of the RU2 Rural Landscape zone and RU1 Primary Production to R2 Low Density Residential zone.

The balance of the subject land will remain in its current mix of zones, with Deferred Matter areas (not subject to Byron LEP 2014) to be addressed as part of the E Zone assessment process (commencing shortly).

The planning proposal will also make consequential changes to the Floor Space Ratio and Minimum Lot Size maps as applicable to reflect the proposed zones.

Figure 2: Current Zoning Byron LEP 2014 over aerial photo

Figure 3: Proposed Zoning Byron LEP 2014 over aerial photo

Gateway Determination

The Department of Planning and Environment issued a Gateway determination on 27 May 2016 (Attachment 2), which considered the inconsistencies identified by Council in relation to flooding, rural zones, steep lands, environmental zones, acid sulfate soils and extractives and mining resources to be minor. Further consultation was required with NSW Rural Fire Service, Office of Environment and Heritage, Department Primary Industries (Agriculture) and the Local Aboriginal Land Council and this has taken place.

Public Exhibition and Agency Consultation

The public exhibition and consultation for this planning proposal was undertaken in accordance with the Gateway determination, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Regulations. The planning proposal and supporting information was publicly exhibited for 30 days from 4 August 2016 until 1 September 2016. Notification of the exhibited planning proposal included publication in Council’s Notices in the Byron News. All supporting material was hosted on the web sites of Byron Shire Council and the Department of Planning and Environment.

Concurrent with the public exhibition of the planning proposal, Council consulted with:

· Rural Fire Service (RFS)

· Department of Primary Industries (DPI)

· Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH)

· Tweed Byron Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC) and the Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (BBBAC).

Submissions were received from six government agencies. These are summarised in Attachment 3. No agencies objected to the planning proposal. OEH requested that additional consultation be undertaken with the local Aboriginal community and this was done. The Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation do not object to the planning proposal proceeding. OEH also requested that additional ecological assessment be undertaken and this was produced by the applicant. It is enclosed as Attachment 4. It does not raise any new issues or require amendments to the planning proposal. NSW RFS indicated it has no major concerns with the planning proposal noting that all future development applications on land mapped as bushfire prone will need to comply with the requirements of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

Nine submissions were received from the public, including some neighbouring landowners and the Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation. Issues raised include flooding, traffic, demand for more residential land, Koalas, environmentally sensitive areas and zones, residential zone boundaries, Aboriginal heritage and minimum lot sizes. These issues are addressed in the following section. One minor map change is recommended as a result of these submissions.

Submissions are summarised in Attachment 3. Copies of all submissions can be found at Attachment 5 (Confidential).

Key Issues Raised in Submissions

Flood prone land

The subject land is partly flood prone and studies (as well as past court cases) have identified some of the land as being affected by 20 Year ARI flood events or greater. The Draft North Byron Flood Study discusses and maps flood behaviour for the entire Brunswick River catchment including the subject land. It looks at flooding up to the extreme event known as a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF), which is a flood with an annual return interval of greater than 500 years. Taking this extreme PMF map, the subject land is affected slightly more than previously expected (approximately 2 hectares of proposed R2 land), but in the same location. This level of flooding on the edge of a floodplain can be dealt with by filling of the land. Small amounts of filling in a fringe locality typically have a low probability of affecting other flood prone areas in the catchment.

This Planning Proposal includes most of the flood prone land as either RU1, RU2 or RE1 with most of this land to be retained as either a riparian buffer or for agriculture. It also includes the approved sports fields. The Planning Proposal also removes some areas of flood prone land from the R2 zone and places it in the RU2 zone. Approximately 1 hectare of flood affected land adjacent to the north/south drainage line and near Clays Road is proposed for inclusion in the R2 zone. This land is located west of the connector road from the estate to Clays Road and will need to be filled if it is to be used for dwellings. Inclusion of this area in the R2 zone will provide flexibility in road design and lot layout. Infrastructure associated with residential development may be located on flood prone land, if appropriate. Should any development in flood prone areas be contemplated, the provisions of existing clause 6.3 of the Byron LEP 2014 and corresponding DCP provisions will apply at the development application stage.

Traffic

Additional dwellings will add traffic to local roads including Left Bank Road that takes traffic from Tuckeroo Avenue back into Mullumbimby. There is no evidence to suggest that these roads are not capable of dealing with traffic from additional lots, however, this issue will be investigated more closely at the subdivision stage to assess if any road or intersection improvements are warranted. The connection between the Tallowood Ridge estate and Clays Road is a long standing concept from approved masterplans that will provide an alternative access to the estate if Tuckeroo Avenue is not able to be used.

Demand for more residential land

Tallowood Ridge Estate had about 110 lots remaining in its approved master plan, which correlates to about 4 to 5 years supply at estimated demand rates. Even with some lots being produced from minor resubdivision in other locations, Mullumbimby has a limited supply of land for residential development. Recent releases of land at Tallowood Ridge have all sold out. The subject land will potentially provide 65 extra lots in addition to the lots previously approved for development on the subject land. It is a logical expansion of an existing urban area that can provide quality land quickly to meet short-term market demand while Council continues to investigate longer term options through its new Residential Strategy.

Koalas

The applicant has previously submitted tree and Koala site assessments (Sept/Oct 2013) to Council in relation to the draft Byron Koala Plan of Management . These indicate that “A total of 9,767 trees in the upper and/or lower strata of the tree component were counted with Tallowwood [species] accounting for 272 trees. At the property scale, koala food trees account for 2.8% of the total trees on the site. Koala scat surveys indicated 1 scat under one tree in 2011, 21 scat trees in 2012, zero scat trees in April 2013 and 1 scat tree in October 2013. All scat trees were Tallowwoods.” Under SEPP 44 the vegetation on the site would not meet the criteria for core or potential Koala habitat. Notwithstanding this, the proposed RU2 zone will include the majority of Tallowwood trees on the subject land. Council supports protection of the Byron Shire Koala population and at this stage there is no evidence that this planning proposal will create adverse impacts on Koalas.

Environmentally sensitive areas and “E zones”

Byron Shire ‘High Environmental Values’ mapping shows that the land is largely free of vegetation constraints and is not in an identified local or regional wildlife corridor.

The Planning Proposal seeks to protect remnant fauna habitat and environmentally sensitive areas on the site through the use of an RU2 Rural Landscape zone (until further assessment for the purposes of determining environmental zones is done). It does this specifically by:

§ zoning riparian areas on each side of an existing drainage channel system between residential zoned and good agricultural land,

§ protecting in perpetuity the Sclerophyll forest in the west, south and south-west corner of the subject site which provides habitat for a range of fauna, and

§ connecting the Sclerophyll forest in the west, south and south-west corner to a riparian corridor on the subject land providing linkage to the Brunswick River riparian corridor.

The decision of whether or not to place some of the vegetated RU2 land into a future environmental zone will be made as part of the E Zone assessment process (commencing shortly).

Aboriginal heritage

Council officers contacted the Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation after meeting with OEH representatives on site on 19 August 2016. The need for further site inspections and consultation was discussed. The General Manager of the Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation notified Council on 9 September that it has no objection to the Tallowood Ridge Planning proposal proceeding on the basis of existing information.

Minimum lot sizes

The area designated as ‘B’ on the draft Floor Space Ratio (FSR) map (Figure 6 in Attachment 1) is currently zoned R2 Residential Low Density under LEP 2014. It currently has an FSR of 0.5:1 and a minimum lot size of 400 m². The draft plan will not alter the density of lots per hectare by retaining the 400 m² Minimum Lot Size (MLS) and may even lower the site development density by reducing the FSR to 0.4:1. These development standards provide a guide to likely outcomes but at subdivision stage the resulting lot sizes may well be much larger in response to factors such as buffers to vegetation or slope. The 400 m² MLS in this estate has produced a variety of lot sizes with Stage 5 recently being released with lots from 511 m²to 747 m² with an average size of 596 m². Those lots that back onto natural areas are typically larger to accommodate easements and buffers. Therefore it is not agreed that the proposed development standards recommended for area ‘B’ on the FSR map will result in “higher density” development that impedes the management needs of neighbouring land (as suggested in Attachment 3). This is a factor that will need to be addressed by the applicant in a future subdivision application.

Post exhibition changes to proposed zoning boundaries

Eight minor changes have been made to the proposed Land Zoning Map in the locations shown in Figure 4 below (with corresponding changes to the Floor Space Ratio and Minimum Lot Size Maps in the same locations). Of these, one minor map change is recommended in response to the submissions received. The other seven changes have been made to bring the planning proposal into concurrence with the current master plan for the site, approved as part of the current consent for subdivision.

Figure 4: Location of proposed changes to LEP maps post exhibition

The rationale for these changes is outlined in numerical order below:

1. to include an area identified for bushland rehabilitation on the current approved ‘Land Use Plan’ for the site (Figure 5 below) in the RU2 zone for environmental protection purposes;

2. to include a patch of mapped ‘high environmental value’ vegetation identified for conservation on the current approved ‘Land Use Plan’ (Figure 5) in the RU2 zone;

3. minor boundary adjustment to include mapped ‘high environmental value’ vegetation in the RU2 zone for environmental protection purposes;

4. to include a riparian buffer in the RU2 zone, in accordance with the approved ‘Land Use Plan’ (Figure 5);

5. minor boundary adjustment around ‘high environmental value’ vegetation;

6. to align the R2 zone boundary with the southern boundary of the subject land, in response to a submission by the proponent. The exhibited R2 boundary was based on an incorrect map supplied by the applicant in their original planning proposal and, in response to their submission, this error has been corrected. It is a minor change that effects an area of approximately 0.5 hectares that is currently zoned R2. Although there is steep land in some places this can be addressed in the future lot size and subdivision layout.

7. to align the proposed zoning boundary (between RU2 and R2) with property boundaries, so that the adjoining Council owned Public Reserve Lot 92 DP 1216681 is wholly zoned R2 and is not left with a residual sliver of RU1 Primary Production over part of the lot; and

8. to align zoning boundaries with cadastral boundaries of recently created Lot 93 DP 1216681.

Overall the changes result in a combined area of approximately 1.04 hectares being included in the RU2 Rural Landscape zone instead of the R2 Low Density Residential zone (as exhibited) and an area of approximately 0.5 hectares being retained in the R2 Low Density Residential zone rather than being rezoned to RU2 Rural Landscape (as exhibited). The changes are warranted as the locations of items 1,2,3,4,and 8 are all identified in documents as having ecological values and items 5,6 and 7 correct mapping anomalies. The changes are unlikely to affect the lot yield and do not warrant further public exhibition.

In summary the amended planning proposal will rezone:

· approximately 4.5 hectares of the existing R2 Low Density Residential zone to RU2 Rural Landscape

· approximately 5 hectares of the RU1 Primary Production zone to RU2 Rural Landscape

· approximately 3 hectares of the RU1 Primary Production zone to RE1 Public Recreation

· approximately 12 hectares of the RU2 Rural Landscape zone and RU1 Primary Production to R2 Low Density Residential zone.

The balance of the site will remain in its current mix of zones. Changes to minimum lot size and floor space ratios will match the zone changes.

Figure 5: Current approved ‘Land Use Plan’ for the site

State Policy and Planning Controls

The planning proposal is generally consistent with the applicable State Environmental Planning Policies. The key SEPPs that require particular consideration are SEPP 55 Remediation of Land, SEPP (Rural Lands) 2008, SEPP 44 Koala Habitat Protection and SEPP 71 Coastal Protection. These are addressed in more detail in the attached planning proposal (Attachment 1).

The planning proposal is generally consistent with the relevant Section 117 Directions. It is justifiably inconsistent with Direction 1.2 - Rural Zones; 1.3 - Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries; 2.1 - Environment Protection Zones; 4.2 - Mine Subsidence and Unstable Land; 4.3 - Flood Prone Land. In all cases the inconsistency is reasonable and should not inhibit the planning proposal from being finalised. In issuing its Gateway determination DPE indicated that it considered the inconsistencies to be of minor significance and no further approval is required in relation to these Directions.

All Section 117 Directions are addressed in more detail in the attached planning proposal (Attachment 1).

LEP Delegations

Council has accepted delegations from the DPE which enable it to process the final stages of a planning proposal (LEP amendment). The delegations only extend to routine LEPs and would not normally apply in this instance as it is a rezoning inconsistent with an endorsed strategy. The DPE Gateway determination of 27 May 2016 confirmed that Council can use its delegations for this planning proposal.

Conclusion

The amended planning proposal attached to this report has been prepared in accordance with the Department of Planning and Environment requirements. It is consistent, or justifiably inconsistent with State and Council strategies and policies, and has sufficient strategic and site specific merit to be supported and finalised.

Council should proceed with this planning proposal to amend Byron LEP 2014 to apply the R2 Low Density Residential zone, RE1 Public Recreation zone, RU1 Primary Production zone, and RU2 Rural Landscape zone over part Lot 93 and 94 in Deposited Plan 1216681 as shown in Attachment 1. It should also amend the Minimum Lot Size and Floor Space Ratio maps for this land as shown in Attachment 1.

There is sufficient information to enable Council to support the planning proposal and forward it to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment under delegation to be finalised and gazetted.

Financial Implications

Council has been able to recover the processing costs with this planning proposal to date because it is an applicant-initiated LEP amendment. If the applicant chooses not to pay then the planning proposal will not proceed.

If Council chooses not to proceed then the matter does not incur any additional costs.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The relevant policy considerations are addressed above and in the attached planning proposal.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.11

Report No. 13.11 PLANNING - DA 10.2015.795.1 Staged Development Consent, Subdivision to create 47 residential lots, a drainage reserve, public roads and associated urban infrastructure, Lot 100 DP 1070724, No. 35 Bayside Way, Brunswick Heads

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Rob Van Iersel, Consultant Planner

File No: I2017/118

Theme: Ecology

Development and Approvals

Proposal:

DA No:	10.2015.795.1
LEP Definition:	Subdivision of land
Proposal description:	Stage development consent to create 47 residential lots, public road and associated urban infrastructure.
Property description:	LOT: 100 DP: 1070724
Property description:	35 Bayside Way BRUNSWICK HEADS
Parcel No/s:	239318
Applicant:	Planners North Pty Ltd
Owner:	Mr J E & Mrs G M Mills
Zoning:	R3 Medium Density Residential / PART DM Deferred Matter (7(b) Coastal Habitat Zone under BLEP 1988)
Date received:	21 December 2015
Integrated Development:	Yes
Public notification or exhibition:	- Level 2 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications - Exhibition period: 14/01/16 to 27/01/16 - Re-advertised 09/02/16 to 16/02/16 - Submissions received: 23 objections; 2 in support
Other approvals (S68/138):	Not applicable
Planning Review Committee:	Not applicable
Delegation to determination:	Council
Issues:	· Staged Development Application – Concept Plan for whole of proposed subdivision; Development Consent for Stage 1 of the Concept; · Part of land zoned 7(b) Coastal Habitat under Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988 – potential impacts on this land and adjoining estuary;

Summary:

The application seeks a Staged Development Consent to create 47 residential lots, public road and associated urban infrastructure.

In accordance with Section 83B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, approval is sought for:

1. A concept proposal for the subdivision of the site to create 47 residential lots, the construction of public roads and associated urban infrastructure; and

2. Development Consent for Stage 1 of the Concept, creating 40 residential lots, 1 residue lot, a drainage reserve lot and associated public roads and urban infrastructure.

The site contains and existing wholesale nursery. The eastern boundary of the lot is high tide mark of the adjacent Simpsons Creek estuary. This eastern part of the lot, for a distance of approximately 140m landward of the estuary, remains zoned 7(b) Coastal Habitat under Byron Local Environmental Plan. This area is partially vegetated, closest to the estuary, and partially cleared, containing planting areas and infrastructure associated with the wholesale nursery.

The majority of submissions received have objected to any urban development within this 7(b) riparian area with the application originally including some lots, road and drainage infrastructure encroaching into the 7(b) land. The subdivision design was subsequently amended, with no urban development, residential lots or associated infrastructure within the 7(b) zone. A condition of consent is recommended requiring the revegetation and rehabilitation of the land zoned 7(b) to enhance the riparian habitat values of the locality.

The proposed residential lots are in accordance with Byron LEP 2014 and Byron DCP 2014, and raise no specific issues. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That, pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, development application 10.2015.795.1 for the subdivision of the land and demolition of existing nursery buildings be approved, subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 2 (E2017/6360).

2. That Council authorise the General Manager or his delegate to process the transfer and closure of the Crown Road Reserve that borders the north of Lot 100 DP 70724, subject to all costs being borne by the proponent of the subdivision, and the portion of that reserve not required for public road construction being consolidated into land within the subdivision.

Attachments:

1 Proposed Plans 10.2015.795.1 prepared by Hammond & Assoc , E2017/7205 ⇨

2 Conditions of consent 10.2015.795.1 35 Bayside Way Brunswick Heads, E2017/6360 ⇨

3 Confidential - submission received 10.2015.795.1 35 Bayside Way Brunswick Heads, E2017/7010

Report

Assessment:

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. History/Background

Lot 100 DP 1070724 was registered on 29 July 2004. It was a consolidation of Lot 74 DP 851902 and Lot 1 DP 48538, which was an old closed road.

There have been no applications made on Lot 100 since the consolidation. The following application history relates to the parent lots:

BA 89.308	Dwelling	Approved 30 May 1989
5.1997.133.1	Tree Removal	Withdrawn 20 June 1997
5.1997.316.1	Commercial Development – Nursery, Tree Removal	Approved 21 January 1998
6.1997.2257.1	Swimming Pool	Approved 28 May 1997
10.2004.32.1	New shed for existing nursery	Approved 26 February 2004
11.2004.32.1	Construction Certificate – New shed for nursery	Approved 10 September 2004

1.2. Description of the site

Land is legally described as:	LOT: 100 DP: 1070724
Property address is:	35 Bayside Way BRUNSWICK HEADS
Land area is:	6.649ha
Land is Zoned:	R3 Medium Density Residential / PART DM Deferred Matter (7(b) Coastal Habitat Zone under BLEP 1988)
Property is constrained by:	Acid Sulfate Soils (Class 3)
	Bushfire Prone Land (Vegetation Category 1 & Buffer)
	High Environmental Value vegetation
	Eco Wetlands
	Flood
	Key Fish Habitat
	Koala Habitat
	SEPP 14 Coastal Wetlands
	SEPP 71 Coastal Policy

The development site also includes the existing unmade road reserve that adjoins Lot 100 to the north. The eastern part of the site is a Deferred Matter, which is zoned 7(b) Coastal Habitat under BLEP 1988. It is located adjacent to the Simpson Creek estuary, with the site’s eastern boundary being mean high water mark of the estuary. This deferred area is partly vegetated, but undergrowth has previously been cleared. Part of the existing nursery infrastructure is also located in the western part of the 7(b) area (partially approved under DA 5.1997.316.1).

The remainder of the site is bisected by Bayside Way. To the west of Bayside Way, the land is vacant, flat and cleared, apart from some existing vegetation along the western boundary. It has an area of 7,537m² and contains an existing drainage channel along the southern boundary. It has a frontage of approximately 108m to Bayside Way.

The eastern portion, with an area of 5.89ha, contains an existing dwelling, pool and sheds as well as the existing wholesale nursery and associated buildings. The existing drainage channel continues along the southern boundary of this portion, discharging into Simpsons Creek estuary on the site’s eastern boundary.

There are a number of easements on the title of the land, including water, sewer and drainage. There is also a Right of Footway, 10m wide, that traverses the eastern part of the site, from north, where it joins the vacant Crown Road Reserve, to the south. The easement does not appear to continue within the property to the south. An existing sewer main runs across the site within an existing sewer easement. The main will be relocated as part of the subdivision works, to align with the proposed new road network.

The site adjoins an unmade road reserve to the north. A short section of this reserve (approx. 80m), at its western end, is owned by Council, with the remainder being a Crown Road Reserve.

Most of the southern boundary adjoins existing residential land (on the south side of the existing drainage channel), with vegetated land to the south-east.

The Site

1.3. Description of the proposed development

This is a staged development application, made pursuant to the provisions of s83A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

It seeks approval for a residential subdivision of the land, in the form of:

1. A concept proposal for subdivision of the whole of the site, to create 47 residential lots, the construction of public roads, and associated urban infrastructure; and

2. A detailed proposal seeking Development Consent for Stage 1 of the Concept, creating 40 residential lots, 1 residue lot, a drainage reserve, and associated public roads and urban infrastructure, including a new sewer pumping station.

A further development application will be submitted in the future for the second stage of the Concept, being Lots 41-47 as nominated in the concept proposal. The existing dwelling house is proposed to be retained within a new residential lot (proposed Lot 19), and consent is also sought to demolish all other existing buildings on the site.

The site is bisected by Bayside Way, with a portion of the land approximately 7,500m² in area to the west of the road, and the remainder to the east. The concept proposal shows six residential lots on the western portion (Lots 1-6), each with direct access to Bayside Way (these lots are to be created in Stage 1).

On the eastern portion, proposed Lots 7-13 will also have frontage to Bayside Way, with all other lots having frontage to the proposed new public road.

The Stage 1 development consent is proposed to be constructed in two “Construction Stages”, being Lots 1-6 west of Bayside Way as the first construction stage, and the remaining lots to the west of the road providing the second construction stage. As this is a staged development application, proposed lots 41-47 will be subject to a separate subsequent development application.

On the northern boundary, a new public road is proposed to be constructed within an existing unmade road reserve, which is currently part owned by Council and part Crown Road Reserve. Elsewhere the proposed new public road is wholly within the subject land.

Details of the proposed lots are outlined below:

Stage 1 (Detailed Proposal - Development Consent lots)

*Lot*	*Area (m²)*	*Lot*	*Area (m²)*	*Lot*	*Area (m²)*
Construction Stage 1:
1	739.3	2	725.5	3	971.9
4	1,121.3	5	1,388.4	6	2,590.0
Construction Stage 2:
7	624.0	8	504.3	9	504.3
10	504.2	11	504.1	12	494.0
13	845.7	14	525.1	15	525.0
16	512.4	17	582.3	18	618.5
19	2,685.5	20	606.8	21	587.1
22	587.1	23	587.1	24	587.1
25	528.5	26	518.6	27	505.2
28	505.2	29	505.2	30	505.2
31	505.2	32	486.9	33	486.9
34	484.3	35	814.6	36	507.5
37	507.5	38	507.5	39	507.5
40	507.5	41*	3.1ha

* residue lot to be further subdivided

Future Stage (Concept Proposal; subject to future DA application):

*Lot*	*Area (m²)*	*Lot*	*Area (m²)*	*Lot*	*Area (m²)*
41	509.8	42	478.7	43	478.6
44	478.7	45	477.1	46	533.3
47	2.775ha

The residue lot to be created by the first stage development consent (proposed Lot 41), contains all of the riparian area that is currently zoned 7(b) Coastal Habitat Zone under Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988.

The Concept Proposal shows the further subdivision of that residue lot, which will include proposed Lot 47 to be created (subject to future development consent) with an area of 2.775ha. That lot will contain all of the riparian area that is currently zoned 7(b) Coastal Habitat Zone under Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988, as well as sufficient area within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone to provide for a future dwelling site outside of the 7(b) riparian area.

A watercourse/ drainage channel runs east to west along the southern boundary of the property. It is proposed to create a lot containing this drain, to be dedicated to Council as a drainage reserve.

Stormwater management measures include conventional street drainage, a bio-retention swale located between the proposed southern road and the drainage channel, and a bio-retention basin located to the east of the internal road.

Appropriate urban services will be provided, including the relocation of an existing sewer main. A new sewer pump station will be constructed on a small lot to be dedicated to Council.

Crown Road Reserve

As outlined above, a new public road is proposed to be constructed within an existing unmade road reserve, which currently is part owned by Council and part Crown Road Reserve. The Crown Road Reserve is shown orange on the plan below.

Northern Council Land/ Crown Road Reserve

The Department of Primary Industry - Land has given their approval for this proposal, subject to the transfer of the whole length of the Crown road reserve to Council’s ownership. Once transferred to Council’s ownership, it is recommended that the eastern portion of the road reserve, being that part not required for road construction, be consolidated with the adjoining privately owned land (i.e. within the subdivision), to ensure that Council is not required to maintain the land in the future.

In this way, it will become part of proposed Lot 41, and the owner of that land will be required to maintain the bushfire asset protection land within that part of the land. The remainder will also be included in the riparian land rehabilitation works.

2. SUMMARY OF REFERRALS

Referral	Issue
Environmental Health Officer	Supported subject to conditions. See discussion of issues below.
Development Engineer	Supported subject to conditions. See discussion of issues below.
S64 / Systems Planning Officer	Developer Contributions required. Condition recommended.
S94 / Contributions Officer	Developer Contributions required. Condition recommended.
Ecologist	Supported subject to conditions. See discussion of issues below.
Rural Fire Service (100B/79BA/79C)	Bush Fire Safety Authority provided. Conditions included in recommendation to this report.
Department of Planning & Environment	The eastern part of the site contains land zoned 7(b) Coastal Habitat under BLEP 1988. The whole of this land will be contained in proposed Lot 47. Because the minimum subdivision lot size for 7(b) zoned land is 40ha, the applicants have submitted a SEPP No 1 objection to the need to adhere to this standard (see detail below). The Department have provided their concurrence to the requested variation to the development standard.
Department of Industry –Lands	The application involves the construction of a new public road within a Crown Road reserve that borders the northern boundary of the site. Given this, the application is Integrated Development for the purposes of the Act, with the Department of Industry – Lands becoming a consent authority under the Roads Act. The Department have advised that, pursuant to s138 of the Roads Act 1993, they have no objections to the proposed works on the Crown public road subject to the road being transferred to Council prior to the issue of a construction certificate authorising any works on the road. A condition of approval is recommended requiring the proponent to initiate the road transfer process at the appropriate time, with all expenses of that transfer to be met by the proponent.
Department of Primary Industries – NSW Fisheries	The site is close to a Priority Oyster Aquaculture Area within the Brunswick River. Appropriate stormwater measures are therefore required to ensure the protection of water quality in the adjoining estuary. The application includes a range of Water Sensitive Urban Design measures to ensure appropriate capture and treatment of stormwater.
Department of Primary Industries – Office of Water	General Terms of Approval have been provided in relation to a Controlled Activity Approval under s91 of the Water Management Act 2000. These General Terms are included in the recommendation to this report.
Marine Parks Authority	The Marine Parks Authority have reviewed the proposal and have no objections subject to: · a minimum vegetated buffer of 50m from the bank of the estuary; and · provision of stormwater management measures to protect water quality. The proposed subdivision will achieve these matters.
Bundjalung (Arakwal)	Preliminary discussions were held with representatives of the Arakwal Aboriginal Corporation Byron Bay (AAC), including a site inspection. This resulted in a request for a detailed Cultural Heritage Assessment. The Heritage Assessment was subsequently undertaken and included further discussions and site inspections with AAC. The assessment report concludes that the subdivision will not result in harm to Aboriginal Heritage.

* Conditions provided in the above referral are included in the Recommendation of this Report below

Issues:

Acid Sulfate Soils:

The subject site is mapped as Class 3 on the ASS Risk Map. It is essentially flat with ground levels that range from 4.9m to 4.2m AHD. The eastern part of the site falls away, with levels of approximately 1.6m AHD. Preliminary designs indicate that road excavations will be limited to less than 1.0m depth. Storm water and sewer excavations will reach 3.0m in depth for short distances. Excavation for the proposed sewer pumping station will reach approx.4.5m in depth.

A preliminary acid sulfate soil investigation indicates that acidity is present in the soil, but that it is not created from the oxidisation of pyrite or other sulfidic materials, and is therefore not Acid Sulfate Soil. The application of lime into these soils is recommended, and can occur at the site during excavation and or during spreading or stockpiling. An appropriate condition is recommended.

Contaminated Land:

The potential for soil contamination on this site arises from the existing uses of the land as a wholesale nursery, and associated with historical use of Crown Land adjoining to the north, which is identified as ‘unhealthy building land’ due to previous use for garbage disposal and for the old Brunswick Sewage Treatment Plant. A Preliminary Contaminated Land Assessment report was submitted, as well as a Preliminary Groundwater Sampling and Testing Report. The report included information regarding chemical use associated with the wholesale plant nursery and identified seven “Areas of Environmental Concern” (AEC) across the site. The report concluded that the potential for contamination was low, based on the nature of chemicals used being not persistent in the environment. The report concluded that the site was suitable for residential use.

The Preliminary Groundwater Sampling and Testing involved two rounds of sampling, in June 2016 and then in July 2016. The results from the Round 1 monitoring event indicated a low likelihood of contamination from Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) or OCP and OPP pesticides. However, the presence of elevated levels of total metals, as well as hydrocarbons measured at levels which, in some cases, exceed the adopted threshold concentrations were found. The subsequent Round 2 testing showed a significant reduction in the concentration of metals and hydrocarbons observed in Round 1. The reduction in the metals concentration was attributed to the distinction between total and dissolved metals. Based on the results from this assessment no evidence of groundwater contamination was observed. The assessed groundwater quality is not considered to be of concern for the proposed future residential use of this site.

Traffic Generation:

Based on the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, dwellings in this locality are expected to generate 9.0 daily vehicle trips per dwelling. The total subdivision, when complete, will therefore generate 423 daily vehicle trips. Currently, there are approximately 160 houses already constructed in the Bayside Brunswick Estate. This equates to 1,440 vehicle trips per day.

A previous Concept Approval has been granted for land to the south of the subject site, to provide an additional 167 houses, a pre-school, business zone and 16 medium density units, with an estimated traffic generation of approximately 1,600 daily vehicle trips (a new development application has been lodged for this extension, with similar traffic generation).

The existing intersection of Bayside Drive and Tweed Street includes a channelized right turn with painted chevron to guide traffic around the right turn channel. Good line of sight existing for cars exiting Bayside Drive. The design and capacity of this intersection is considered to be acceptable for the additional traffic generated by the proposed subdivision.

Stormwater Management:

An existing drainage channel is located along the southern boundary of the site. This channel will be dedicated to Council as a drainage reserve. The channel discharges into the Simpsons Creek Estuary. A range of water sensitive urban design stormwater measures are proposed, whereby the majority of the new lots will drain to a proposed bio retention basin, to be constructed in the eastern part of the site (but outside of the area zoned 7(b) Coastal Habitat). The outlet of the basin will be piped to discharge into the southern drainage channel.

Proposed lots 1-6, located west of Bayside Drive, will drain via an interallotment drainage system at the rear of the lots, into the southern drainage channel. The lots to the west of Bayshore Drive that do not drain into the bio retention basin will drain to the new southern road and via bio retention swale along the southern edge of that road into the southern drainage channel. It is considered that these measures will adequately protect water quality in the adjacent Simpsons Creek estuary.

Biodiversity:

The site contains vegetation of High Environmental Value on its eastern side, mapped as Plant Community Type 2114: Blackbutt-Scribbly Gum-Satinwood-Tassell Rush open forest of sandy waterlogged soils – with a paperbark stand in the centre. The application originally proposed some lots and associated urban development within this eastern vegetated area. The applicants were advised that Council did not support any urban development within the deferred area (zoned 7(b) Coastal Habitat under BLEP 1988), and requested to amend the application.

The current plan has been submitted in response, and now contains all of the deferred area within a single residue lot, including sufficient area outside of the 7(b) zone to allow a dwelling site on the R3 zoned land. Given that the objectives of the Coastal Habitat zone are primarily to protect, preserve and restore coastal habitat, (and that previous habitat removal in this zone was not authorised by Council) it is recommended that a Habitat Restoration Plan be required prior to issue of a Construction Certificate for the second construction stage, to restore the area within the zone to native plant communities. This requirement will need to be balanced against required asset protection zones and mosquito and biting midge management, but will provide for enhanced biodiversity outcomes for the site.

3. SECTION 79BA – BUSH FIRE PRONE LAND

Under section 79BA of the Act, Council must be satisfied prior to making a determination for development on bush fire prone land, that the development complies with the document ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’. The site is bush fire prone land.

The development application was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) as integrated development under Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997. The RFS have issued general terms of approval, which are reflected in the conditions of consent.

EFFECT OF 10/50 RULE ON SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION

The rule could potentially, in the longer term, result in tree clearing in the vicinity of a dwelling on proposed Lot 47, which contains the riparian area and deferred land (zoned 7(b) Coastal Habitat under BLEP 1988). This potential is offset by a condition of this report recommending that a detailed Habitat Restoration Plan be prepared to provide for the environmental rehabilitation of the land zoned 7(b).

4. Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The application is a staged development application, made in accordance with s83B of the Act.

A staged development application is a development application that sets out concept proposals for the development of a site, and for which detailed proposals for separate parts of the site are to be the subject of subsequent development applications. The application may set out detailed proposals for the first stage of development.

In this case, the development involves a ‘concept proposal’, being the subdivision of the site to create 47 residential lots and associated urban infrastructure. The application also provides a detailed proposal for the first stage of the development, being the creation of 40 residential lots, a residue lot, a drainage reserve lot, and associated urban infrastructure. The residue lot will be subject of a subsequent development application for further subdivision. That subsequent subdivision application will need to demonstrate that it is consistent with the ‘concept proposal’.

The matters for consideration detailed in Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) apply to a staged development application in the same way as they do to a ‘conventional’ application. The information below provides a summary of the evaluation of the relevant s79C matters, in relation to the concept proposal and the Stage 1 subdivision.

4.1 State Environmental Planning Instruments

	Satisfactory	Unsatisfactory
State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards	☒	☐
Consideration: The eastern part of the site is ‘deferred area’ under BLEP 2014, and is zoned 7(b) Coastal Habitat under BLEP 1988. All of the land within this deferred area will be included within the residue lot (proposed Lot 41), which also includes sufficient land outside of the deferred area for a dwelling and its curtilage. Within BLEP 1988, the development standard establishing the minimum lot size for land zoned 7(b) is 40ha. As proposed Lot 41 is less than 40ha, the applicants have submitted an objection under SEPP 1 to the need to strictly adhere to the development standard in the subject circumstances. It is considered that this objection can be supported in this case, as the subdivision does not propose to ‘split’ or otherwise fragment or reduce the area of land zoned 7(b). Further, there is no urban infrastructure proposed in this zone, and a condition is recommended requiring rehabilitation of that land. Approval of the SEPP 1 variation requires the concurrence of the Minister for Panning. That concurrence was provided by letter dated 2 February 2016, which indicates that concurrence was granted for the following reasons: · the proposal is not inconsistent with the objectives of the 7(b) zone; · the area of 7(b) zoned land is already significantly less than the minimum lot size and the area of this land containing coastal habitat vegetation is not being further fragmented; · the proposal raises no issues of state or regional planning significance; and · there is considered to be no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 14—Coastal Wetlands	☒	☐
Consideration: The eastern fringe of the site is mapped as a Coastal Wetland under this SEPP. As outlined above, the subdivision proposal does not involve any works in this riparian area, other than environmental rehabilitation by way of tree planting. The proposed stormwater measures will ensure that the water quality of discharge to the existing drainage channel, which discharges into the mapped wetland, will be protected. As such, the proposed subdivision will not result in detrimental impacts on the coastal wetland.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 26—Littoral Rainforests	☒	☐
Consideration: There are no areas of mapped littoral rainforest on the site or in close proximity.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 44—Koala Habitat Protection	☒	☐
Consideration: The site has an area in excess of 1ha. However, koala food trees do not constitute more than 15% of the total number of trees in the upper or lower strata. Therefore, the site does not contain potential koala habitat.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land	☒	☐
Consideration: Detailed investigations have been undertaken on the site, in accordance with the requirements of this SEPP as discussed above. The assessment concludes that the potential for soil contamination is low and that remediation is not required in this case.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 62—Sustainable Aquaculture	☒	☐
Consideration: The site is located close to Priority Oyster Aquaculture Areas within the Brunswick River estuary. As such, Council must consider whether the proposed development might result in an adverse impact on that oyster aquaculture. In this case, the proposed stormwater measures will ensure the protection of water quality in the estuary. As such, the proposed subdivision is not likely to result in adverse impacts on the oyster aquaculture.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 71—Coastal Protection	☒	☐
Consideration: The SEPP requires the preparation of a Master Plan where an application proposes the subdivision of land in a sensitive coastal location to create more than 25 lots. A sensitive coastal location includes land within 100m above mean high water mark of an estuary, and therefore includes the subject site. Clause 95 of Schedule 6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Savings, transitional and other provisions) specifies that, where an environmental planning instrument requires the preparation of a master plan before development consent can be provided, that requirement is to be construed as requiring a Development Control Plan with respect to the matters required to be included in the master plan. Section 83C of the Act provides if an environmental planning instrument requires the preparation of a development control plan before any particular or kind of development is carried out on any land, that obligation may be satisfied by the making and approval of a staged development application in respect of that land. The subject application is a staged development application. As such, neither a Development Control Plan nor a Master Plan is required for this proposal. The application must, however, address the information that would required by SEPP 71 to be included in a Master Plan, as set out in cl20(2) of the SEPP. The subject application has considered these requirements, as summarised in the table below. The design of the subdivision proposal is consistent with the provisions.

SEPP 71 Master Plan Considerations

a) design principles drawn from an analysis of the site and its context,

The application includes a detailed site analysis, examining, among other things, topography, vegetation, existing land use, zoning, easements and adjoining and nearby land.

The subdivision, as originally proposed, included some lots and urban infrastructure encroaching into the land zoned 7(b) Coastal Habitat. Following advice from Council that this would not be acceptable, the subdivision proposal was redesigned to remove all infrastructure from that area.

The redesigned subdivision now provides a much better response to the site and its context.

b) desired future locality character

The character of the locality has been established within the existing Bayside Brunswick subdivision and by the application of the R3 Medium Density Zone to the subject site. The proposed subdivision is consistent with this urban character.

The character is also, in part, established by the dense vegetation along the riparian areas of the Simpsons Creek estuary. Rehabilitation and enhancement of this area within the site, as recommended in this report, will assist in maintaining this character.

c) the location of any development, considering the natural features of the site, including coastal processes and coastal hazards

The redesigned subdivision provides an improved response to the natural features of the land. Rehabilitation of the riparian area and the implementation of the proposed water sensitive urban design stormwater measures will also provide appropriate protection for water quality in the estuary and an appropriate response to coastal hazards associated with the potential for flooding from the estuary.

d) the scale of any development and its integration with the existing landscape

The development provides a low scale subdivision pattern, consistent with the adjoining residential area.

e) phasing of development

The development subject to the Stage 1 development consent will be constructed in two separate stages, with proposed Lots 1-6, located west of the existing road to be constructed first, followed by Lots 7-40 (plus residual Lot 41) and associated infrastructure, located on the eastern side of Bayside Way.

f) public access to and along the coastal foreshore

Public access to the estuary foreshore is currently available along the unmade Crown Road that adjoining the northern boundary of the site, and along a Right of Footway that exists within the site. Both these accesses will remain in place.

g) pedestrian, cycle and road access and circulation networks

The subdivision pattern proposed will facilitate easy access to and within the development.

h) subdivision pattern

The subdivision pattern is consistent with the existing development on adjoining land. The grid pattern provides easy access to and within the site and provides good legibility within the subdivision.

i) infrastructure provision

Appropriate urban infrastructure is proposed, with plans provided to demonstrate how the various services will be provided. Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the plans and is satisfied that the infrastructure as proposed is consistent with the relevant legislative and policy requirements.

j) building envelopes and built form controls

Building envelopes are not considered necessary for these urban lots. The developer proposes to establish built form controls by way of a ‘developer’s covenant’. No details have been provided.

k) heritage conservation

A detailed assessment of Aboriginal cultural heritage has been undertaken, which concludes that the proposed development will not result in any adverse heritage impacts.

The site is not known to have any European heritage values.

l) remediation of the site

A detailed site investigation has concluded that there is no requirement for site remediation.

m) provision of public facilities and services

Internal roads will be dedicated to Council, as will the drainage reserve. All relevant urban services will be provided to the new lots.

n) provision of open space, its function and landscaping

It is not proposed to dedicate any public open space as part of this subdivision. Developer contributions will be paid in lieu.

o) conservation of water quality and use

Concepts have been provided for water sensitive urban design stormwater measures, including bio retention swales and a bio retention basin. Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed these proposals and confirms that, subject to detailed design, the measures proposed will adequately protect water quality of the adjoining estuary.

p) conservation of animals (within the meaning of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) and plants (within the meaning of that Act), and their habitats

No significant impact is expected on animals. Rehabilitation of the riparian areas within the site will assist to improve local habitat.

q) conservation of fish (within the meaning of Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994) and marine vegetation (within the meaning of that Part), and their habitats

Rehabilitation of the riparian area, together with implementation of the proposed stormwater management measures, will ensure the protection of fish in the adjoining estuary.

4.2A Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP 2014)

Zone: R3 Medium Density Residential and part DM Deferred Matter (the majority of the area designated DM is zoned 7(b) Coastal Habitat under Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988, with a part of the adjoining unmade road reserve zoned 1(a) General Rural)

Definition: Subdivision is not defined in the LEP 2014 Dictionary. It is, however, defined as subdivision of land in s4B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

LEP - Summary of Requirement	Proposed	Complies
Satisfy objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone Objectives of zone • To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment. • To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment. • To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.	The proposed subdivision provides for a range of lot sizes, which will facilitate a range of housing types, although the majority of lots will provide for single dwelling sites.	Yes
Permissibility: Clause 2.6 Subdivision Land to which this Plan applies may be subdivided, but only with development consent. Clause 2.7 Demolition The demolition of a building or work may be carried out only with development consent.	The proposed subdivision is permissible pursuant to Clause 2.6. The demolition of existing site buildings is permissible pursuant to Clause 2.7.	Yes
Clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size The minimum lot size for this site is 450m².	All lots are in excess of 450m².	Yes
Clause 5.5 Development within the coastal zone Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is wholly or partly within the coastal zone unless the consent authority has considered a range of matters as listed in this clause, including: • Public access to foreshore areas; • Impacts on scenic quality of the area; • Amenity impacts; • Biodiversity impacts • Water quality impacts associated with stormwater and/or effluent	The proposed development is considered to satisfy the relevant matters for consideration detailed in Clause 5.5.	Yes
Clause 6.1 Acid Sulfate Soils The site is identified as containing Class 3 acid sulphate soils. For areas of Class 3, development consent is required for works more than 1 metre below the natural ground surface, or works by which the watertable is likely to be lowered more than 1 metre below the natural ground surface.	Preliminary Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation, Geotech Investigations, (Reference HT:jw: G\2292-b, dated 22 October 2015, indicates that potential acid soil is likely but that this is not Acid Sulfate Soil. Recommendations are provided in the report to address potential construction impacts associated with these non-ASS acidic soils.	Yes
6.3 Flood planning Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development is compatible with the flood hazard of the land, and will not significantly adversely affect flood behaviour resulting in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties.	Council’s Development Engineer has advised the Flood Planning Level (FPL) for this site is RL 4.25m AHD. As a result, the lower areas of the fringes of the site – i.e. directly adjacent to the drainage channel and the estuary; are flood affected. All proposed lots, however, will have flood-free dwelling sites.	Yes
6.6 Essential services Council must be satisfied at that all required services are available.	The application has demonstrated that appropriate services can be provided for all lots.	Yes

The relevant clauses of BLEP 2014 have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP&A Act. The proposed development complies with all clauses of LEP 2014 (in some cases subject to conditions and/or to the satisfaction of other assessing officers).

4.2B Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988 (LEP 1988)

Byron LEP 1988 is an applicable matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP&A Act because it applies to the areas of the subject land that are designated DM – Deferred Matter under BLEP2014.

As shown in the zoning map above, these areas are the land in the eastern part of the site, zoned 7(b) Coastal Habitat, and a part of the unmade road reserve adjoining the northern boundary of the site, which is zoned 1(a) General Rural.

The proposed subdivision has been amended so that no lots or other urban infrastructure are proposed within the area zoned 7(b) Coastal Habitat. The only development within the area zoned 1(a) is the construction (and dedication) of a public road within the unmade road reserve.

As such, there are no provisions of LEP 1988 that are directly relevant to the proposed development. The table below examines the proposal in relation to the objectives of the 7(b) zone:

Zone Objective

Consideration

7(b) Coastal Habitat

(a) to identify coastal habitats (being wetlands, heath, sedge, marshland, rainforest types, sclerophyll forest and the like) of local significance,

(b) to identify and preserve estuaries and other significant coastal habitat areas, wetlands and allow them to continue to function as feeding and breeding areas for wildlife, shellfish and fish,

(c) to prohibit development within the zone that is likely to have a detrimental effect on the habitat or landscape qualities or the flood mitigation function of significant coastal habitat areas, including wetlands,

(d) to enable development of public works and environmental facilities where such development would not have a significant detrimental effect on the habitat or landscape qualities of the wetland and other significant coastal habitat areas, and

(e) to enable the careful control of noxious plants and weeds by means not likely to be significantly detrimental to the native ecosystem.

The riparian area, including all of the land zoned 7(b), is considered to be a significant coastal habitat.

The subdivision, as originally proposed, included some urban infrastructure within the 7(b) area. The applicant was requested to redesign the proposal to remove any aspects of the development from within the 7(b) zoned land.

As redesigned, the proposal now includes all of the 7(b) zoned land within a single lot, which also contains sufficient area outside of the 7(b) zone to provide for a dwelling site and its curtilage.

A condition of approval is recommended requiring the environmental rehabilitation of the 7(b) area to increase its biodiversity values. There will be a need to provide an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) within the eastern part of this land. This does not prevent tree planting, although it will need to be at a lower density than that undertaken closer to the creek bank.

Overall, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the 7(b) zone.

4.3 Any proposed Instrument that has been the subject of public consultation and has been notified to the consent authority

Draft SEPP (Coastal Management) 2016

The Draft Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) proposes to establish a new, strategic land use planning framework for coastal management. It is intended to support the implementation of the management objectives set out in the Coastal Management Act 2016.

Once adopted, the Coastal Management SEPP will be the single land use planning policy for coastal development and will bring together and modernise provisions from SEPP 14 (Coastal Wetlands), SEPP 26 (Littoral Rainforests) and SEPP 71 (Coastal Protection).

The aim of the Draft SEPP is to promote an integrated and co-ordinated approach to planning in the ‘Coastal Zone’, identifying four coastal management areas:

· coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests area

· coastal environment area;

· coastal use area; and

· coastal vulnerability area.

The whole of the subject site will be mapped within the coastal use area. The draft provisions for consideration of development within this area generally reflect the existing matters for consideration currently outlined in SEPP 71. These matters are addressed above.

The eastern fringe of the site will also be mapped within the coastal environment area. In relation to this area, the draft SEPP states:

Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is wholly or partly within the coastal environment area unless the consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development:

(a) is not likely to cause adverse impacts on the biophysical, hydrological (surface and groundwater) and ecological environment, and

(b) is not likely to significantly impact on geological and geomorphological coastal processes and features or be significantly impacted by those processes and features, and

(c) is not likely to have an adverse impact on the water quality of the marine estate (within the meaning of the Marine Estate Management Act 2014), in particular, having regard to the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the marine estate including sensitive coastal lakes, and

(d) is not likely to have an adverse impact on native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms, and

(e) will not adversely impact Aboriginal cultural heritage and places, and

(f) incorporates water sensitive design, including consideration of effluent and stormwater management, and

(g) will not adversely impact on the use of the surf zone

The proposed development is acceptable with regard to these matters.

The eastern fringe will also be mapped within the coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests area. In relation to this area, the provisions of the draft SEPP generally reflect the provisions in the current SEPP 14 Coastal Wetlands. The subdivision proposal does not involve any works in this riparian area, other than environmental rehabilitation by way of tree planting. The proposed stormwater measures will ensure that the water quality of discharge to the existing drainage channel, which discharges into the mapped wetland, will be protected. As such, the proposed subdivision will not result in detrimental impacts on the coastal wetland.

The mapping for the draft SEPP also shows an area of the land within 100m of the coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests as a “proximity area for coastal wetlands”. The draft SEPP requires that consent should not be granted for development within this area unless Council is satisfied that the development will not result in significant ecological impacts or adverse impacts on water quality. As outlined above, the proposed development is satisfactory in regard to these matters.

4.4A Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2014 (DCP 2014)

Byron Development Control Plan 2014
Control	Assessment	Compliance
Chapter B3 Services
B3.2.1 Provision of Services
a) Water Supply Development shall be provided with an adequate water supply connection or have suitable arrangements in place for the provision of an adequate water supply service.	Conventional water supply arrangements are proposed to provide a reticulated water supply to each new lot. Engineering concepts have been provided to demonstrate that water supply services can be provided, with construction detail to be provided prior to issue of a Construction Certificate.	Yes
b) Electricity Supply Development shall be provided with an adequate connection to grid supplied electricity services or its equivalent	Conventional connection to grid is proposed.	Yes
c) Telecommunications Infrastructure Development shall be provided with adequate access to the telecommunications network for fixed line telephone services.	Conventional services are proposed.	Yes
d) Sewage Management Development shall be provided with an adequate reticulated sewer connection or have suitable arrangements in place for such a connection to be made where access to reticulated sewer is available	Conventional reticulated sewerage is proposed.	Yes
All sewer mains and rising mains must be located within easements designed in accordance with Council’s requirements	An existing sewer main crosses the site, within an existing easement. This main will be relocated to be within the internal road network, with the easement adjusted as required.	Yes
Pump Stations, Wells, Access Chambers, Vents and other ancillary works must be located with due consideration to the amenity of the subdivision, of adjacent developments and the environment. Consideration must be given to noise, odours and the aesthetic impact of the system, and to access and maintenance requirements of the Council.	A pump station is proposed, to be located on the eastern side of the development, between two proposed lots. Details of the pump station will be required at Construction Certificate stage to demonstrate that this location is appropriate.	Yes
e) Stormwater and Drainage Development applications must contain sufficient information to assess whether the proposed stormwater system is effective and feasible, both within the site and in its connection to the public drainage system.	Conceptual design has been provided for water sensitive urban design measures that will ensure that stormwater is appropriate managed in a way that will ensure the protection of water quality in the adjacent waterway. This includes bio retention swales, a bio retention basin and the embellishment and dedication of the existing drainage channel.	Yes
f) Road Access – General Development must comply with road access requirements contained in Chapter B4 Traffic Planning, Vehicle Parking, Circulation and Access, and the Northern Rivers Development & Design Manual.	New public roads are proposed and preliminary engineering design demonstrates that they can be designed and constructed in accordance with the relevant standards.	Yes
8. Road Access – Crown Roads Applicants proposing to upgrade a Crown Road to provide access to a property need to submit the written consent from the NSW Land and Property Management Authority.	The proposal includes construction of a local public road within the unmade Crown road reserve that adjoins the northern Boundary of the site. Crown Lands have provided written advice that they do not object to construction of this road subject to the land being transferred to Council prior to construction. A condition of consent is recommended in this regard.	Yes
In such instances the NSW Land and Property Management Authority will usually require the road to be dedicated to Council. Council will not accept dedication of the Crown Road unless the road has been constructed to Council’s standards and the Council has agreed to accept the transfer of such a road reserve from the Crown	The Department of Primary Industry - Land has given their approval for this proposal, subject to the transfer of the whole length of the Crown road reserve to Council’s ownership. Once transferred to Council’s ownership, it is recommended that the eastern portion of the road reserve, being that part not required for road construction, be consolidated with the adjoining privately owned land (i.e. within the subdivision), to ensure that Council is not required to maintain the land in the future. In this way, it will become part of proposed Lot 47, and the owner of that land will be required to maintain the bushfire asset protection land within that part of the land. The remainder will also be included in the riparian land rehabilitation works.
Chapter D6 Subdivision
*D6.1.2 Aims of this Chapter* The Aims of this Chapter are to: 1. To promote subdivision development which is of a high design standard and which minimises impact on the environment. 2. To provide for a variety of housing and other forms of development reflecting the growing diversity of the community and its household types, incomes and lifestyles. 3. To encourage the use of innovative design and engineering principles which enhance the physical environment and the social fabric. 4. To optimise the provision of infrastructure services in the most efficient and effective manner, 5. To ensure the continued supply of agriculturally viable land.	The proposed subdivision is consistent with these aims.	Yes
*D6.2.1 Subdivision Design Guidelines*
1. Site Design natural environment factors must be addressed in the overall site design	The subdivision, as originally proposed, included some urban infrastructure within the 7(b) area. The applicant was requested to redesign the proposal to remove any aspects of the development from within the 7(b) zoned land. As redesigned, the proposal now includes all of the 7(b) zoned land within a single lot, which also contains sufficient area outside of the 7(b) zone to provide for a dwelling site and its curtilage. A condition of approval is recommended requiring the environmental rehabilitation of the 7(b) area to increase its biodiversity values. There will be a need to provide an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) within the eastern part of this land. This does not prevent tree planting, although it will need to be at a lower density than that undertaken closer to the creek bank. Overall, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the 7(b) zone.	Yes
2. Climate Control and Aspect Design of the proposed subdivision must aim to gain the most advantage of cooling breezes in summer and reduce the impact of adverse winds in winter by effective site layout and use of landscaping	The layout of the subdivision is ‘regular’, but allows for the construction of individual dwellings that can be orientated to take advantage of good solar access and prevailing breezes.	Yes
3. Hazards Development applications must identify and address all potential hazards of the site in accordance with the requirements of Byron LEP 2014, this DCP and other relevant Council and State Government policies, guidelines and legislation	The application includes assessment of flood hazard and bushfire hazard. The proposed development provides appropriate responses to these hazards, with flood free building sites for all lots, and appropriate APZs provided around the edges of the development.	Yes
4. Vegetation Removal Subdivision road layout must be designed around significant stands of trees. 5. Riparian Buffers and land fronting watercourses Subdivision design must encourage the retention of riparian vegetation and should incorporate riparian buffers	As outlined above, the proponent was required to redesign the proposal to removal all urban development from the land zoned 7(b) Coastal Habitat. This ensures that vegetation removal is no longer required from within the important riparian area of the site. A condition is recommended requiring environment rehabilitation measures, including additional planting, to bolster the biodiversity values of this riparian zone.	Yes
6. Landscaping The effective use of landscaping can make a significant contribution to climate control, ecological characteristics, the overall appearance of the subdivision and the residential environment which is ultimately created	A condition is recommended requiring the provision of a Landscape Plan with the application for a Construction Certificate. Specific attention will be required in that Plan for the revegetation and rehabilitation of the riparian area zoned 7(b).	Yes
7. Roads Roads are to be designed to provide a pronounced road hierarchy in which the size, width and appearance matches its function.	Internal public roads have been designed in accordance with the DCP requirements. As outlined above, the construction of the northern road will require the transfer of the current Crown Road reserve to Council ownership.	Yes
8. Street Lighting	Conditions will be applied to ensure lighting is provided in accordance with the DCP requirements.	Yes
9. Public Open Space Only land which is in a suitable location and which is able to be used for active or passive recreation will be considered to meet the requirements for public open space.	No public open space is provided in this subdivision. Developer contributions will be payable instead and will go toward the provision of larger more functional spaces in the locality. This includes the existing recreation grounds to the north of the site and a neighbourhood park located within the Bayside Estate, to the west of the site.	Yes
10. Stormwater Management	Council’s Development Engineer is satisfied that the stormwater management measures proposed satisfy the DCP requirements, and will ensure adequate protection for water quality in the adjacent Simpsons Creek estuary.	Yes
11. Utility Services	Council’s Development Engineer is satisfied that the proposed servicing satisfies the DCP requirements.	Yes
D6.4.1 Lots Size and Shape
*Prescriptive measures*:
General lots 450m²	Complies	Yes
Corner lots 650m²	There are 4 corner lost with areas less than 650m². These lots are internal within the subdivision (rather than on the corner of Bayside Way). Given the topography of the site, it is considered that this variation is acceptable, as the lots meet the objectives and performance criteria by providing adequate dwelling sites, with area of access, private open space etc.	Yes
Chapter E4 – Brunswick Heads
*E4.1.2 Aims of this Chapter* 1. To facilitate and provide guidelines for the development of the Brunswick Heads Urban Area consistent with the provisions of the Byron LEP 2014, the Brunswick Heads Settlement Strategy 2004 and other relevant strategies and Chapters of this DCP. 2. To maintain and enhance the appearance and atmosphere of Brunswick Heads as a low-key, family-friendly coastal village. 3. To encourage new development to complement, support and strengthen the character, living amenity and tourist potential of the town and to maintain and enhance pedestrian and cycle access. 4. To foster and reinforce the restoration and protection of the riverside environment of Brunswick Heads. 5. To continue to implement environmentally sustainable development principles in the town’s business area; and to further enhance its role as a dynamic local business sector offering a range of employment opportunities. 6. To reinforce the town’s historical linkages and to protect identified heritage items.	The proposed subdivision is consistent with these aims, in that it will provide a low density residential subdivision, catering primarily for single dwelling lots, that is compatible with the existing and emerging residential character of the Bayside Way area. The simple grid pattern proposed for this subdivision is also consistent with the character of Brunswick Heads, and maintains the coastal village amenity.	Yes
*E4.2.1 Character, Bulk and Scale of Development*
1. Natural Environment Development should be located and designed to support and complement key natural environmental features, and to enhance their integrity and respect their edges.	As originally submitted, the proposed subdivision included lots and associated urban infrastructure that encroached within the riparian area of the site, which is zoned 7(b) Coastal Habitat. The applicants were requested to redesign the proposal to be consistent with this DCP requirement and the redesigned proposal, which no longer intrudes into the 7(b) zoned land, now provides an improved response. A requirement to rehabilitate and revegetate the riparian zone will enhance the integrity of this natural feature.	Yes

4.4B Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2010 (DCP 2010)

The proposed subdivision has been amended so that no lots or other urban infrastructure are proposed within the BLEP 1988 area (zoned 7(b) Coastal Habitat). The only development within the BLEP 1988 area zoned 1(a) is the construction (and dedication) of a public road within the unmade road reserve.

DCP 2010 is an applicable matter for consideration in relation to development in areas zoned under BLEP 1988. Given that the subdivision has virtually no footprint in this area, however, a detailed assessment of the DCP 2010 Chapters/Parts is not required for this development application.

4.5 Any Planning Agreement or Draft Planning Agreement?

No applicable planning agreement or draft planning agreements apply to the land or this development.

4.6 Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 Considerations

Clause	This control is applicable to the proposal:	I have considered this control as it relates to the proposal:	If this control is applicable, does the proposal comply?
92 (Coastal Zone considerations)	Yes	Yes	Yes
93 (Fire Safety - Change of building use)	No	N/A	N/A
94 (Fire Safety – Extension of buildings)	No	N/A	N/A
94A (Fire Safety – temporary structures)	No	N/A	N/A

4.7 Any coastal zone management plan?

No Applicable Coastal Zone Management Plans apply to the development.

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

Impact on:	Likely significant impact/s?
Natural environment	No. The proposal will not have a significantly adverse impact on the natural environment of the locality.
Built environment	No. The proposal will not have a significantly adverse impact on the built environment of the locality.
Social Environment	No. The proposal will not have a significant social impact on the locality.
Economic impact	No. The proposal will not have a significant economic impact on the locality.

Appropriate conditions of consent have been recommended to control construction activities such as hours of work, construction noise, sedimentation and erosion control measures and the like. It is considered such impacts are short term and can be appropriately mitigated during the construction phase.

4.9 The suitability of the site for the development

The assessment outlined above demonstrates that the site is suitable for the proposed subdivision as amended, which confines residential development and urban infrastructure to the part of the site that is zoned R3 under BLEP 2014. Investigations undertaken, particularly the land/ groundwater contamination assessment and cultural heritage investigation have confirmed that this part of the site is suitable for urban development.

The eastern part of the site, adjacent to the Simpsons Creek estuary has significant environmental and cultural values and is not suitable for urban development. The subdivision has been redesigned to remove all urban lots and associated infrastructure from this area, and the stormwater management measures have been designed to ensure that potential indirect impacts have been mitigated.

A condition of approval is recommended requiring significant rehabilitation and revegetation works in this area, which will improve the environmental health of that part of the site and enhance the protection of the adjoining estuary.

4.10 Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

The development application was publicly exhibited. A total of 25 submissions were received, 23 being in objection and 2 in support. The issues raised in the submissions are addressed below.

*Issue*	*Comments*
Encroachment into land zoned 7(b) Coastal Habitat. · riparian area adjoins a Marine Park and is part of a wider wildlife corridor · residential development and associated infrastructure should not be permitted in the 7(b) zone · existing area has been degraded over some years and should be rehabilitated · riparian area provides a Koala corridor	As outlined above, the applicants were advised the Council would not support urban development within the 7(b) Coastal Habitat zone, and that any approval would be conditioned to require effective rehabilitation of that area. A revised proposal was therefore submitted addressing the concerns raised in these submissions. The revised proposal ensures that no urban infrastructure will be constructed within the 7(b) land. A condition of consent is also recommended requiring detailed revegetation/ rehabilitation plans to be provided demonstrating how this area will be enhanced as part of the construction of the subdivision. Those works will need to be substantially commenced before a subdivision certificate for is issued.
R3 Medium Density Zone is not appropriate and will lead to scale of development that is inconsistent with the area Lot sizes too small. Density not in keeping with surrounding residential area.	The subject site was zoned R3 Medium Density upon the commencement of BLEP 2014 in July 2014, with the remaining area within the Bayside Estate zoned R2 Low Density Residential. Prior to that, under BLEP 1988, part of the site was zoned 2(a) Residential, as was the remainder of Bayside Estate. The application of the R3 Medium Density zone therefore anticipated a scale of development greater than that in the remainder of the estate. Notwithstanding that, the lot sizes proposed in this subdivision are not markedly different in size from the surrounding area, with the exception of four larger lots (proposed Lots 3-6), which would have the potential to be development for residential units (subject to future development applications). Overall, it is considered that the density of development that will result from this subdivision is consistent with the surrounding residential area.
Flooding and drainage concerns, particularly given high groundwater.	Groundwater investigations were carried out, including monitoring of levels before and after a significant rain event in early June 2016 (400mmm over 2 days). ‘Normal’ groundwater levels were observed to be around 1m below surface before the rain event, but much closer to the surface immediately following that rain. The drainage system will need to be designed to address groundwater, and concepts provided with the DA demonstrate that designs will be able to adequately address risks, without the need for any significant filling. Details will be required prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. Flood mapping indicates that the development area is above the 1 in 100 flood levels, apart from the areas fringing the existing drainage channel.
Impacts on existing residential lot that adjoins to the west, particularly given that proposed lot size (proposed lots 4, 5 & 6) would allow unit development. Potential loss of boundary vegetation; impacts on existing outlook; potential overshadowing & overlooking issues. Stormwater currently flows to the south along boundary; concerned that this flow will be blocked, effecting lots to the west. Request buffer along western boundary of the site.	Proposed Lots 1-6 are located along the boundary referred to. Given the zoning of R3 Medium Density and the lot sizes, which range from 725m² upward, it is likely that there will be future applications for unit development on some of these lots. This is not inconsistent with the R3 Medium Density Zoning for the land under Byron LEP 2014 if this was to occur in the future. DCP controls relating to setback, character, privacy and solar access will apply to any future applications to protect the amenity of the adjoining land. Interallotment drainage is proposed to be constructed within the site along this boundary, draining into the existing drainage channel to the south. This will ensure that the existing stormwater flows referred to are catered for. It will also result in an easement along the boundary that will ensure buildings cannot be set close to the boundary. The interallotment drainage can be designed to minimise the need to remove existing trees in this area. A condition is recommended requiring replacement planting for any trees in this area that cannot be retained.
Development should not be approved until a Growth Management Strategy has been prepared.	The R3 Medium Density zoning of the land was considered in detail as part of the preparation of Byron LEP 2014. At that time, it was considered that a Growth Management Strategy was not required.
It is unclear whether the Brunswick Heads STP has capacity to service the development.	Council’s engineers advise that the STP has sufficient capacity for the development as proposed.
Roads system does not have capacity for additional traffic, particularly at the intersection of Bayside Way and Tweed Street.	Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the existing road capacity and is satisfied that it is sufficient for the quantity of traffic that will be generated by the development.
Acid sulfate soils risks	Acid sulfate soil risks have been assessed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer, who confirms that the risks can be managed at construction stage.
Lack of open space/ recreation area	Developer contributions will be levied and go towards provision/ upgrade of open space in the locality. It is also noted the property is in close proximity (walking/ cycling distance) to the Brunswick Heads playing fields to the north.
Potential for site contamination associated with previous land uses to the north – previously a garbage tip, including night soil disposal and STP	Site contamination issues have been examined in detail (see above), with a further more detailed assessment of groundwater requested and undertaken following receipt of the public submissions. That assessment has adequately addressed the concerns.
Inadequate consideration of potential to impact on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage	Aboriginal Heritage has been examined in detail (see above), with a further more detailed assessment requested and undertaken following receipt of the public submissions. That assessment has included consultation with local Aboriginal representatives, which included site inspections.
Support for proposal · additional housing needed · proposal provides for additional diversity of housing	Noted.

4.11 Public interest

Subject to the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed development is unlikely to prejudice or compromise the public interest or create a dangerous precedent.

4.12 Section 5A of the EP&A Act – Significant effect on threatened species

Having regard to sections 5A, 5C and 5D of the EP&A Act, there is unlikely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats as a result of the proposed development.

As originally lodged, the proposed development impacted on riparian land zoned 7(b) Coastal Habitat, and included clearing of some vegetation in that area.

Following advice that Council would not support that aspect of the proposed development, the subdivision has been redesigned such that no urban development will be located in that riparian area. In addition, a condition of approval is recommended requiring the revegetation and rehabilitation of the riparian area to provide dense planting that will result in habitat improvement and will benefit the natural environment.

4.13 Section 5B of the EP&A Act – Have regard to register of critical habitat

The NSW Critical Habitat Register does not identify any critical habitat on or adjacent to the site.

5. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

5.1 Water & Sewer Levies

Section 64 levies will be payable.

5.2 Section 94 Contributions

Section 94 Contributions will be payable.

6. CONCLUSION

The proposed development is consistent with the relevant environmental planning instruments and planning controls applicable to the site. The proposal raises no significant issues in terms of environmental impacts, which cannot be managed and the site is considered suitable for the proposed subdivision. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

7. DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL DONATIONS AND GIFTS

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

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.12

Report No. 13.12 PLANNING - Strategic Planning Project Update

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Natalie Hancock, Senior Planner

Alex Caras, Team Leader Land Use Strategy

File No: I2017/126

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary

Council is developing and implementing a number of planning studies, strategies and plans aimed at setting a clear vision and policy framework for the Shire’s future growth and development.

This report presents a summary of the status, key actions and any financial considerations required to enable the timely completion of these planning studies, strategies and plans.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council note the status, key actions and any financial considerations required to progress the key projects identified in this report.

2. That Council adopt the project recommendations contained in this report being:

a) amend the draft Rural Land Use Strategy to address the matters raised in the Department’s letter (Attachment 1) and present an amended draft strategy back to Council for adoption together with a full program for implementation.

b) that as part of the 2017/18 budget process, Council consider the allocation of the necessary funds to enable the timely completion of the E Zones implementation process.

c) that staff hold further negotiations with the Department of Planning and Environment regarding the need to provide a separate coastal hazard zone in Byron Shire, with the 7(f1) Coastal Land and 7(f2) Urban Coastal Land Zones to be retained as Deferred Matters in Byron LEP 2014 until appropriate alternatives such as ‘E5 Coastal Hazard’ and/or ‘E6 Coastal Living’ are provided.

d) that as part of the 2017/18 budget process, Council consider the allocation of the necessary funds to enable the timely completion of the Employment Lands Strategy as part of a staged or comprehensive planning process.

e) that Council consider the allocation of the necessary funds to enable the peer review and a timely finalisation of the Draft Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2014 – Chapter E8 – West Byron Urban Release Area.

Attachments:

1 Letter from Dept Planning and Environment response regarding endorsement of Rural Land Use Strategy, E2017/7648 ⇨

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

Report

Among the key actions identified in Council’s current Operational Plan has been to prepare or undertake a number of forward planning studies, strategies and plans relating to the delivery of a range of environmental, natural and built outcomes (in accordance with the 2013-17 Delivery Plan and Community Strategic Plan 2022 (CSP)).

This report presents a summary of the status, key actions and any financial considerations required to progress the key planning studies, strategies and plans outlined below.

Rural Land Use Strategy (RLUS)

CSP Outcome: EN2 – Sustainable towns, villages and rural settlements that:

a) respect our natural environment

b) create an inclusive social environment, and

c) integrate harmoniously with the character of local areas.

Council at its 4 August 2016 meeting resolved (Res 16-414) to adopt the draft Rural Land Use Strategy with a number of amendments. The Strategy was finalised to incorporate the adopted amendments and forwarded to the Director General of the Department of Planning and Environment for endorsement.

The Department responded to the adopted document advising that ‘at this stage the Department is unable to endorse the Strategy’. Attachment 1 contains the Department of Planning and Environment’s response letter. Table 1 provides a summary of the status, key actions and any financial considerations associated with this project.

Table 1: Rural Land Use Strategy

Status	Key Actions	Cost & Financial
Council staff are currently making the necessary amendments to the draft Strategy to address the matters raised in the Department’s letter. Council staff are currently progressing priority Actions flagged in the draft RLUS requiring immediate implementation including: Research Action 3: Improve Council’s database on rural tourism activities. (through the Business Retention and Expansion Survey) Planning Improvements Action 8: Update Byron LEP 2014 to reflect High Environmental Vegetation mapping and implement Environmental Zones in accordance with State Government requirements. Action 10: Identify opportunities in our local planning framework to support ecosystem, low carbon and renewable resource providers and users. (Through the work of the Sustainable Environment Panel and other stakeholders) Action 14: Investigate the potential for allowing ‘wedding venues’ (a type of function centre) in rural zones and related planning provisions to ensure their location, scale and operation are compatible with the rural setting. Action 21: Investigate capacity for re- subdivision within existing Large Lot Residential estates. On ground Improvements Action 26: Resolve mapping inconsistencies between property and zone boundaries Action 29: Continue to improve weed management practices on Council lands. Action 30: Continue to improve capacity for rural roads to be used in connection with farming operations such as stock droving. Partnership Building Action 34: Provide information and advice on how to: · undertake cost-effective environmental enhancement works · make use of non market and market based incentives for environmental enhancement works. Action 37: Provide information and advice on how to: · manage weeds, disease and pests · capture and use water sustainably · sustainably farm.	1. Present amended draft back to Council for adoption with a full implementation program. 2. Following adoption forward amended document to the Department for endorsement.	The cost of preparing the draft RLUS has been met by Council. Additional funds may be required should Council decide to significantly expand the scope of this project.

Status

Key Actions

Cost & Financial

Council staff are currently making the necessary amendments to the draft Strategy to address the matters raised in the Department’s letter.

Council staff are currently progressing priority Actions flagged in the draft RLUS requiring immediate implementation including:

Research

Action 3: Improve Council’s database on rural tourism activities. (through the Business Retention and Expansion Survey)

Planning Improvements

Action 8: Update Byron LEP 2014 to reflect High Environmental Vegetation mapping and implement Environmental Zones in accordance with State Government requirements.

Action 10: Identify opportunities in our local planning framework to support ecosystem, low carbon and renewable resource providers and users. (Through the work of the Sustainable Environment Panel and other stakeholders)

Action 14: Investigate the potential for allowing ‘wedding venues’ (a type of function centre) in rural zones and related planning provisions to ensure their location, scale and operation are compatible with the rural setting.

Action 21: Investigate capacity for re- subdivision within existing Large Lot Residential estates.

On ground Improvements

Action 26: Resolve mapping inconsistencies between property and zone boundaries

Action 29: Continue to improve weed management practices on Council lands.

Action 30: Continue to improve capacity for rural roads to be used in connection with farming operations such as stock droving.

Partnership Building

Action 34: Provide information and advice on how to:

· undertake cost-effective environmental enhancement works

· make use of non market and market based incentives for environmental enhancement works.

Action 37: Provide information and advice on how to:

· manage weeds, disease and pests

· capture and use water sustainably

· sustainably farm.

1. Present amended draft back to Council for adoption with a full implementation program.

2. Following adoption forward amended document to the Department for endorsement.

The cost of preparing the draft RLUS has been met by Council. Additional funds may be required should Council decide to significantly expand the scope of this project.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Make the necessary amendments to the draft Strategy to address the matters raised in the Department’s letter (Attachment 1) and present amended draft strategy back to Council for adoption together with a full program for implementation.

Environmental Zones (E Zones) and associated Vegetation Mapping

CSP Outcome: EN1 – Protect and enhance the natural environment

There are a number of areas throughout the Shire that have been deferred from Local Environmental Plan 2014, with the environmental values of these areas still to be determined. Council has received a Ministerial section 117 direction that clarifies how the E Zones are to be applied. Council at its 17 November 2016 Council meeting resolved to endorse a process for amending Byron Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 in order to implement the Northern Councils E Zone Review Final Recommendations Report (Res 16-576). Table 2 provides a summary of the status, key actions and any financial considerations associated with this project.

Table 2: Environmental Zones and associated Vegetation Mapping

Status

Key Actions

Cost & Financial

The final stage of the Shire wide Vegetation Mapping (Stage 3 relating to the remaining Upper Main Arm, Upper Wilson Creek and Huonbrook localities) is on exhibition 2 February - 16 March 2017 and all affected landowners have been notified by letter of the exhibition.

A review of all land having a Deferred Matter (DM) zoning will commence shortly to implement the new legislative requirements for environmental zones.

In accordance with Res 16-575 Council has reaffirmed to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) Council’s long standing position that a separate coastal hazard zone is required in Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014.

DPE has advised that it is unable to support this aspect of Council's endorsed process for implementing the E Zone review recommendations; hence $40,000 funding offer cannot be provided.

1. Implement the Council endorsed process for amending Byron Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 as per Res 16-575 including:

(a) prepare and exhibit a draft planning proposal that includes the proposed zoning and supporting methodology

(b) notification letter to all affected landowners

(d) resolve the zoning of outstanding sites in a subsequent planning proposal.

2. Where required in response to the submissions received on the Vegetation Mapping or Deferred Matters, Council officers to conduct field visits in order to inform any amendments required to the mapping.

The cost of completing final stage of the Shire wide Vegetation Mapping can be met within Council’s existing budget.

The cost of the E Zones implementation process cannot be met within Council’s existing budget and requires additional funds to offset the unsuccessful funding request from DPE.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

2. That as part of the 2017/18 budget process, Council consider the allocation of up to $40,000 to enable the timely completion of the E Zones implementation process.

3. That staff hold further negotiations with the Department of Planning and Environment regarding the need to provide a separate coastal hazard zone in Byron Shire, with the 7(f1) Coastal Land and 7(f2) Urban Coastal Land Zones to be retained as Deferred Matters in Byron LEP 2014 until appropriate alternatives such as ‘E5 Coastal Hazard’ and/or ‘E6 Coastal Living’ are provided.

Employment Land Strategy (ELS) and associated Business Retention and Expansion Survey

CSP Outcome: EC1 – A diverse economic base and support for local businesses

Council at its 13 March 2013 meeting resolved (Res 13-127) “That a formal economic and employment strategy be prepared shortly after the LEP gazettal so that future growth areas for general and heavy industries can be identified for planning purposes”.

Preparation of an Employment Lands Strategy is now underway. The purpose of this Strategy is to provide Council with a clear planning framework for the provision of retail, commercial, industrial and special use activities so as to satisfy demand to 2036 in Byron Shire and attract appropriate employment generating land uses into the Shire.

The Business Retention and Expansion Survey (BR+E) is an implementation action from the adopted Enterprising Byron 2025 strategy (Res 16-451). It aims to provide Council and community business leaders with information that will assist in developing a program/s to help our existing businesses grow by:

· developing a clearer picture of the number and types of businesses operating in our community

· gauging the workforce needs of our local businesses

· identifying companies that qualify for certain business incentives and assistance programs

· anticipating and recognizing any challenges that are threatening our local businesses

Table 3 provides a summary of the status, key actions and any financial considerations associated with this project.

Table 3: Employment Land Strategy (ELS) and associated Business Retention and Expansion Survey

Status	Key Actions	Cost & Financial
Detailed Request for Quotation to prepare an Employment Land Strategy has been issued, with 3 consultancies responding. Staff are currently assessing the fee proposals. Business Retention and Expansion (BR+E) survey to commence mid February 2017.	1. Finalise engagement of preferred consultancy to prepare the Employment Land Strategy. 2. Engagement with the Byron Shire business community to generate a strong and representative response to the BR+E.	The full cost of preparing the ELS cannot be met within Council’s existing budget and requires additional funding to proceed, either as a staged or comprehensive shire wide strategy

Status

Key Actions

Cost & Financial

Detailed Request for Quotation to prepare an Employment Land Strategy has been issued, with 3 consultancies responding. Staff are currently assessing the fee proposals.

Business Retention and Expansion (BR+E) survey to commence mid February 2017.

1. Finalise engagement of preferred consultancy to prepare the Employment Land Strategy.

2. Engagement with the Byron Shire business community to generate a strong and representative response to the BR+E.

The full cost of preparing the ELS cannot be met within Council’s existing budget and requires additional funding to proceed, either as a staged or comprehensive shire wide strategy

RECOMMENDATION

4. That as part of the 2017/18 budget process, Council consider the allocation of the necessary funds, approximately an additional $55,000, to enable the timely completion of this Strategy as part of a staged or comprehensive planning process.

Koala Plan of Management (KPoM)

CSP Outcome: EN1 – Protect and enhance the natural environment

Council resolved to prepare a Koala Plan of Management (KPoM) as defined under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection for Byron Shire (Res 11-299). The plan aims to encourage conservation and management of koala habitat, ensure a permanent free-living population over their present range and reverse the State-wide trend of koala population decline.

Council at its 4 August 2016 meeting considered a report on the Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (the Plan) and resolved (Res 16-435) to adopt the Plan with amendments and submit it to the Department of Planning for approval.

The Department responded in December 2016 to the adopted document advising that a draft KMOP (sic) the document is ‘unable to comply with the requirements of a Comprehensive KPoM under SEPP 44 and has been prepared in the form of a Koala Strategy inconsistent with the advice by the Deputy Secretary in August 2015.”

Table 4 provides a summary of the status, key actions and any financial considerations associated with this project.

Table 4: Koala Plan of Management (KPOM)

Status	Key Actions	Cost & Financial
Council staff are currently making the necessary amendments to the KPoM to address the matters raised in the Department’s advice.	1. Present amended draft to a councillor workshop for consideration and to explain implications of SEPP 44 legislation currently under review, prior to finalising for adoption. 2. Following adoption forward amended document to the Department for endorsement.	The cost of preparing the draft KPoM has been met within Council’s existing budget. Additional funds may be required should Council decide to significantly expand the scope of this project.

Status

Key Actions

Cost & Financial

Council staff are currently making the necessary amendments to the KPoM to address the matters raised in the Department’s advice.

1. Present amended draft to a councillor workshop for consideration and to explain implications of SEPP 44 legislation currently under review, prior to finalising for adoption.

2. Following adoption forward amended document to the Department for endorsement.

The cost of preparing the draft KPoM has been met within Council’s existing budget. Additional funds may be required should Council decide to significantly expand the scope of this project.

Byron Bay Embayment Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP BBE)

CSP Outcome: EN1 – Protect and enhance the natural environment

Council has prepared a draft Coastal Zone Management Plan for Byron Bay Embayment to guide land use planning, development controls and coastal activities as well as providing a range of suitable management strategic to inform the community about how coastal erosion will be dealt with in their communities.

Council, at the 29 June 2016 Extra Ordinary Meeting, resolved (Res 16 -326) to amend the draft CZMP and submit it to the Minister under section 55G of the Coastal Protection Act 1979. The draft CZMP BBE has been updated and sent to the Minister. Council is still awaiting the Minister’s response, notwithstanding follow up requests to his office. Table 5 provides a summary of the status, key actions and any financial considerations associated with this project.

Table 5: Byron Bay Embayment Coastal Zone Management

Status

Key Actions

Cost & Financial

Council still awaiting the Minister’s response to the draft CZMP BBE, which may require additional budget allocation to enable certification.

1. If required, present amended draft back to Council for adoption.

2. Following adoption forward amended document to the Department for endorsement.

The cost of preparing the draft CZMP has been met by Council. Additional funds may be required to achieve certification pending Minister’s response.

West Byron Development Control Plan (DCP)

Council has prepared and publically exhibited a draft West Byron Urban Release Area DCP. The purpose of the DCP was to provide guidance to the West Byron Urban Release Area, including staging plan: transport movement hierarchy; landscaping; stormwater and water quality management controls. Over 750 submissions were received.

Council considered a report on the submissions at the 17 November 2016 meeting and resolved ‘that subject to peer reviews of frog, koala, traffic, and water and flood management reports, Council approve the Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2014 - Chapter E8 West Byron Urban Release Area and associated amendments to Part A and Part D of the Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2014 in Attachments 1 and 2 at the first Ordinary Meeting after Council’s summer recess’. (Res 16-583)

Part 4 of the resolution stated: “4. That if the Department is not supportive of the timeline outlined in 1, Council endorse the DCP without the peer reviews and that these reviews be completed after the DCP has been approved.” At the time of writing the report a response from the Department of Planning about the resolution and part 4 had not been received.

Table 6: West Byron Development Control Plan (DCP)

Status

Key Actions

Cost & Financial

Detailed Request for Quotation to peer review has been issued, with consultancies responding. Staff are currently assessing the fee proposals.

1. Finalise engagement of preferred consultancy to undertake the peer review Strategy.

2. Present a report on the findings of the peer review back to the Council with recommendations on how to take into account the findings in the finalisation of the Draft Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2014 – Chapter E8 – West Byron Urban Release Area.

3. Where required amended draft DCP documentation for Council adoption.

4. Following adoption publish a notice of the decision in a local newspaper within 28 days of this decision being made and forward DCP to the Department for endorsement.

The cost of undertaking the peer review has not been allocated within Council’s existing budget and requires funding to proceed.

RECOMMENDATION

5. That Council consider the allocation of the necessary funds, approximately an additional $15,000, to enable the peer review and a timely finalisation of the Draft Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2014 – Chapter E8 – West Byron Urban Release Area.

Financial Implications

Projects requiring additional budget allocation are identified above and will need to be considered as part of the current and 2017/18 budget review process.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The proposed actions to progress these projects are consistent with the relevant Commonwealth, State and Regional policy frameworks.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 13.15

Report No. 13.15 Vallances Road Competing Land Use Options

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Peter Rees, Manager Utilities

File No: I2017/135

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Sewerage Services

Summary:

Council owns 121 hectares at the Vallances Road site which was originally purchased by the Sewer Fund to build a new sewage treatment plant to replace the aging plants at Brunswick Heads and Mullumbimby. The new plant (Brunswick Valley Sewage Treatment Plant – BVSTP) was commissioned in 2011 in accordance with the Brunswick Area Sewage Augmentation Scheme.

Due to funding constraints the originally intended wetlands and the effluent storage pond were not constructed although designs for this infrastructure were prepared. The area of the newly constructed BVSTP is approximately 10 hectares. Council uses the surrounding flat area to apply biosolids from the plant and agists cattle under licence.

The site contains a disused plant nursery and 2 dwellings. The houses are currently rented. The nursery buildings present various work health and safety issues and are slated to be demolished with the land immediately surrounding them currently proposed to be sold in accordance with Council’s Financial Sustainability Plan initiatives.

There are currently many competing possible uses for the site with opportunity for Council to use the site to showcase sustainability initiatives.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council prepares a “Plan of Management” for the Vallances Road Site that takes into account all of Council’s Environmental, Social and Sustainability plans and strategies and consults with current and potential stakeholders.

2. That the Plan of Management – Vallances Road, Mullumbimby, be completed by June 2017 and reported back to Council for consideration.

Report

Below are comments / information on all the current initiatives relating to the site.

Nursery Rehabilitation

Completed to date:-

· Unsafe structures removed from around tenants house

· Asbestos removed from around tenants house

Future works to be done:-

§ Remove concrete and other nursery structures

§ Crushed concrete to be used on site

§ Metal structures and other material that can be recycled will be recycled following an open, competitive process.

Agistment

§ Under Agistment since 23 May 2012 – currently on a month to month lease agreement

§ Vallances Road Agistment is currently under review and it is intended to be advertised shortly as a competitive procurement process.

§ The request for quotation for agistment will include the ethical and sustainable practices that are currently employed on the site.

§ In 2012, in accordance with the holistic management practices, the site was divided into several paddocks to implement a rotation policy that allows application of biosolids for beneficial agricultural purposes. Cattle rotation followed the holistic management principals as well as the NSW EPA Biosolids Guidelines whereby cattle did not graze on paddock with biosolids applied for 4 weeks thereafter.

Solar Farm

According to the report Next Steps for Local Energy Trading and Community Solar Project to the Executive Team (# E2016/105498) the Community Power Agency in partnership with the Institute for Sustainable Futures (Sydney) has asked Byron Shire Council to participate in a funding application to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) that would bring together and progress three project proposals that Council is already trying to pursue.

Part 1 involved generating solar power at the Cavanbah Centre and offsetting energy use at the Byron Sewage Treatment Plant while Part 2 was in relation to a submission to the AEMC with regard rule change proposal for Local Generation Network Credits which was unsuccessful.

Part 3 was more pertinent to Vallances Road.

Byron Shire Council signed an MOU with ENOVA and agreed to work together to investigate the potential of a community owned solar farm at Valances Road Sewage Treatment Plant among other projects. Various scenarios were investigated involving roof mounted and ground mounted solar as well as behind and in front of the meter connections. The initial results were as follows:

1. A 60kW solar system could be hosted on the roof space available that would reduce energy costs behind the meter. This would only cover a portion of the 125kW daylight hours load needed at the sewage treatment plant. A 60kW system is too small to warrant a community investment model and Council could pursue the installation itself from the sewer fund and reap the full financial benefit of the installation.

2. The area immediately surrounding the sewage treatment plant is excellent for a ground mounted solar farm due to the need for buffer zones around the sewage treatment plant. A system size of 99kW is optimum for a community owned model due to renewable energy certificate legislation. Due to the high network charges when connecting in front of the meter Enova has not been able to design a suitably feasible financial model for this proposal yet.

Pending funding, our recommendation is to continue with the part 3 scenario 1.i.e. a 60 kW roof mounted Solar PV system at Brunswick Valley STP.

Brunswick Valley STP Wetlands

The original concept for the Brunswick Area Sewage Augmentation Scheme included wetlands and an effluent storage pond to create a community resource that not only further “polishes” already high quality treated effluent but also achieves an innovative and integrated range of environmental and social objectives. These objectives included:

§ Maximise the resource value of recycled water.

§ Further polish and limit the nutrient input to the sensitive waters of the Brunswick River.

§ Create a natural and effective assimilation pathway to return surplus flows to the water cycle.

§ Restore an area of pre-disturbance vegetation and habitat.

§ Integrate operational objectives with broad regional environmental objectives including the creation of an extended and extensive wildlife corridor.

§ Preserve, protect and encourage threatened species and associated habitat areas.

§ Buffer and protect billabong and wetland areas.

§ Achieve sustainable constructed wetlands that are reliable and flexible.

§ Incorporate innovative water management approaches and technology.

§ Deliver an asset that the Byron Shire community is proud of and recognised as a model for environmental protection and sustainable water management.

These elements of the project were deleted due to project funding constraints at the time. With the impending required upgrade of the Ocean Shores STP and the recommended configuration to transfer the sewage to the BVSTP, funds could now be allocated to install the originally proposed wetlands and effluent storage pond.

Walkways / Boardwalks

As part of the future upgrade of Brunswick Valley STP and possible inclusion of constructed wetlands (similar to Byron Bay Integrated Water Management Reserve) to further polish the already high quality tertiary treated effluent before it enters the Western Billabong and ultimately the Brunswick River, a series of connected walkways winding around the wetlands and raised boardwalks through the billabongs as not to impact on the billabong sensitive habitat, is envisaged for this site. These walkways and raised boardwalks would ultimately enhance the access and enjoyment for people with disabilities, older people, their families and carers.

Brunswick River Bank Stabilisation

The first Image (plate 1) below illustrates severe Brunswick River bank erosion leading up to June 2004 due to vegetation removal and uncontrolled cattle access. Plate 2 clearly demonstrates the value in initially fencing the area off and excluding cattle from these sensitive areas, followed by dense and appropriate native plantings, assisted by rock groynes.

Aerial Photo ~ Bank Erosion June 2004 ~ Brunswick River

Plate 1

Aerial Photo ~ Bank Erosion June 2012 ~ Brunswick River

Plate 2

Although best practice at the time (2007-09), and even used today for certain bank stabilisation applications, inappropriate use of very large rocks to stabilise eroded river banks in a dynamic high flow, deep river scenario was unfortunately not appropriate for this location. The overall achievement to stabilise the bank, by using the rocks to allow vegetation to gain a foothold has been successful. However concern has been raised, as is clearly evident from Plate 3 below, the rock groynes have subsided into the deep part of the Brunswick River exposing the river bank, thereby causing further erosion to the exposed area.

Plate 3

Previous attempts for Federal and State funding to ameliorate the site was unsuccessful. A fresh approach in 2017 to apply for funding sources for a more holistic approach to combat or limit further erosion will be pursued. A method used successfully in inland rivers with seasonal high flow period (similar to Northern Rivers) will be considered if funding is forthcoming.

The image below illustrates the concept. Large logs are driven vertically into the river bed at approximately 2-4 metre spacing at various angles to the river bank (the design will determine the criteria). By angling the poles, the waters energy is dissipated, slowing the flow thereby reducing the impact on the river bank. In addition, debris is slowed and settles behind the logs providing valuable real estate for trees and mangroves to gain a foothold and stabilise the river bank.

Timber Croynes ~ Downstream Orientation

Biosolids / Biomass

Biosolids have been applied to Vallances Road since June 2012, adhering to the NSW EPA Environmental Guidelines, Use and Disposal of Biosolids Products (2000) for beneficial agricultural use.

Biosolids from the BVSTP is preferably applied on site on a rotational basis and not transported off site. However, on one occasion severe weather had prevented on site biosolids application, necessitating transporting Biosolids off site. This resulted in resident complaints regarding increased truck movements and odour. An on site biosolids storage facility was constructed in accordance with the NSW EPA Biosolids Guidelines for occasions when biosolids could be applied on site due to inclement weather.

In the interim, it would be beneficial to retain the low lying country to the east of the nursery and any suitable lands for biosolids application to prevent biosolids transported off site.

This may change over the coming years as Byron Council is currently conducting a Bioenergy feasibility study. Once completed the study will determine what sources of biomass will be suitable for the bioenergy facility. Biosolids will be a likely source of biomass, consequently methods of transporting biosolids from BVSTP will have to be investigated. However this may be a number of years away and biosolids application for beneficial agricultural use will continue on site.

Further reasons to keep the biosolids on site are as follows:

§ Minimise impacts on the surrounding residents

§ Limit carbon emissions due to reduced truck movements

§ Continue the benefits gained in soil microbiology and fodder diversity through holistic management practices

§ Soil Organic Carbon sequestration

§ Agronomic and soil fertility benefits of biosolids

§ Biosolids products are rich in nutrients and can be beneficially used as a soil conditioner

§ Landholders often seek alternatives to conventional fertiliser and want a product that offers a competitive prove and value for money

§ Biosolids offer landholders high levels of organic matter, as well as nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) and other macro and micro nutrients essential for plant and crop growth.

§ Biosolids also contribute to soil properties such as structure, moisture retention, moisture content and cation exchange capacity. Furthermore, research shows evidence of repeated land application of biosolids provides long-term benefits by increasing soil organic matter which, in turn, improves soil chemical and biological fertility. Land application of biosolids may also result in a decrease in bulk density, increase in pore size, soil aeration, root penetrability, soil water holding capacity, and biological activity, all of which may be reflected in an increase in crop yields

§ Nutrients in biosolids are slow release with 15-25% of the available N and P becoming available in the first year and the remainder over the subsequent years.

Carbon Sequestration

§ According to recent research carbon dioxide (CO2) accounts for 60% of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) contributing to global warming.

§ Soil Carbon sequestration is defined as any increase in Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) originated from removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Soil Carbon (C) capture and storage is gaining global attention because of its role as a long-term Carbon reservoir, low cost, and environmentally friendly means to minimise climate change

§ Carbon (C) sequestration in soils through the increase of the soil organic carbon (SOC) pool has generated broad interest to mitigate the effects of climate change. Biosolids soil application may be an important factor in the Soil Organic Carbon pool.

Possible Future Land Uses

It is possible the site could be used for a range of projects that align with Council’s sustainability strategies. These are:

§ Biosolids land application

§ Solar energy farm

§ Wetlands / habitat

§ Effluent Storage Pond

§ Biomass cropping

§ Recycled water use

§ Affordable Housing

§ Koala Corridor

§ Community Activities

Financial Sustainability Plan – land Review and Property Development

Council’s Financial Sustainability Plan (FSP) includes this combined land holding as an opportunity for partial development or sale. It was envisaged that the proximity to Mullumbimby, extensive river frontage and adjacent municipal sewage treatment facility would make this site suitable for consideration for development under the Rural land Use Strategy (RLUS). It has been considered a site that might suit a small Eco Village concept with the possibility of a pedestrian bridge over the Brunswick River. The Department of Planning has responded to the RLUS and this site will not be considered for more intensive development in the foreseeable future.

The most likely subdivision and sale option that now remains and will generate a return for Council is:

§ Leverage the existing land use rights of Lot 1/952598 and sell this lot with the two houses and a new right of way formalised on title for permanent and secure access to the STP.

§ Subdivide Lot 1/129274 into two lots. The western 40 hectare lot would be sold with the high knoll that has 360 degree views including out to the ocean making it a valuable holding. The eastern 46 hectare lot would include the STP, Oxbow Lagoons, key riparian zones, land suitable for biosolids application and also a potential solar farm.

Financial Implications

It is recommended a Plan of Management be developed before any key decisions are made. There are no financial implications at this point.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Nil.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 13.17

Report No. 13.17 Belongil Beach Parking Management Strategy

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Joshua Winter, Civil Engineer

File No: I2017/147

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Local Roads and Drainage

Summary:

Council engaged Traffic and Parking Systems Group (TPS) to prepare a parking management strategy for Belongil Beach to consider current demand and alternative arrangements, including alternative time restrictions and the potential implications of introducing a pay parking system.

The strategy noted that it would be premature to immediately implement more formal parking management into the Belongil Beach area without further investigation.

It recommended the preparation of a street management master plan for the Belongil Beach area be undertaken:-:

· that clearly identifies the configuration and extent of public parking areas;

· that parking management should be consistent with the Byron Bay and Wategos Beach parking management;

· that the master plan should reflect that there are three distinct development zones and associated parking zones in the area;

· that the revenues generated from the Byron Bay parking meters should fund the master plan implementation and

· that the master plan should be progressively introduced, including a progressive installation of parking meters.

$60,000 is estimated as the cost to procure a street management master plan and to perform investigations and community consultation with the Belongil Beach community which will be required prior to any further action can be taken. It is expected that if implemented the upfront capital cost will be recouped in the first full year of the pay parking scheme operating for Belongil.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council adopt the Belongil Beach Parking Management Strategy (#E2016/91345) prepared by Traffic and Parking Systems Group (TPS).

2. That Council endorse the procurement of a street management master plan for the Belongil Beach area.

3. That Council endorse investigation and community consultation with the Belongil Beach community regarding the implementation of a formalised parking arrangement and pay parking in the area.

4. That a budget of $60,000 be allocated from the Pay Parking Reserve to perform the initial investigation, concept designs and preparation of the street management master plan and community consultation with the Belongil Beach community regarding the implementation of a formalised parking layout and pay parking scheme in the area.

Attachments:

1 TPS Parking Management Strategy for Belongil, E2016/91345 ⇨

Report

Figure 1: Belongil Beach parking management strategy study area

Council has been successful in managing demand for public car parking in the past, having introduced a pay parking system in the Byron Bay town centre and Marine Parade in Wategos Beach. Using a mix of time restrictions with an allowance for residential permits has been demonstrated in both of these projects to increase the turnover of visitors to the area, aiding in the number of vacant car parks available for use.

The strategy noted that it would be premature to immediately implement more formal parking management into the Belongil Beach area without further investigation. It recommended the preparation of a street management master plan for the Belongil Beach area be undertaken:-:

· that clearly identifies the configuration and extent of public parking areas;

· that parking management should be consistent with the Byron Bay and Wategos Beach parking management;

· that the master plan should reflect that there are three distinct development zones and associated parking zones in the area;

· that the revenues generated from the Byron Bay parking meters should fund the master plan implementation and

· that the master plan should be progressively introduced, including a progressive installation of parking meters.

Parking Supply

This is currently no formal parking management evident in the Belongil Beach area. The current parking supply throughout the area is located in informal on and off-street parking areas to the degree that it is difficult to accurately quantify the availability of parking, particularly with respect to that parking which could clearly be defined as located legally or otherwise within ‘public’ space.

The informal and relatively undisciplined nature of parking supply and demand would make it extremely difficult to introduce parking control into the area in the form of duration limits or similar restrictions. For example, the installation of on-street parking signs in the area would generally be difficult to enforce due to the widespread lack of road reserve and carriageway definitions needed to effectively define and reference the operation and extent of parking signs and restrictions.

The existing general lack of carriageway, road reserve and parking area definitions in the area would make it extremely difficult to effectively implement, communicate and enforce a parking management strategy for the area.

It is anticipated that the parking management strategy recommended by TPS for the Wategos Beach area would be equally appropriate for the Belongil Beach area. The Wategos and Belongil Beach areas both require parking management strategies which reflect a relatively intense competition between residential and beach related traffic and parking activity, particularly at weekends. However, in comparison to Wategos Beach a parking management strategy for the Belongil Beach area needs to also reflect a strong competition between residential and beach related demands and commercial parking demands extending into late evening periods in the central sector of the area.

Similar to the Wategos Beach management strategy, it will also be important that a parking management scheme for the Belongil Beach area is consistent in character with the recently introduced parking scheme which applies across the Byron Bay township in general. This importance arises from the need for all motorists (visitors, residents and ratepayers) to be familiar with parking regulations and requirements in all areas of Byron Bay. It also arises from the need to minimise administrative and enforcement costs that would result from any scheme for Belongil Beach (or elsewhere) which departed in character from the wider township parking management scheme.

There is clearly a need for a significant urban design and traffic facilities upgrade across the Belongil Beach area. This need is even more intense than that which recently justified the preparation of a street management master plan for the Wategos Beach area. As was the case for Wategos Beach, a street management Master Plan for Belongil Beach would provide the framework in which an effective parking management strategy could be prepared, negotiated, implemented, operated and enforced. It would also provide a framework for investigating and agreeing how engineering and other works could potentially and justifiably be funded. That is, either partly or entirely through parking revenues.

Street Management Master Plan

A street management master plan should be prepared and should extend across the area shown in Figure 1, with the master plan being primarily represented in a single plan similar in character and content to that which was prepared for Council for Wategos Beach. TPS observations suggest that the master plan should define three separate management zones (as shown in Figure 1) for planning and designing traffic management and street improvements. Namely;

· BEACH zone

· COMMERCIAL zone

· RESIDENTIAL zone

Whilst each of these zones contain residential development, the Commercial and Beach zones have a particular requirement for parking management strategies to reflect a strong competition with residential parking demands.

As recommended for Wategos Beach it is appropriate and justifiable that works associated with implementing a street management master plan for the Belongil Beach area should be funded through revenues gained from previously implemented metered parking. However, this funding concept is primarily applicable to the “Beach” and “Commercial” zones in view of metered parking being less appropriate in the “Residential” zone.

Based on estimates for the Wategos Beach strategy, the street management master plan and associated implementation cost should be planned on the expectation that net revenues of approximately $1,500/metered space/annum can potentially be gained from the Beach and Commercial zones. Based on a preliminary estimate of 300 spaces being potentially provided across the Beach and Commercial zones, this revenue would equate to as much as $500,000 per annum. However, this estimate should be confirmed in the master planning process based on surveyed demands and potential public parking availability identified.

The above estimate is based on an assumption that approximately half of all motorists parking at meters will be residents and ratepayers who are not obliged to pay at the meters. The estimate also assumes that overall parking occupancies would be approximately half of that which occurs in Marine Parade at Wategos Beach. The revenue estimate does not include revenue gained from the resident discount scheme as it is presumed that these revenues have already been collected as part of the Byron Bay CBD metered system.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The following details the requirements for Council to implement a pay parking scheme. These requirements are in line with what was required for the implementation of the Byron Bay pay parking scheme. RMS guidelines contain details where Council must either comply or consider them, and specifies where RMS concurrence or approval is needed. Both guidelines are available online:

http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/business-industry/partners-suppliers/documents/technical-manuals/payparkingv4.pdf

http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/business-industry/partners-suppliers/documents/technical-manuals/permit-parking.pdf

The guidelines are assumed to be current despite having reference to the now repealed Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 1999 which has been replaced by the Road Transport (General) Regulation 2013 which within Part 5 details parking schemes:

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/subordleg+367+2013+cd+0+N

The RMS guidelines empowers a parking authority (i.e. Council) to establish and operate a parking scheme, be it a meter, ticket, phone or coupon system employed, noting the model discussed within this report is akin to a Meter Parking Area system based on ‘pay by plate’. This is possible as follows.

At s61 within “Subdivision 1 Metered Parking Schemes” the following is stated:

A parking authority may set aside the whole or any part of a road in its area of operations as a metered parking area.

Note. Rules 207–1 and 207–2 of the Road Rules 2014 make provision for parking in metered parking areas. Clause 3 (1) defines a metered parking area and metered parking space to have the same meanings as in rule 207–1.

As for ‘pay by plate’ this appears confirmed at s62 Parking Meters which states:

(1) The parking meter for a metered parking space must indicate:

(d) in the case of a metered parking space for a registration metered parking area—that the registration number of the vehicle must be entered for use of the parking space.

Similarly, the guidelines and regulation allow Council to fix fees for parking in metered parking spaces by resolution of the Council and to charge different fees for different areas, days or times of day should they wish. Nevertheless Council need to adhere to the RMS guidelines where they are mandatory; and where they are not they are considered good practice and recommended.

To date Council have worked with the RMS through the LTC as per the guidelines to establish the pay parking scheme in the Byron Bay town centre and Marine Parade. This will need to continue if Council wish to proceed with the parking scheme described, including exemptions, noting that the Pay Parking guideline states Council as a parking authority:

…is not entitled to provide or to charge for parking in pay parking spaces if it fails to comply with the RMS guidelines.

RMS guidelines have to date been met and no objection received from the RMS. However no approval or concurrence will be forthcoming from RMS until Council conclude and refer a completed parking study to them. The recommendation made in this report seeks to provide staff such opportunity and avoid a continuous feedback loop between Council and RMS.

As for a Resident Parking Permit scheme, it is intended this be employed with the same arrangements as the previously employed schemes for Byron Bay in residential streets for those that reside in that street (and their guests) to be exempt through provision of a resident’s scheme permit (preferably based on registration plate as well).

As for enforcing a Metered Parking Area (i.e. pay parking scheme) Rule 207 Road rules 2014 applies and reads as follows:

(6) Driver must pay relevant parking fee for ordinary metered parking area

A driver must not park in a metered parking space for an ordinary metered parking area without paying the relevant parking fee for the space for at least the minimum period of time for which parking in the space must be paid for.

(8) Driver must enter registration number and pay relevant parking fee for registration metered parking area
A driver must not park in a metered parking space for a registration metered parking area without:

(a) entering the registration number of the vehicle into the parking meter for the space, and

(b) paying the relevant parking fee for the space for at least the minimum period of time for which parking in the space must be paid for.

As Part (6) states, the driver must pay and while Part (8) requires the registration plate to be entered and pay the relevant fee. In Council’s scenario of providing an exemption to “paying the relevant parking fee” a pre-registered registration plate entered at the meter would be akin to paying the fee. However, if the registration was not entered, no payment would be made and the offence of “Park without paying meter fee” would be committed.

As for enforcing a Resident Parking Permit area the offence is typically aligned with parking beyond the signed time limit, which of course does not apply to those exempt.

Financial Implications

$60,000 is estimated as the cost to perform investigations, develop concept designs, prepare a street management master plan and undertake community consultation with the Belongil Beach community and will be required prior to any further action being undertaken. The cost to implement the full system is unknown at this stage and will be subject to the recommendations outlined in the street management master plan.

Based on the estimated costs and revenue, it is expected the upfront capital costs will be recouped from the shire wide pay parking schemes, in the first full year after the Belongil Beach scheme is implemented, if the scheme is adopted.

Recommended Actions

Subject to Council endorsement, the following actions will be required to commence the process of implementing the Belongil Beach parking scheme:

· Council to adopt Traffic and Parking Systems Group (TPS) letter titled Belongil Beach Parking Management Strategy (E2016/91345).

· Council to allocate budget to procure a street management master plan for the Belongil Beach area, and to perform investigations and consultation with the community regarding the proposed formalised parking layout and the introduction of a pay parking scheme to the area.

· Council to consider consultation report and street management master plan report at a meeting in late 2017 to adopt the recommendations in the street management master plan.

· If adopted, seek approval from Local Traffic Committee at the next available meeting in late 2017 to implement formalised parking layout and pay parking scheme

· If adopted, seek concurrence from RMS to implement formalised parking layout and pay parking scheme.

· Implement formalised parking layout and pay parking scheme