Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion 9.3

Notice of Motion No. 9.3 Brunswick Heads Caravan Parks

File No: I2017/426

I move that Council direct NSWCHPT to amend POMs and concept drawings and adopt the following operational boundaries for the Brunswick Heads Holiday Parks:

1. TERRACE HOLIDAY:

a) Foreshore Boundary

A foreshore boundary along Simpson’s Creek to be setback 7m from the top of the riverbank in Terrace Park. A 3m setback from the foreshore boundary is required for any dwelling or camp site as per the Local Government (Manufactured Homes Estates, Caravan Parks & Camping Grounds) Act 2005.

b) Western Boundary

Part 1 (a) (i) of Resolution 12-995 remains unchanged. This is shown on the attached map.

c) The northern boundary is parallel to Fingal Street and 3.0m south of the centre of the footbridge where its timber ends at Fingal Street and does not include the shared car park. (See attached map)

d) The southern boundary of the Terrace Holiday Park lies north of WW1 Memorial Coastal Cypress Pines and immediately south of the building alignment of the existing amenities block then across to the foreshore so to exclude any of the January 2015 ground truthed Coastal Cypress Pines as shown on the attached map

OPTIONS FOR CONDITION OF USE FOR SOUTHERN TERRACE AREA

a) Resolution passed at the public meeting held by Brunswick Heads Progress Association on 6.3.17 reads: Terrace Caravan Park -WW1 MEMORIAL PINE PARK IN THE SOUTHERN AREA OF THE TERRACE RESERVE:

We request Council to reaffirm the operational boundaries of the Terrace caravan park and consider returning the WW1 Memorial Pine Park area to its intended use as a reflective public space with the opportunity then to have the park rehabilitated and restored with replacement of plantings.

- No camping permitted in the Southern area of Terrace Park

b) The Southern area remains outside operational area, with conditional use at specific times for 'soft/primitive camping' only at peak holiday periods i.e Christmas, Easter and School Holidays only. Primitive camp sites are unpowered sites for tents and or camper trailers (to be limited by weight).

c) Request that NSW Holiday Parks Trust incorporate the following in the draft plans of management -- a tree management strategy that prohibits:

· use of any land within a 5m radius of a Coastal Cypress Pine to prohibit compaction of soil

· no discharge of untreated water over the critical root system

· removal of exotic grasses and introduction of native grasses within the area of the critical

· root system

· progressive on site replacement of each memorial pine

2. MASSEY GREENE HOLIDAY PARK

a) Northern Foreshore Boundary

The northern foreshore boundary along the Brunswick River to be setback 7m from the top of the riverbank in Massy Greene. A 3m setback from the foreshore boundary is required for any dwelling or camp site as per the Local Government (Manufactured Homes Estates, Caravan Parks & Camping Grounds) Act 2005.

b) Western Boundary - Part Lot 7005

The operational boundary of the caravan park to be aligned with the existing picket fence on the western side of Massy Greene adjoining Site 88 through to foreshore Site 101 and the high water mark as identified in the attached map.

c) Eastern Boundary

The eastern boundary alignment (between Lot 409 and Lot 20) to remain in current location along revetment wall and Tweed St extending to Old Pacific Highway as previously determined (identified in the attached map).

d) Southern Boundary

Inclusion of part old Pacific Hwy road reserve along new fence alignment on the southern edge of Lot 20 – as identified in the attached map

3. FERRY RESERVE

The following lands are excluded from the operational area:

· Part Lot 2 (Lot 102 DP851964) the foreshore area/boat ramp (part Lot 11 DP 1169547) which is to be retained for public use (noting that pubic includes Park patrons). This is the land between the mean high water mark and the former public road reserve LOT 10 DP 116954

· Lot 10 DP 1169547 - Riverside Crescent - 3,124sqm retained for shared use and emergency use.

The following lands are to be included within the operational area:

· part Lot 11 in DP 1169547 being part of the Old Pacific Highway, Brunswick Heads but excluding that part of Lot 11 being the boat ramp area as approximated on the map is excluded.

· The area shown on government gazettal notice dated 4 May 2012 and described under Schedule 3 "as Crown Land shown by black outline and hatching on the diagram hereunder Area 1.645 hectares File No 10/15243, being part of Old Pacific Highway Brunswick Heads of

· Lot 40 DP 1134059 of 1277sqm

· Part Lot 102 2 DP 851964 being the southern part of the lot adjoining the former road reserve Lot 10 DP 116954

· Lot 101 DP 851964

Attachments:

1 Overlays of boundary maps for people after 9.3.17 presentation by NSWCHPT, E2017/22679 ⇨

2 Terrace map with the southern boundary relocated and northern boundary marked as per Council's resolution, E2017/22312 ⇨

3 Lot 11 - the boat ramp area at Ferry Reserve, E2017/22308 ⇨

4 Resolution 12-995 20 December 2012, E2017/22309 ⇨

5 SEPP 14 map which clearly shows the land location of the SEPP as well as the adjoining mangroves, E2017/22311 ⇨

Signed: Cr Cate Coorey

Councillor’s supporting information:

1. TERRACE HOLIDAY:

a) Foreshore Boundary

NOTE: Since 2000 BSC has consistently reiterated resolutions about the 10m setback to all built structures, and a clearly defined foreshore/operational boundary is urgently required to protect the public walkway. It also facilitates the relocation of long term tenants off the foreshore)

b) Western Boundary

Part 1 (a) (i) of Resolution 12-995 remains unchanged. This is shown on the attached map.

NOTE: the above (b) and (c) is taken from resolution 12-995 of 20 December

NOTE: This moves the boundary north of the resolution of 12-995 of 20 December 2012 when the pines weren't ground truthed and brings it in line with the notion of what type of use would be permissible as per resolution 15-651 of 10 December 2015 as stated in (b) below

OPTIONS FOR CONDITION OF USE FOR SOUTHERN TERRACE AREA

a) Resolution passed at the public meeting held by Brunswick Heads Progress Association on 6.3.17 reads: Terrace Caravan Park -WW1 MEMORIAL PINE PARK IN THE SOUTHERN AREA OF THE TERRACE RESERVE

- No camping permitted in the Southern area of Terrace Park

NOTE: This would return the southern area of the Terrace Reserve to parkland and has broad community support

NOTE: This reflects Condition 31 in previous license agreements and endorsed in RESOLUTION 15-651 Part 3 OF 10 DECEMBER 2015

“Overflow” boundary for primitive camping:

LGA requires sites to be no more than 100m from ablution block at Nana St. which was the traditional “overflow” boundary. A new temporary ablution was installed in 2007, to allow expansion into SEPP 14 area. Prior to this, the SEPP 14 had restricted any overflow use of the area.

Temporary ablution block needs to be removed from the Southern/SEPP 14 area

There is a major problem defining trailers to be limited by weight. These new camper trailers are weighing in a 1.2tonne and then there is the weight of the vehicle pulling it! Any arborist knows that weight on the critical root system is thwart with destruction of a tree.

c) Request that NSW Holiday Parks Trust incorporate the following in the draft plans of management -- a tree management strategy that prohibits

- use of any land within a 5m radius of a Coastal Cypress Pine to prohibit compaction of soil

- no discharge of untreated water over the critical root system

- removal of exotic grasses and introduction of native grasses within the area of the critical

- root system

- progressive on site replacement of each memorial pine

NOTE: This condition/request comes from resolution 16-464 part (c) of 25 August 2016

2. MASSEY GREENE HOLIDAY PARK

a) Northern Foreshore Boundary

b) Western Boundary - Part Lot 7005

NOTE: This comes from Resolution 12-947 part (d) of 6 December 2012 but clarifies the boundary through sites 142 and 101 on the foreshore. The purpose of this boundary is to make long term sites 88, 87 and 86 together with the amenities block compliant.)

c) Eastern Boundary

d) Southern Boundary

Inclusion of part old Pacific Hwy road reserve along new fence alignment on the southern edge of Lot 20 – as identified in the attached map

NOTE: (c) and (d) come from Resolution 12-995 (b) of 20 December 2012)

In Massy Greene the community has conceded lands along the Old Pacific Highway and part Lot 7005 plus in the eastern area to advantage NSWCHPT and at the same time bring long term sites and the amenities block into compliance.

3. FERRY RESERVE

The following lands are excluded from the operational area:

a) Part Lot 2 (Lot 102 DP851964) the foreshore area/boat ramp (part Lot 11 DP 1169547) which is to be retained for public use (noting that pubic includes Park patrons). This is the land between the mean high water mark and the former public road reserve LOT 10 DP 116954

b) Lot 10 DP 1169547 - Riverside Crescent - 3,124sqm retained for shared use and emergency use.

The following lands are to be included within the operational area:

(i) part Lot 11 in DP 1169547 being part of the Old Pacific Highway, Brunswick Heads but excluding that part of Lot 11 being the boat ramp area as approximated on the map is excluded.

(ii) The area shown on government gazettal notice dated 4 May 2012 and described under Schedule 3 "as Crown Land shown by black outline and hatching on the diagram hereunder Area 1.645 hectares File No 10/15243, being part of Old Pacific Highway Brunswick Heads of

(iii) Lot 40 DP 1134059 of 1277sqm

(iv) Part Lot 102 2 DP 851964 being the southern part of the lot adjoining the former road reserve Lot 10 DP 116954

(v) Lot 101 DP 851964

NOTE: This has come from Resolution 12-627 of 9 August 2012 and Council's preference to include the compulsorily acquired lands (i), (ii) and (iii) above into the caravan park..... The compulsorily acquired land has never been formally added to the caravan park.

Staff comments by Shannon Burt, Director Sustainable Environment and Economy:

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

A comprehensive review of the Crown Lands Plans of Management for Ferry Reserve, The Terrace Reserve and Massey Green Holiday Parks including the operational areas and site boundaries is currently being undertaken by NSW Crown Holiday Park Trust. This review has included to date extensive community and Council consultation, site inspections and meetings.

This review was initiated by the NSW Crown Holiday Park Trust to address the concerns of the community about the park operations and boundaries that has been ongoing since the adoption of the Plans of Management; and also to ensure that the Holiday Parks can achieve compliance and submit new Approvals to Operate for each of the Holiday Parks under the Local Government Act and Regulation. Previously they have relied on savings provisions and Ordinance 70 for this. None of the Parks have current Approvals to Operate.

The above recommendations do not accord with the most recent consultation and or proposals put forward by NSW Crown Holiday Park Trust, and are contrary to legal and planning advice that has been received by the Trust with respect to their ‘continuing use rights’ under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, and Local Government Act and Regulation.

The recommendations refer to a myriad of previous Council resolutions, all of which have been taken into consideration by the NSW Crown Holiday Park Trust in this review process. While not all of the above recommendations have been fully included in the review this is because in some instances these recommendations would be retrograde to the current proposals and or not legally required. The key elements included are – provision of more foreshore open space, removal of encroachments or potential encroachments from foreshore open space areas, improved layout and design for park occupants, and Cypress Pine protection.

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

Potential costs associated with legal action should the NSW Crown Holiday Park Trust need a Court resolution of the above matters, to progress the Plan of Management and Applications for Approval to Operate the Brunswick Heads Crown Holiday Parks.

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

N/A

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion 9.6

Notice of Motion No. 9.6 Review of Tyagarah Airstrip Planning Proposal

File No: I2017/443

I move:

1. That Council note the inconsistency between the wording of the’ Intent’ and’ Objectives’ of the Tyagarah Airstrip Planning Proposal as endorsed by Council in Resolution 15-659 in December 2015 compared with the version of the Tyagarah Airstrip Planning Proposal that was put on public exhibition in May 2016 and forwarded through the Gateway process of the Department of Planning.

2. That Council note the difference between ‘heliport’ and ‘helipad’ as defined in the Byron Shire LEP (2014):

helipad means a place not open to the public used for the taking off and landing of helicopters

heliport means a place open to the public that is used for the taking off and landing of helicopters, whether or not it includes: (a) a terminal building, or (b) facilities for the parking, storage or repair of helicopters.

3. That Council not progress the Tyagarah Airstrip Planning Proposal until clarity of meaning is agreed upon by resolution of Council and the following have been completed:

a) Council commissions a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) associated with any expansion and intensification of commercial uses at the Tyagarah Airfield;

b) An assessment of noise impacts impacts associated with any expansion and intensification of commercial uses at the Tyagarah Airfield

c) Council provides a full income and expenditure and profit and loss statement for the Tyagarah Airfield since 2010 including council staff time and resources and all consultancies, legal opinions and contracts tendered;

d) Council adopts the recommendation of the Office of Environmental and Heritage (OEH) and prepares a strategic floodplain risk management plan for the future management of the Simpsons Creek floodplain, and

4. That Council reassesses its support for Tyagarah Airfield subject to a report on the cumulative ecological impacts of all tree clearing required for the airfield.

5. That Council not clear any more vegetation from the site or any other works until the actions described in 1. are completed.

6. That a detailed financial projection of any future proposal be provided to Council.

7. That Councillors hold a workshop to consider other uses for the site that do not involve increased aircraft activity.

8. That any future use of the site involves genuine community consultation to include all affected stakeholders.

Attachments:

1 Tyagarah Airfield - The Airport Group Draft Future Aviations Options presentation, E2017/23472 ⇨

2 OEH Response Tyagarah Airfield Additional Information - Signed DY 201703..., E2017/23473 ⇨

Signed: Cr Cate Coorey

Councillor’s supporting information:

· The Tyagarah Airstrip Planning Proposal was developed and adopted by the previous Council. The Proposal as it was advertised and sent to the Department of Planning for a Gateway determination to amend Byron Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 to facilitate the future inclusion of a heliport at the airstrip, allow the subdivision of the land to rectify lots that were previously created for lease purposes but not registered, formalise the existing internal roadway, and create additional lots to utilise operational Council land.

· The LEP amendment as proposed and publicly exhibited in April 2016 is notably different from the Planning Proposal that Council moved be sent to the Minister for Gateway approval on the 10th December 2015. There was no resolution of Council to publicly exhibit the Planning Proposal as it currently exists and the altered Planning Proposal was never brought back before Council for endorsement.

· Council motion 15-659 and the associated agenda attachment – the draft Tyagarah Airstrip Planning Proposal – from 10^th December 2015 make no mention that the primary purpose of the change to the Byron LEP is to include a heliport as a permitted use. The Intent and Objective as outlined in the Planning Proposal refer to a helipad but that has a different meaning under the definitions of the Byron LEP 2014:

helipad means a place not open to the public used for the taking off and landing of helicopters

heliport means a place open to the public that is used for the taking off and landing of helicopters, whether or not it includes:

(a) a terminal building, or

(b) facilities for the parking, storage or repair of helicopters.

Note. Heliports are a type of air transport facility—see the definition of that term in this Dictionary

· The public exhibition of the Proposal did not meet community expectations of clear and transparent decision making. A heliport at Tyagarah is not a minor planning amendment for the surrounding community. All residents within 5km (or possibly further depending on an impact assessment) of Tyagarah Airstrip should have received written notification from the Council regarding the Planning Proposal to allow them to make comment.. Given that Council notices were published in the Byron Shire News, which is not delivered to Tyagarah or Myocum, it is likely no residents even knew about it.

· The Planning Proposal is based on the ‘Future Aviation Options Report’ prepared by the Airport Group and considers increasing commercial aviation activity at Tyagarah and particularly increased helicopter usage, I believe the degree of community consultation should have been much wider.

· It is unlikely that any proposed joy flights (6-8 per day, according to the Options Report) would only hover above the airfield; they would be flying over a large part of the Shire. It is unlikely that this would have broad community support. The stakeholders therefore are greater than those consulted for the Options Report who were only the current lessees at the airstrip. This is very poor stakeholder consultation and should have been challenged by Council at the time.

· The ecological impacts of the Tyagarah ‘upgrade’ are concerning with a several hundred trees being cleared yet the clearing is being done is stages so it is difficult to get a whole picture as to what the cumulative effects of this staged work will be particularly with regard to the koala habitat identified on the site and its connection to adjacent habitat areas.

· Additional consideration must be given to the input provided by the Office of Environment and Heritage who wrote to council on the 8th of March 2017 and raised concerns relating to flood impacts in the Simpsons Creek Catchment. OEH recommended Council prepare a strategic floodplain risk management plan for the future management of the Simpsons Creek floodplain before approving more “ad hoc” development in the catchment.

· Several key reports and studies that would properly consider impacts –social, noise, traffic, financial, ecological, pollution – should have been undertaken before the forwarding of this Proposal to the Department of Planning for Gateway determination.

· This Council needs to do better than the last one and look at this again -- in detail.

Staff comments by Shannon Burt, Director Sustainable Environment and Economy & Michael Matthews, Manager Open Space and Resource Recovery:

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

The staff response to this Notice of Motion is provided in 3 separate parts below:

Planning

Key timeline points are:

· Resolution of Council to prepare a Planning Proposal meeting 10 December 2015

http://byron.infocouncil.biz/Open/2015/12/OC_10122015_AGN_389.PDF

Report No. 13.19 PLANNING - Tyagarah Airstrip Planning Proposal

File No: I2015/1435

15-659 Resolved:

1. That Part 1 Objectives and Intended Outcomes in the Planning Proposal be amended in paragraph 2 as follows:

a) After “(joy flights…)” insert the words “as well as commercial uses”.

2. That Council proceed with the planning proposal in Attachment 1 as amended in point 1 above, and send it to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway determination.

3. That Council request the Department of Planning and Environment to delegate to Council the preparation and making of the LEP Amendment.

· Following resolution 15-659, updated Planning Proposal went to Department of Planning, including the change made by the resolution and requesting a Gateway Determination (sent 18 Dec 2015)

· In March 2016, Department of Planning advised staff by email that the majority of additional uses sought by the Planning Proposal are permissible with consent under Clause 23 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (SEPP); therefore the Planning Proposal did not need to include “premises for retail, business, recreational, residential or industrial uses” (this includes tourist uses, which fall under ‘recreational”; it does not, however, include a heliport).

23 Development permitted with consent

Development for any of the following purposes may be carried out with consent on land within the boundaries of an existing air transport facility, if the development is ancillary to the air transport facility:

(a) passenger terminals,

(b) facilities for the receipt, forwarding or storage of freight,

(d) premises for retail, business, recreational, residential or industrial uses.

· Staff’s original position was that clause 23 of the SEPP applied to “air transport facilities”, and there was some conjecture that the Tyagarah Airfield did not fall within this definition. The Department however were firm in their view that the Tyagarah Airfield did meet that definition; thereby allowing a broader range of uses as outlined in Cl. 23 of the SEPP to be permissible with consent in their own right.

· The Planning Proposal was therefore amended as requested by the Department to remove reference to those superfluous land use items. A gateway determination was granted to enable consultation.

· The amended version of the Planning Proposal was exhibited in accordance with the Gateway determination and the Act.

· In summary - The planning proposal was placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days, from 5 May 2016 to 2 June 2016. Seven public submissions were received during the exhibition period, in addition to submissions from the Australian Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, NSW Rural Fire Service and NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. One further late public submission was received in February 2017, with a supplementary submission provided shortly after.

· Of the eight public submissions received (includes the late submission):

• one was in objection, suggesting that the use of the land as an airfield should be

discontinued and the site used instead for “high technology industry”, and raising a

number of other issues that are addressed in the body of this report;

• three submissions expressed support for the proposal; and

• four submissions were not directly relevant to the planning proposal, instead including:

- suggested improvements to existing facilities at the site;

- a desire by existing tenants to remain on-site;

- suggested opportunities to increase revenue; and

- concerns from the Cape Byron Pistol Club regarding potential impacts

on their site (located outside of the planning proposal area) associated with ecological offset proposals.

· In relation to “heliport”, the original Planning Proposal, which was reported to Council in December 2015, included “heliport” as a permissible use; noting “It is envisaged that helicopter use would be similar to current aeroplane use, being for a combination of private aviation and tourism/ recreational activities (joy flights etc.).

· A link to the Department LEP tracking web site is here and provides all their relevant documents.

http://leptracking.planning.nsw.gov.au/PublicDetails.aspx?Id=2462

· A report on the Planning Proposal status and exhibition is part of the Agenda 20 April 2017 Ordinary Meeting.

Environmental

The majority of tree treatment work consists of pruning or lopping trees and shrubs that has encroached the Obstacle limitation Surface of the airfield.

Ecological Assessments (Review of Environmental Factors) have been separately prepared by independent environmental and ecologist professionals and for both Stage 1 and Stage 2 works, which have concluded that no significant adverse effect is likely for flora or fauna.

The cumulative effects of vegetation works for Stage 1 and Stage 2 were considered in an Ecological Assessment for Stage 2 works, and in the development of a Compensatory Planting Plan.

Habitat connectivity for Koalas on the Tyagarah Airfield is not affected by the proposed works.

The extent of impact of the Stage 2 works on Koala habitat is limited to the pruning of two Swamp Mahoganies to ~50% of their present height. It is expected that these trees will re-sprout, however, if these trees were removed, impacts for Koalas would still be minimal. The main threat to Koalas in the Tyagarah Airfield area is not the lack of food trees, but the ongoing risk of road kill.

Operations

Tyagarah Airfield is an unlicensed unregistered airfield for the purposes of CASA regulations. Aircraft with a maximum take off weight (MTOW) in excess of 5,700kg, or having a main landing gear tyre pressure in excess of 450 kilopascals (65 psi), or any jet powered aircraft are not permitted to land at Tyagarah Airfield.

Landing and parking fees for permitted aircraft are as adopted under Councils Fees and Charges.

As a non-certified and non-registered aerodrome, the facility does not support air transport operations for more than 9 passenger seats greater than once a week or more however the airfield does support recreational aircraft use.

Vegetation Encroachment of the OLS.

Although Under Civil Aviation Regulation 92(1) (d), it is the pilots legal responsibility to ensure a place is safe to land or take off, it is the operators responsibility to apply due diligence in providing information to aircraft uses of any known encroachment of the Obstacle Limitation Surface (Safe landing and take off envelope). This information is provided on Councils website for the Tyagarah Airfield.

The Obstacle Limitation Surface extends over Crown Land Special Aerodrome (65% of the facilities land tenure), Council Owned Operational Land (35% of the facilities land tenure) and Private land outside the facility. A diligent approach to removing vegetation that has encroached the OLS safety envelope whilst providing consideration and minimising the impacts on flora and fauna under professional ecologist guidance via the REF process is being undertaken. Continual removal of encroachments in consideration of possible environmental impacts is considered to be a Due Diligent approach.

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

Landing and Take off from the Airfield

Under Civil Aviation Regulation 92(1) (d), it is an offence for a person to land or lake off from a place which is not “suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of landing and taking off of aircraft; having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed land or take off (including prevailing weather conditions), the aircraft can land at or take off from the place of safety. A pilot in command of an aircraft must establish where he/she intends landing or taking off can be done, in the aircraft which he/she is operating, in safety and in accordance with all the applicable data and regulations.

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of NSW, (albeit on a different topic) a roads authority was found liable in negligence when a local resident, walking his dogs at night on a poorly lit roadside verge in a suburban area, fell over the obscured edge of an unfenced culvert and into the rocky drain three metres below. The plaintiff and the dogs sustained serious injuries as a result of the fall.

This case is an example of when a Council’s failure to take action to address a risk of harm of which it had actual knowledge, could expose it to damages.

The evidence established that there were multiple people in the Council who had “actual knowledge” of the particular risk posed

Council should take heed of this decision and be proactive about managing the specific risks of harm of which they have actual knowledge. A failure to manage these risks may give rise to potential future liability in negligence.

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

Yes – CM1: Effective governance, business, project and financial management.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.1

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services

Report No. 13.1 Policy 5.52 Commercial Activities on Coastal and Riparian Crown Reserves - Commerical Sub-Licence Fees

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Paula Telford, Leasing and Licensing Coordinator

File No: I2017/223

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary:

Current sub-licences permitting commercial activities on crown land under Crown Licence RI 406617 expires on 31 August 2017. Council is now required to call a new tender for the letting of new sub-licences under a new Crown Licence RI 564194 to commence 1 September 2017. Before Council may call the open tender, Council must first set a standard fee, for each type of Class 2 commercial activity in accordance with resolution 12-872.

Draft Policy 5.52 - Commercial Activities on Coastal and Riparian Crown Reserves defines a Class 2 Activities as a commercial activities including surf schools, personalised surf schools, stand up paddle boarding schools, sea kayaks, mobile kiosk and mobile beach security locker hire.

Council’s Draft 2017/2018 fees and charges lists some fees for Class 2 commercial activities sub-licences including.

· Commercial surf schools $8,989 pa increase by CPI annually;

· Personalised surf schools $2,909 pa increase by CPI annually; and

· Sea kayak $41,160 pa increase by CPI annually.

A survey of other Councils revealed a substantial difference between licence fees for commercial activities on crown lands, with Byron Shire having the highest fee structure.

Submissions received from current Class 2 sub-licensees indicated the set Class 2 activity sub-licences fees were unsustainably high because fees were based on an unrealistic scale from a 2012 tender, the need to bring fees in line with Ballina Shire, conditions attached to sub-licences and dependency on weather conditions restricted sub-licensees ability to generate income.

The following guidance provided by Item 13.5 of the Draft Policy 5.52 - Commercial Activities on Coastal and Riparian Crown Reserves (‘the Policy’), Council recommends changes to its 2017/2018 fees and charges to set the following sub-licence fees for Class 2 commercial activities:

· Commercial surf schools $5,000 pa increase by CPI annually;

· Personalised surf schools $2,270 pa increase by CPI annually;

· Stand up Paddle Board schools $960 pa increase by CPI annually; and

· Sea kayaks $25,000 pa increase by CPI annually.

Financial implications from the proposed changes in fees and charges for Class 2 activities will result in a 39% decrease in income. The decrease can be justified by bring in line Councils sub-licence fees for commercial activities on Crown lands with other surveyed councils.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the 2017/2018 fees and charges be set for the following sub-licence fees for Class 2 commercial activities as follows:

· Commercial surf schools $5,000 pa increase by CPI annually;

· Personalised surf schools $2,270 pa increase by CPI annually;

· Stand up Paddle Board schools $960 pa increase by CPI annually; and

· Sea kayaks $25,000 pa increase by CPI annually.

2. That Council adopts the 2017/2018 fees and charges for Class 2 commercial activities,and places the draft fees and charges on public exhibition for a period of 28 days; and

a) should no submission be received, then adopt the fees and charges for the 2017/2018 financial year; or

b) should any submissions be received that the submission be reported to Council.

Report

In 2012, Council called an open tender to let commercial sub-licences, for the purpose of surf schools, personalised surf schools and sea kayaks tours. Sub-licences were let under authority of Crown Licence RI 406617, for a period of five (5) years terminating on 31 August 2017. Council is now required to call a new tender for the letting of new sub-licences under new Crown Licence RI 564194 to commence 1 September 2017.

Before calling an open tender, Council is required to amend Policy 5.52 - Commercial Activities on Coastal and Riparian Crown Reserves, (‘Policy’). The Policy guides Council’s decision-making by determining the number and type of sub-licences that may be offered in a new tender process. Two working parties were convened, in accordance with Reserve Trust resolution 17-047 to inform Policy changes. The resulting, Draft Policy, is tabled at the Reserve Trust meeting of 20 April 2017 for approval to be placed on twenty eight days public exhibition before adoption.

Class 2 Commercial Activities

Draft Policy 5.52 - Commercial Activities on Coastal and Riparian Crown Reserves, provides for the following commercial activities, known as Class 2 Activities that may be sub-licenced by Council under authority of Crown Licence RI 564194:

a) Surf schools, four sub-licences only;

b) Personalised surf schools, two sub-licences only;

c) Stand up Paddle Board Schools, three sub-licences only;

d) Sea kayak tours, two sub-licences only;

e) Mobile Kiosk, one sub-licence only;

f) Mobile Beach Security Lockers, one-sub-licence only; and

Before Council may call the open tender, Council must first set a standard fee, for each type of Class 2 commercial activity in accordance with resolution 12-872.

Standard fees for Class 2 commercial activities

In the 2012 open tender, Council called for tenderers to submit a sub-licence fee, as a reflection of the current market value of the sub-licences. A subsequent independent probity report, on the 2012 open tender process, recommended that Council determine a standard sub-licence fee, prior to re-tendering for new sub-licences.

Council resolved in Resolution 12-872, to set a standard fee for each type of Class 2 commercial activity based on a commercial value assessment. The commercial value assessment methodology applied, was the average fee submitted in the 2012 open tender for each class of commercial activities, and increased annually thereafter by CPI.

Applying this methodology the following sub-licence fees for Class 2 commercial activities for 2017/2018 are:

Class 2 Commercial Activity type	2017/2018 standard fee (inc GST)
· Surf School	$8,989
· Personalised Surf School	$2,909
· Sea Kayaks	$41,160

Review of standard fees for Class 2 commercial activities

On 29 November 2016, Council held a meeting with current Class 2 sub-licensees, to inform amendments to Policy 5.52. Following the meeting each Class 2 sub-licensees provided written a submission to Council.

Submissions identified a review of the standard fees to the following:

Class 2 Commercial Activity type	Submissions on standard fee
· Surf School	$5,000or less
· Personalised Surf School	$2,000 or less
· Sea Kayaks	Between $15,000 and $20,000

Submissions requested a reduction in the standard fees because:

a) the standard fee is too high being based on an unrealistic scale from the previous tender and therefore not reflective of the current market value and unsustainably high;

b) of a need to bring Byron surf schools sub-licences terms and conditions in line with Ballina Shire to reduce the unfair advantage to current sub-licensee who operate additionally out of Ballina;

c) the ability to operate commercially is wholly dependent on weather conditions;

d) restrictions on the client – instructor ratio, means an additional instructor is required to supervise two clients under surf school sub-licences;

e) the restrictions on the number of classes per day, limits the ability to generate revenue; and

f) without changes to sub-licence conditions to increase, either the number of permitted classes per day and/or the client – instructor ratio, the current standard fee is set too high and is unsustainable.

Comparison of fees with other Council’s

The below table lists a comparison with other Council’s fees for commercial activities on coastal and Crown reserves:

Licence fee	Licence Fee	Notes
Ballina Council	$1,790	Annual licence. Surf schools, fitness groups, stand up paddle boarding.
Coffs Harbour Council · 2 licensed areas	$4,400	Annual licence. Standard fee for commercial activities on Crown reserves.
Gold Coast City Council	$204	Annual licence.
Kempsey Council	$1,155	Annual licence. Surf schools only.
Newcastle City Council · 2 licenced areas	$700	Annual licence fee. Surf schools, stand up paddle boards.
Northern Beaches Council	$320	Per week licence. Surf school, sea kayaks only summer months.
Tweed Shire Council	$3,224	Annual licence. Surf schools.
Wollongong City Council	$942	Annual licence. Surf schools only.
NSW Crown Holiday Parks	$148	Annual licence. Stand up Paddle Boards.

Setting of new standard fees for Class 2 commercial activities

In determining standard fees for Class 2 commercial activities, Item 13.5 of the Draft Policy 5.52 - Commercial Activities on Coastal and Riparian Crown Reserves (‘the Policy’) gives guidance. In setting the standard fee for Class 2 activities the following must be considered;

a) The nature of the activity;

b) Scale of its operation;

c) Use and impact on the coastal Crown reserves; and

d) Impact on the community both beneficial and detrimental.

For each Class 2 activity the following is considered:

1. Commercial surf school sub-licences:

o Nature of the activity is limited to 4 surf school sub-licenses;

o Scale of operations is limited to 2 classes per day, maximum 10 students with 2 instructors, conditional on suitable surf conditions;

o Use of crown reserves is limited to ten licenced locations with schools operating at least 100m apart;

o Benefit to the community is local employment. A detriment to employment is to set surf school sub-licences too high.

The standard fee is $8,989 pa. The fee is considerably higher than other councils. The restriction of two schools pre day, limited to ten in students in total, restricts surf schools ability to generate income and employment. Surf schools submitted a fee of $5,000 pa which is comparable with Coffs Harbour and Tweed, but significantly less that Ballina and the Gold Coast. Note surveyed councils only offer annual licences.

Council recommends the annual fee for commercial surf school sub-licences is set at $5,000 pa, increased annually by CPI as reflective of the current market value for the sub-licence.

2. Commercial personalised surf schools sub-licences:

o Nature of the activity is limited to 2 surf school sub-licenses;

o Scale of operations is limited to 2 classes per day, maximum 2 students to one instructor, conditional on suitable surf conditions;

o Use of crown reserves is limited to ten licenced locations with schools operating at least 100m apart;

o Benefit to the community is local employment. A detriment to employment is to set surf school sub-licences too high.

Personalised surf schools are a sub-set of a commercial surf school. The current standard fee is $2,909 pa. No comparative Council fees were available. Applying the same percentage reduction as commercial surf schools, a fee of $2,270 pa is provided as a more reflective market value for five year sub-licences.

Council recommends the annual fee for commercial personalised sub-licences is set at $2,270 pa increased annually by CPI as reflective of the current market value for the sub-licence.

3. Commercial Sea kayak tour sub-licences:

o Nature of the activity is limited to 2 sea kayak sub-licenses;

o Scale of operations is limited to 2 classes per day, maximum 18 kayaks and is conditional on ocean conditions;

o Use of crown reserves is limited to 2 locations including the Brunswick River.

o Benefit to the community is local employment. A detriment to employment is to set surf school sub-licences too high.

The standard fee is currently $41,160 pa. The value of sea kayak sub-licences is reduced by limitations on class numbers and sizes, restrictions in locations and ocean conditions. The restrictions affect operator’s ability to generate income and employment. Sea Kayak operators submitted a fee between $15,000 and $20,000 as more reflective market value.

Council recommends the annual fee for commercial sea kayak sub-licences is set at $25,000 pa, increased annually by CPI as reflective of the current market value for the sub-licence.

4. Commercial Stand Up Paddle sub-licences

o Nature of the activity is limited to 3 stand up paddle board sub-licenses;

o Scale of operations is limited to 2 classes per day, maximum 8 student to one instructor restricted to flat waters in the Brunswick River;

o Use of crown reserves is limited to 3 locations in the Brunswick River.

o Benefit to the community is local employment. A detriment to employment is to set surf school sub-licences too high.

No standard fee is currently set for stand up paddle board sub-licences. NSW Crown Holiday Parks Trust set a fee of $148 pa. Sub-licence restrictions of two classes per day, limited to eight students only in the Brunswick River, restricts the sub-licensee’s ability to generate income and employment. Comparable Council fees range from $1,790 pa to $148 pa.

Council recommends the annual fee for commercial stand up paddle board sub-licences is set at $960 pa, increased annually by CPI as reflective of the current market value for the sub-licence.

Deferred setting of other Class 2 activities

Council recommends the setting of sub-licence fees for Class 2 activities being mobile kiosk and mobile security locker is deferred to a future meeting to enable Council to fully work through the terms and conditions attached to these sub-licence types.

Financial Implications

Reduction of fees and charges for Class 2 activities on coastal and riparian will impact funds available to be returned to maintain crown reserves under Council control and management.

An estimate of the Income generated under 2016/2017 fees and charges for Class 2 activities includes $35,428 from four surf schools sub-licences, $5,732 from two personalised surf school sub-licences and $81,104 from two sea kayak sub-licences totalling$122,264 pa.

If Council continues with the same fee structure then fees and charges in 2017/2018 for Class 2 activities would increase to $125,701 pa.

The current Class 2 sub-licence fees paid by the Operators holding a sub-licence were determined by the last tender process. The total fees payable by the current Operators holding a Class 2 sub-licence (including the fifth surf school) for the 2016/17 Financial Year is $127,036.32.

The proposed changes to Class 2 licences fees structure would reduce income by 39% to the value of $77,420 on the current set fees and charges. The reduction is justified in bringing Byron Class 2 sub-licences fees more in line with other surveyed councils.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Nil.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.4

Report No. 13.4 Council Investments March 2017

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2017/413

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

This report includes a list of investments and identifies Council’s overall cash position for the month of March 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 March 2017 be noted.

Report

In relation to the investment portfolio for the month of March 2017, Council has continued to maintain a diversified portfolio of investments. The average 90 day bank bill rate (BBSW) for the month of March 2017 was 1.80%. Council’s performance to 31 March 2017 is 2.63%. Council’s 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 March 2017:

Schedule of Investments held as at 31 March 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
24/03/17	1,000,000	NAB SOCIAL BOND (GENDER EQUALITY)	N	AA-	24/03/22	B	3.44%	1,000,000.00
03/06/16	1,000,000	WESTPAC CLIMATE BOND	N	AA-	03/06/21	FRN	2.94%	1,014,420.00
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
12/01/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	12/04/17	TD	2.61%	2,000,000.00
22/02/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	12/07/17	TD	2.56%	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
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
06/03/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	30/08/17	TD	2.58%	2,000,000.00
22/02/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	12/07/17	TD	2.57%	2,000,000.00
28/11/16	2,000,000	AMP BANK	P	A	29/05/17	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
01/02/17	2,000,000	POLICE CREDIT UNION	P	NR	02/08/17	TD	2.70%	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
01/02/17	2,000,000	BEYOND BANK	N	A2	10/05/17	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
08/03/17	2,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	08/08/17	TD	2.55%	2,000,000.00
28/02/17	2,000,000	BEYOND BANK	N	A2	21/06/17	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
08/03/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	07/07/17	TD	2.56%	2,000,000.00
16/03/17	2,000,000	AMP BANK	N	A	18/09/17	TD	2.75%	2,000,000.00
10/03/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	09/06/17	TD	2.52%	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
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
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
03/02/17	1,000,000	MYSTATE BANK	N	NR	09/08/17	TD	2.75%	1,000,000.00
14/02/17	2,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	17/05/17	TD	2.60%	2,000,000.00
16/02/17	1,000,000	BANK OF QUEENSLAND	N	A	15/08/17	TD	2.70%	1,000,000.00
21/02/17	1,000,000	BEYOND BANK	N	A2	24/05/17	TD	2.65%	1,000,000.00
01/03/17	1,000,000	BANANACOAST CU	N	NR	06/09/17	TD	2.75%	1,000,000.00
03/03/17	1,000,000	BANANACOAST CU	N	NR	06/09/17	TD	2.75%	1,000,000.00
03/03/17	2,000,000	HOLIDAY COAST CU	N	NR	13/06/17	TD	2.70%	2,000,000.00
06/03/17	1,000,000	THE CAPICORNIAN CU	P	NR	23/08/17	TD	2.70%	1,000,000.00
07/03/17	2,000,000	BEYOND BANK	N	A2	19/07/17	TD	2.65%	2,000,000.00
07/03/17	1,000,000	REGIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK	P	NR	28/06/17	TD	2.70%	1,000,000.00
23/03/17	1,000,000	POLICE CREDIT UNION	N	NR	27/09/17	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
N/A	651,081	CBA BUSINESS ONLINE SAVER	N	A	N/A	CALL	1.40%	651,081.29
Total	76,301,081					AVG	2.63%	76,335,501.29

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
	B	Bonds	Principal can vary based on valuation, interest payable via a fixed interest, payable each quarter.
	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.

Environmental and Socially Responsible Investing

During March 2017, Council purchased a $1,000,000 Social Bond based on Gender Equality issued by the National Australia Bank. This investment has been classified as a “Gender Equality” Social Bond as it allows Council’s investment to support the financing or re-financing of loans to organisations that are cited by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) as Employers of Choice for Gender Equality. In addition the ability of organisations to access the loan financing/refinancing are prohibited if their business activities are linked to alcohol, gambling, tobacco, military weapons, predatory lending, fossil fuels, palm oil, transport of live cattle and whaling. This is a fixed rate Bond which means the interest rate will remain constant for the life of this 5 year investment. This investment aligns with Council resolution 15-515, and was purchased due to the purpose of the investment and its favourable rate of return.

For the month of March 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 improved by $10,690 since February 2017, and is demonstrating a cumulative unrealised gain of $34,420.

Dissection of Council Investment Portfolio as at 31 March 2017

Principal Value ($)	Investment Linked to:-	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
72,500,000.00	Term Deposits	72,500,000.00	0.00
1,650,000.00	Floating Rate Note	1,664,420.00	14,420.00
651,081.29	Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	651,081.29	0.00
1,500,000.00	Bonds	1,520,000.00	20,000.00
76,301,081.29		76,335,501.29	34,420.00

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 March 2017 on a current market value basis.

Movement in Investment Portfolio – 1 to 31 March 2017

Item	Current Market Value (at end of month) $
Opening Balance at 28 February 2017	79,823,039.47
Add: New Investments Purchased	20,000,000.00
Add: Call Account Additions	0.00
Add: Interest from Call Account	1,771.82
Less: Investments Matured	22,500,000.00
Less: Call Account Redemption	1,000,000.00
Add: Fair Value Movement for period	10,690.00
Closing Balance at 31 March 2017	76,335,501.29

Investments Maturities and Returns – 1 to 31 March 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	02/03/17	91	2.70%	13,463.02
2,000,000.00	NAB	TD	03/03/17	119	2.73%	17,801.10
2,000,000.00	Bankwest	TD	06/03/17	91	2.60%	12,964.38
1,000,000.00	NAB	TD	06/03/17	119	2.74%	8,933.16
2,000,000.00	NAB	TD	06/03/17	91	2.70%	13,463.02
2,000,000.00	ME Bank	TD	08/03/17	90	2.65%	13,068.49
2,000,000.00	NAB	TD	08/03/17	90	2.67%	13,167.13
2,000,000.00	NAB	TD	10/03/17	98	2.70%	14,498.64
2,000,000.00	AMP Bank	TD	16/03/17	210	2.95%	33,945.21
2,000,000.00	ME Bank	TD	22/03/17	128	2.65%	18,586.30
1,500,000.00	ME Bank	TD	22/03/17	125	2.75%	14,126.71
2,000,000.00	NAB	TD	29/03/17	132	2.74%	19,818.08
22,500,000.00						193,835.24

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

Dissection of Council Cash Position as at 31 March 2017

Item	Principal Value ($)	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
Investments Portfolio
Term Deposits	72,500,000.00	72,500,000.00	0.00
Floating Rate Note	1,650,000.00	1,664,420.00	14,420.00
Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	651,081.29	651,081.29	0.00
Bonds	1,500,000.00	1,520,000.00	20,000.00
Total Investment Portfolio	76,301,081.29	76,335,501.29	34,420.00

Cash at Bank
Consolidated Fund	4,120,802.34	4,120,802.34	0.00
Total Cash at Bank	4,120,802.34	4,120,802.34	0.00

Total Cash Position	80,421,883.63	80,456,303.63	34,420.00

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 - Corporate and Community Services 13.5

Report No. 13.5 Landowners consent to Coastal Panel development applications for repair to existing rock protection at Belongil.

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Ralph James, Legal Services Coordinator

File No: I2017/435

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary:

Councillors have been provided with a previous staff report and have had the benefit of two workshops in relation to the granting of landowners consent to the lodgement of Development Applications for the repair of rock protection at Belongil.

The grant of land owners consent requires consideration against the background of the resolution of the long-running proceedings against Council brought by a number of Belongil landowners, some of whom are the applicant’s for consent to repair existing rock protection.

The giving of owner’s consent to a development application does not impinge upon Council’s statutory obligation to assess the application under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The giving of its consent as owner of the land only has one purpose which is to enable it to lawfully determine and dispose of the development application in accordance with the provisions of the EPA Act.

Council does not have the power of a private land holder arbitrarily to withhold consent. If Council does nothing, or refuses to grant consent, the Court may exercise all the powers of Council on appeal including the power to consent to the lodgement of the application.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council note that:

a) the giving of land owner’s consent to a development application does not impinge upon a consent authority’s statutory obligation to assess the application under the provisions of applicable legislation.

b) the giving of landowner consent has one purpose which is to enable the consent authority to lawfully determine and dispose of the development application in accordance with the provisions of applicable legislation.

2. That Council give landowners consent to lodge Development Applications to the Coastal Panel for repair of existing coastal protection works at, on or adjacent (as the case may be) to the properties:

28 and 28A Childe Street Byron Bay

44 Childe Street Byron Bay

48 Childe Street Byron Bay

Unit 1, 1 Don Street Byron Bay

Unit 2, 1 Don Street Byron Bay

1A Don Street Byron Bay

6B Childe Street Byron Bay

Report

Councillors have been provided with a staff report and have had the benefit of a workshop in relation to the granting of landowners consent to the lodgement of Development Applications for the repair of rock protection at Belongil.

On 23 February 2017 Council resolved:

1. That Council defer consideration of granting owners consent to lodge Development Applications for repair of existing coastal protection works at, on or adjacent to the properties:

· 28 and 28A Childe Street Byron Bay

· 44 Childe Street Byron Bay

· 48 Childe Street Byron Bay

· Unit 1, 1 Don Street Byron Bay

· Unit 2, 1 Don Street Byron Bay

· 1A Don Street Byron Bay

· 6B Childe Street Byron Bay

until such time as Council has had the opportunity to consider each Development Application in order to appreciate the precise location, extent and nature of the proposed repair works.

2. That Council’s consideration of granting owners consent to lodge Development Applications for repair of existing coastal protection works occur within 1 month of copies of the Development Applications relating to all of the above properties having been received by Council.

3. That the applications for owners consent to lodge Development Applications for repair of existing coastal protection works be reported to Council at its first ordinary meeting after the expiry of the period in 2 above.

At the workshop held on 9 March 2017 Councillors were advised that staff had contacted the Coastal Panel seeking an extension of time to enable Council to make a submission and that the Coastal Panel had indicated that an extension would be granted after it (the Coastal Panel) had received additional information it had requested from the applicants.

On 20 March 2017 the Coastal Panel advised as follows:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the additional information as requested by the Coastal Panel in relation to each of the applications has now been received.........

The Coastal Panel is now seeking a response from Council concerning matters as outlined in our letter dated 17 February 2017. This includes confirmation (or otherwise) of landowner consent; comment in relation to any of the development applications; and a separate response addressing integrated development at Nos 28 and 28A Childe Street (CP17-004). This response is respectfully requested by 7 April 2017.

Following discussion at the workshop on 6 April 2017 staff wrote to the Coastal Panel seeking an extension in respect of the question of land owner consent to 21 April 2017.

Both the giving of land owners consent and matters to be included in any Council submission as to the individual applications require consideration against the background of the resolution of the long-running proceedings against Council brought by a number of Belongil landowners, some of whom are the applicant’s for consent to repair existing rock protection.

Order 1 of 12 August 2016

This Order provides an injunction preventing Council from taking steps to remove the current protective works as they currently exist. This order essentially preserves the status quo. That is, the existing protective works relevant to each landowner, which are defined by reference to an annotated aerial photo, are allowed to stay in place. These works are defined in the orders as the “Current Protection”.

The settlement did not give the Plaintiffs any permission to build any new works, or to repair or replace the Current Protection. If the Current Protection is damaged or destroyed, or washed away, the Plaintiffs must follow the usual process to seek approval from the relevant consent authority, and the applicable landowner, for permission to rebuild, repair or replace the works. Council did not give any promises in this regard (but in relation to Council’s role as landowner, see comments in relation to order 2).

The settlement contemplated that the Plaintiffs may wish to apply for planning permission to carry out repairs. This opportunity was available to the Plaintiffs regardless of the proceedings and no dispensations were granted to the Plaintiffs in this regard. If the Plaintiffs obtain the necessary approval to repair the current protection and commence those repairs within a specified period of time (12 months after obtaining all necessary consents, which consents must be applied for within 12 months of the settlement orders), then the repaired works are also covered by agreement that Council cannot require them to be removed.

The properties relevant to the development application is before the Coastal Panel are:

11 and 12: Unit 1, 1 Don Street, Byron Bay

The Eleventh and Twelfth Plaintiffs (Simon and Lisa Clowes) - Lot 2 of Strata Plan 65430.

3: 1A Don Street, Byron Bay

The Third Plaintiff (Ralph Lauren Pty Ltd) – Lot 2 in Section 2 of Deposited Plan 1623.

1 and 2: Unit 2, 1 Don Street, Byron Bay

The First Plaintiff (Ralph Lauren 57 Pty Ltd) and the Second Plaintiff (PJ George Investments Pty Ltd) - Lot 1 in Strata Plan 65430.

4: 48 Childe Street and 44 Childe Street Byron Bay

The Fourth Plaintiff (Robert Watson) - Lots 18, 19, 20, 59, 60 and 61 in Section 2 of Deposited Plan 1623, and Lots 21, 22, 23, and 57 in Section 2 of Deposited Plan 1623.

5: Childe Street, Byron Bay

The Fifth Plaintiff (Immer Pty Ltd) - Lots 32 – 36 Section 2 of Deposited Plan 1623.

9: 6B Childe Street, Byron Bay

The Ninth Plaintiff (Stewartville Pty Limited) - Lots 32 and 33 in Section 3 of Deposited Plan 1623.

Order 2 of 12 August 2016

The Court NOTES that should landowners consent and access be required from the First Defendant for works under Paragraph 1(b), that consent and access will not be unreasonably withheld.

This is not a promise to approve any substantive application – it merely relates to landowner’s consent to the making of an application, which is a requirement of the EP&A Act. The withholding of owners’ consent by Council is something that the Land and Environment Court can, and regularly does, overturn, pursuant to power conferred by s39(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act.

The order also notes that Council will not unreasonably withhold access to its land for the purposes of the Claimants carrying out any approved works. Council may still withhold access if it has a reasonable basis to do so – for example, if the carrying out of the proposed works would unreasonably interfere with public access or give rise to safety concerns.

The concept of access not being unreasonably refused is based upon provisions in the Coastal Protection Act which provide that a public authority must not unreasonably refuse a person access to public land to enable the person to lawfully place temporary coastal protection works on the land.

The cases of Sydney CC v IPHO 149 LGERA 329 and Sydney City Council v Claude Neon Ltd 67 LGRA 187 are relevant in the following respects.

The giving of landowner’s consent to the lodgement of a development application by a Council does not impinge upon or affect the statutory obligation imposed on the Council to assess the merits of the development application under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The giving of owner’s consent to the lodgement of an application is not the same as giving development consent to the application. Whether a person can lawfully carry out development on land depends upon both (1) considerations associated with title to the land and (2) considerations associated with questions of environmental planning (per Hodges JA in Sydney CC v IPOH [2006] NSWCA 300 at 2).

When the owner of land is the consent authority itself, the giving or withholding of consent to the making of an application is not something that determines the applicant’s right, as a matter of title, to carry out the development. All the giving of consent does is to permit the application to go forwards so that the consent authority can assess it on the criteria set out in s 79C of the Act (Sydney CC v IPHO at 6).

However, the case of Sydney CC v IPOH confirms that where the land the subject of the application is owned by the Council from whose decision the appeal is brought, its function in giving consent to the making of the application is an aspect of the power to grant or refuse development consent to the application. In other words, the giving of its consent as owner of the land only has one purpose which is to enable it to lawfully determine and dispose of the development application in accordance with the provisions of the EPA Act (per Tobias JA at 34). It is also open to the Council to give its consent to the making of a development application by giving development consent to the application (at 48).

In the case of Sydney City Council v Claude Neon Ltd the Court of Appeal held that where a development application was made to Council for consent to the erection of a structure which projected over a public road, the council as the owner of the road was empowered to give its consent to the making of the application. If it did not do so and the Applicant for consent appealed to the Land and Environment Court against the refusal of its development application then the court was empowered to give consent to the making of the application. Sydney City Council v IPOH confirmed that the principles in Claude Neon extended not only to public roads but also to other public land owned by Council.

In the case of Shellharbour Municipal Council v Rovili Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 104, (referred to in Sydney v IPHO) Clarke JA said as follows (in relation to the submission that the Council’s power to give consent to the making of a development application was not a function conferred or imposed by a planning and environmental law and the right to give or decline such consent was, it was argued, incidental to the council’s ownership of the land comprising the road and as to be treated no differently that the right of an owner of private land to withhold consent):

“If the appellant was a private person then that submission would undoubtedly be correct. It is hard to conceive a situation in which a court could require an adjoining landowner to give consent under s 77(1)(b). But that is not this case.

As Hope JA pointed out in Claude Neon, the council does not have the power of a private land holder arbitrarily to withhold consent. Nor would it be a proper exercise of its power to decline consent simply “because it wished to frustrate the right of the adjoining owner to obtain approval for the erection of the structure”.(emphasis added)

The council is placed in a special situation where an application is made to it for development approval for the erection of a structure partly on its road. The fact that it has not given its consent to the making of the application does not, as Claude Neon established, debar its consideration of the merits of the application.

Furthermore, if it simply does nothing the applicant may appeal to the court which has all the powers of the council including the power to consent to the lodgement of the application.

If this be correct then the power to grant the consent to the making of the application should be seen as an incident of the power to grant or refuse the application and the exercise of that power should be understood as falling within s 20(2)(b) of the Court Act.”

Having regard to the decisions, and applying them to present circumstances:

1. the giving of landowner consent has one purpose which is to enable the consent authority to lawfully determine and dispose of the development application in accordance with the provisions of applicable legislation.

2. the giving of land owner’s consent to a development application does not impinge upon a consent authority’s statutory obligation to assess the application under the provisions of applicable legislation.

3. Council does not have the power of a private land holder arbitrarily to withhold consent. If the Council does nothing, the Court may exercise all the powers of the Council on appeal including the power to consent to the lodgement of the application.

The applicants have also sought landowners consent from the Department of Industry-Lands.

Financial Implications

Council could be exposed to its own legal costs and adverse legal costs in any proceedings in the Land and Environment Court or the Supreme Court should Council be found to have unreasonably refused landowners consent.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Unreasonable refusal of landowners consent could result in appeal proceedings to the Land and Environment Court or the relisting of proceedings in the Supreme Court.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.6

Report No. 13.6 Integrated Planning and Reporting - Public Exhibition 2017

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Mila Jones, Corporate Governance Coordinator

File No: I2017/436

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary:

At its Ordinary Meeting on 27 October 2016, Council confirmed its endorsement of the Community Strategic Plan (CSP) and a review of the Delivery Program for 2017-2021 and Operational Plan for 2017-2018. Council has subsequently developed a draft Delivery Program 2017-2021 and Operational Plan 2017-2018. Minor revisions to the CSP have also been necessary to allow for an update of its links to the latest State and regional plans as well as inserts relating to disability inclusion action planning which is in accordance with the NSW Disability Inclusion Act 2014.

In accordance with the Local Government Act, the Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan must be exhibited for 28 days. Prior to the adoption of Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan, Council must consider any submissions received during the exhibition period.

This report has been prepared to allow Council to amend or alter the Activities contained in the Operational Plan 2017-2018 section, prior to the document being placed on public exhibition, and to provide Councillors with the proposed public exhibition activities.

The Operational Plan must include a statement of the Council’s Revenue Policy for the 2017-2018 financial period. The Revenue Policy which includes the draft 2017/2018 Budget, Rates and Charges and Fees and Charges is the subject of a separate report to this meeting.

Council’s Resourcing Strategy has not been included in this report and is not required to be placed on public exhibition. Council reviewed and adopted the current Strategic Asset Management Plan and Long Term Financial Plans during the Special Rate Variation process in February 2017.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the following draft Integrated Planning and Reporting documents be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days:

a) Community Strategic Plan 2017-2027

b) Delivery Program 2017-2021 and Operational Plan 2017-2018

2. That, should there be no submissions received, the documents be adopted, however if submissions are received, a further report will be brought to Council on 22 June 2017 reporting on the submissions and a revised set of documents where necessary.

Attachments:

1 DRAFT Community Strategic Plan 2027, E2017/24915 ⇨

2 Draft Delivery Program 2017-2021 and Operational Plan 2017-2018, E2017/24954 ⇨

3 Community Strategic Plan Internal Consultation - Consultant Report 2017, E2017/23607 ⇨

Report

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, Council is required to review its Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) documentation within nine months of a council election (ie by 30 June 2017). Council is also required by the NSW Disability Inclusion Act 2014 to undertake disability inclusion action planning by 1 July 2017. Council has identified that it will include the disability inclusion action planning process through the IP&R framework as opposed to developing a stand-alone Disability Inclusion Action Plan (DIAP).

At its Ordinary Meeting on 27 October 2016, Council resolved (16-550):

1. That Council:

a) re-adopt the existing CSP 2022 with no changes, allowing for the endorsement of a review to take place in the next financial year 2017-2018 which will include the Disability Inclusion Act requirements per b) below; and

b) update the Delivery Program for the new term of Council by 30 June 2017 and include Disability Inclusion Act requirements.

2. That Council endorse the existing themes based on social, environmental, economic and civic leadership issues as prescribed by the IP&R Framework Guidelines.

Although it was resolved at point 1 to re-adopt the existing CSP, minor revisions have been required to update its links to the latest State and regional plans. Minor inserts relating to disability inclusion action planning were also required in order to comply with the Disability Inclusion Act 2014 by 1 July 2017. The CSP with minor amendments is attached to this Report at Attachment 1.

A full review of our CSP will be undertaken in the new financial year, and the process will include a comprehensive engagement strategy.

A spreadsheet containing draft Delivery Program Actions (and Operational Plan Activities) was distributed on 14 March 2017 to Councillors for comment and two workshops were held on 21 March and 6 April to receive any further input into the Delivery Program Actions. This report has been prepared to allow Council to review and to make any amendments, additions and/or deletions to the Operational Plan Activities prior to the draft Delivery Program 2017-2021 and Operational Plan 2017-2018 being placed on public exhibition.

Any amendment, addition and/or deletion of an Activity in the draft Operational Plan is likely to have an impact on the draft 2017-2018 Budget, and therefore, potentially on the financial position of Council.

The draft Delivery Program Actions and Operational Plan Activities are included in the draft Delivery Program 2017-2021 and Operational Plan 2017-2018 attached to this Report at Attachment 2.

At the workshop on 6 April with Councillors, some amendments to Delivery Program Actions were identified. The bulk of the amendments have been included in the draft document. The following amendments were not able to be added in time for the production of this Agenda however will be investigated for inclusion prior to public exhibition:

1. Society and Culture Action SC3.2.1 Support Aboriginal cultural vibrancy within the Shire – Consider alternate wording for “vibrancy”.

2. Environment Action EN2.1.2 Establish planning for and provision of inclusive and accessible housing that can meet the needs of our community – Consider alternate wording “Implement innovative mechanisms for planning and provision of housing that meets the needs of our community.” The terms “inclusive” and “accessible” to be carried through to Activities

3. Environment Strategy EN3.1 – Include “Develop and implement a framework to support achieving zero net emissions”

4. Environment Action EN3.1.2 Support inclusive community environmental and sustainability projects - Check supporting community projects

5. Community Infrastructure Action CI2.2.1 Provide waste and resource recovery services – Add public private partnerships to total waste stream. Refer to partnerships and collaboration for efficiency for what we don’t currently provide

6. Community Infrastructure Action CI2.4.1 Provide and facilitate local emergency management – This Action to be separated into two actions (1 Disaster Plan and 2 Business and Operational); add wording to the Activities “Develop robust systems to develop … “, “Enhance communication to community during Natural Disasters”; strong communication protocol; strong facilitation to liaise with community groups; sub-contractors and staff levels

7. Community Infrastructure Action CI2.5.1 Participate in regional waste management programs and initiatives – Consider moving this Action to the procurement Action within the Corporate Management theme

The Revenue Policy, which is to be included in the Operational Plan 2017-2018 includes details of the proposed Rates and Charges for 2017/18, the draft 2017/18 Fees and Charges and draft 2017/18 Budget. This information is currently included in the report to this Council Meeting titled Public Exhibition – Draft 2017/2018 Statement of Revenue Policy. It will be incorporated into the Delivery Program and Operational Plan once resolved by Council.

It is proposed that all these documents will be placed on public exhibition in April to enable submissions to be received, and for these submissions to be considered and reported back to Council, prior to 30 June 2017 deadline for the adoption of these documents by Council.

Disability Inclusion Action Planning

Council’s Disability Inclusion Action Planning (DIAP), required by the Disability Inclusion Act (2014), has been incorporated into the Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program and Operational Plan. Our consultants undertook extensive consultation with the DIAP Internal Steering Group (a cross section of Council staff), Council’s Access Consultative Working Group and community (including individual community members with lived experience of disability) to identify and prioritise actions and activities. The DIAP process also included internal mapping of Council’s current documentation and processes and risk analysis to prioritise implementation.

The following table provides a checklist of the mandatory requirements under DIA legislation for councils.

Legislative requirements
Have people with disability been consulted in the disability inclusion action planning process?
Are there strategies and actions to provide access to buildings, events and facilities?
Are there strategies and actions to provide access to information?
Are there strategies and actions to support employment of people with disability?
Are there strategies and actions to encourage and create opportunities for people with disability to access the full range of services and activities available in the community?
Have you provided a report on your disability inclusion action planning consultation with people with disability to the Disability Council NSW?
Do actions and strategies support the goals of the NSW Disability Inclusion Act?
Has a copy of the disability inclusion action planning documentation been given to the Disability Council NSW?
Is the disability inclusion action planning documentation publicly available?

Integrated Planning and Reporting Requirements

The draft Delivery Program 2017-2021 and Operational Plan 2017-2018:

1. Comprises the statutorily required 4 year Delivery Program ie the actions that Council proposes to progress over the next 4 years intended to meet the 10 year strategies of the Community Strategic Plan.

2. Includes the statutorily required annual Operational Plan ie the activities that Council proposes to progress in the next year intended to deliver the actions of the Delivery Program.

3. Is a combined document as this is permitted, it reduces the number of documents, provides better line of sight between our long, medium and short term goals, and it is also a format which has already been commonly used by many other councils (and accepted by the Office of Local Government).

4. Has been prepared bringing forward items from the current Delivery Program, adopted Plans and Strategies and resolutions where they are consistent with the draft budget and available funding.

5. Has been prepared based on the draft budget (and should changes be made to the draft budget in turn could affect the funding sources for Actions).

The Actions in the Delivery Program flow from the Community Strategic Plan and in turn, the Operational Plan Activities must flow from the Actions in the Delivery Program. Further, it is a requirement that the Actions and Activities must be able to be traced sideways through the Resourcing Strategy (ie Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Plan and Workforce Strategy) and the annual Budget. That is, the whole suite of documents are required to be, and are, integrally linked and changes to one, eg the budget, will most likely result in a need for changes to be made to the others.

Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework

OLG Integrated Planning and Reporting Manual for local government in NSW: Example of cascading levels of details

Key Milestones

The following key milestones have been completed or are due for completion in the near future:

Key Milestones	Action Owner	Completion
Phase 1 - Commencement
1. Report to ET on CSP Review options for reporting to Councillors	Executive Team	12 Oct 2016
2. Present the proposed review process to Councillors at a Strategic Planning Workshop	Corporate Governance	20 Oct 2016
3. Report to Council to endorse or amend the CSP themes and the option for the review of CSP	Corporate Governance Community Development	27 Oct 2016

Phase 2 – Exhibition and Consultation

4. DIAP consultation and engagement including community members with disability, Access Consultative Working Group, and disability service providers	Consultants Community Development	Dec 2016 to Feb 2017
5. Complete internal consultation sessions with internal steering group, directors, managers and coordinators with focus on both disability inclusion and CSP	Consultants Community Development, Corporate Governance	Dec 2016 to Mar 2017
6. Identify with relevant staff, the key findings from DIAP community consultation, for inclusion in the Delivery Program and CSP where necessary	Community Development, Corporate Governance	Mar 2017
7. Report to ET to review draft Delivery Program Actions and Operational Plan Activities	Corporate Governance Community Development	Mar 2017
8. Workshops held with Councillors for input into Delivery Program Actions	Consultant, Community Development, Corporate Governance	21 Mar and 6 Apr 2017
9. Report to Council the Draft CSP (with minor changes based on DIAP legislation and updated state and regional plans), Delivery Program and Operational Plan for endorsement to publicly exhibit.	Corporate Governance	20 Apr 2017
10. Publicly exhibit the Draft CSP, Delivery Program and Operational Plan and refer to regional and state agencies	Corporate Governance	21 Apr – 18 May 2017

Phase 3 – Evaluation

11. Review of feedback from public exhibition	Corporate Governance Community Development	End May 2017
12. Report to Council on submissions and subsequent revisions of the CSP, Delivery Program and Operational Plan	Corporate Governance	22 Jun

Engagement

Already held:

Section 12 of the Disability Inclusion Act 2014 requires that people with disability must be consulted as part of the disability inclusion action planning (DIAP) process. This engagement was undertaken by Council’s consultants, Tim Childs Consulting and Training. Key documents were developed to enable consistent messaging with any external DIAP consultation. A cohort of people with disability was also consulted to gather input from their experience and develop ideas for possible inclusion solutions. This built upon consultation with the Access Consultative Working Group and local disability service providers as well as DIAP survey results that were gathered earlier in 2016. Further details on DIAP engagement can be seen at Attachment 3.

DIAP consultation also included Council’s Internal Steering Group which had representatives from each area of Council. The group included two Directors as process champions. The goal of this group was to develop access and inclusion strategies across the breadth of the organisation.

Further consultation (other than DIAP specific) to-date has included:

· Executive Team meetings

· Councillors’ workshops on 21 March and 6 April 2017 for Councillors to provide input in the Delivery Program Actions for 2017-2021

· Two all staff workshops for input into Council’s future CSP

· Engagement processes in the recent past, eg Council has recently engaged with a community satisfaction survey, asset management survey, Coastal Zone Management and Safer Community Compact, asset survey, SRV survey and information stands.

To be held:

During the public exhibition phase the draft CSP, draft Delivery Program 2017-2021 and Operational Plan 2017-2018 (including Revenue Policy, budget, and fees and charges) will be placed on exhibition from 21 April to 18 May 2017. Any submissions received by Council will be reported to the Ordinary Meeting on 22 June 2017 to consider the submissions prior to adoption of the documents.

The exhibited documents will be supported by a summary document that includes key activities that Council will undertake in the 2017-2018 period. Promotional tasks, such as advertisements and information stands will be used to raise awareness and encourage submissions on the public exhibition of the Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan.

Key highlights from the Operational Plan 2017-2018

The following projects are key highlights from the Operational Plan 2017-2018 and listed under the themes of the CSP:

Corporate Management:

· Develop an inclusive Customer Service Strategy with Action Plan

· Facilitate annual Community Donations Program

· Implement the Sustainable Procurement Plan, including social procurement objectives

· Develop and implement risk management framework

· Develop and implement Business Continuity Plan/Disaster Recovery Plan

· Undertake community wellbeing project

· Review the Community Strategic Plan for currency and to identify gaps

· Develop and launch new website with increased residential and ratepayer opportunities to conduct business and engage

Economy:

· Continue to strengthen partnerships between Council and the business community

· Implement Social Innovation Action Plan

· Develop, initiate and pilot Youth Innovation Strategy

· Continue to implement Byron Shire Tourism Management Plan

Society and Culture:

· Implement identified access and inclusion strategies from Byron Shire Recreational Needs Assessment

· Develop and manage service level agreement with Richmond Tweed Regional Library

· Support the Safe Summer in the Bay initiative

· Continue to monitor, inspect, enforce and investigate complaints in relation to community safety and the environment

· Continue to monitor, inspect, enforce and investigate complaints in relation to public and environmental health

· Continue to implement Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan

· Implement public art program

· Develop Mullumbimby Place Activation Masterplan

· Develop Bangalow Place Activation Masterplan

· Develop Cultural and linguistically diverse (CALD) network and activity directory

· Implement efficiency programs in Child Services

· Initiate and develop service mapping in the Shire

· Deliver outcomes from the Arakwal Memorandum of Understanding

· Support cultural restoration processes in the Bundjalung community

· Provide accessible training, inclusive support and capacity building to Council volunteer Committees (s355)

Environment:

· Prepare a Shire Wide Integrated Weed Management Strategy

· Prepare a Shire wide Plan/Strategy to improve the resilience of koala population

· Finalise Residential Lands Strategy

· Finalise Rural Land Use Strategy

· Scope and implement a comprehensive Employment Lands Strategy

· Finalise and implement Coastal Zone Management Plan Byron Bay Embayment

· Scope and prepare a comprehensive Development Control Plan (DCP) review

· Scope and prepare Byron Town Centre Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP) review

· Investigate and implement planning controls to encourage an increase in the supply of affordable and inclusive housing stock

Community Infrastructure:

· Plan and deliver prioritized Pedestrian and Access Mobility (PAMP) facilities

· Prepare an Integrated Transport and Movement Plan (ITMP)

· Update key road traffic plans to manage future traffic demands.

· Finalise report on review intermodal use of the Byron Rail Corridor

· Implement Parking Management Strategies for Bangalow, Belongil, Mullumbimby and Brunswick Heads, incorporating accessible parking requirements based on community need (which may exceed legislative requirements).

· Investigate use of Byron Arts and Industry Park stormwater infrastructure to deliver improved social, environmental and integrated water management opportunities

· Implementation of approved and funded capital asset renewal projects including Special Rate Variation projects

· Implement replacement of high priority road bridges across the Shire

· Ocean Shore Community Centre Upgrade - Scope of Works confirmed and draft project plan completed

· Commence construction of the Byron Bay Bypass works

· Finalise Construction of the Sunrise/Ewingsdale Road Roundabout

· Finalise construction of the Bayshore Drive/Ewingsdale Road Roundabout

· Byron Rail Corridor activation project commenced

Financial Implications

The draft Delivery Program 2017-2021 and Operational Plan 2017-2018 has been developed in house within existing resources. Consultant fees for the purpose of DIAP activities have been budgeted for in the 2016-2017 budget. There will be costs of about $3,100 associated with exhibition of these documents.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Councils are required to prepare a Community Strategic Plan and associated documents under the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework. This is regulated by the Local Government Act 1993 and in compliance with the Integrated Planning and Reporting Guidelines.

Under the Disability Inclusion Act 2014, Council must have disability inclusion action planning in place by 1 July 2017. This planning must align with our IP&R framework and will be embedded directly into our documents.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.7

Report No. 13.7 Public Exhibition - Draft 2017/2018 Statement of Revenue Policy

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2017/459

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

The preparation of Council’s annual Operational Plan, including Statement of Revenue Policy (comprised of Budget Estimates, Rates and Charges, Borrowings and Fees and Charges) is regulated under the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework requirements legislated by the Local Government Act 1993 (Sections 402 to 406). Management, in consultation with the elected Council, have developed the 2017/2018 Statement of Revenue Policy comprised of Budget Estimates, Rates and Charges, Borrowings and Fees and Charges.

The information in this report is directly linked to and supports the report also included in the agenda to this Ordinary Meeting of Council concerning the Integrated Planning and Reporting documents relating to the review of the Community Strategic Plan 2017-2027, Delivery Plan 2017-2021 and Operational Plan 2017-2018.

This report recommends placing these documents, subject to any amendments, on public exhibition for not less than 28 days.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council adopt for exhibition the Draft 2017/2018 Statement of Revenue Policy, comprising Budget Estimates, Rates and Charges, Borrowings and Fees and Charges.

2. That the Draft 2017/2018 Statement of Revenue Policy, comprising of the Budget Estimates, Rates and Charges, Borrowings and Fees and Charges be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 Days.

Attachments:

1 Draft 2017-2018 Budget Estimates (Detailed), E2017/22841 ⇨

2 Draft 2017-2018 Budget Summary Statements and Reserves, E2017/22852 ⇨

3 Draft 2017-2018 Revenue Policy, E2017/23434 ⇨

4 Draft 2017-2018 Fees and Charges, E2017/24210 ⇨

Report

The preparation of Council’s annual Operational Plan, including the Statement of Revenue Policy (comprised of Budget Estimates, Rates and Charges, Borrowings and Fees and Charges) is regulated under the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework requirements legislated by the Local Government Act 1993 (Sections 402 to 406). Management, in consultation with the elected Council, have developed the 2017/2018 Statement of Revenue Policy comprised of Budget Estimates, Rates and Charges, Borrowings and Fees and Charges.

This report recommends placing these documents, subject to any amendments, on public exhibition for not less than 28 days.

Draft 2017-2018 Budget Estimates

The Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates are based on the 2016/2017 budget reviewed at 31 December 2016 with various changes to reflect the updated cost of service delivery across all programs developed from the input received from each Council Directorate.

The Draft 2017/2018 Budget Result on a Consolidated (All Funds) basis forecast a surplus budget result with the details of that result being included below at Table 1.

Table 1 – Forecast Budget Result 2017/2018 Consolidated (All Funds)

Item	Amount $
Operating Result
Operating Revenue	75,503,500
Less: Operating Expenditure	74,873,600
Operating Result – Surplus/(Deficit)	629,900

Funding Result

Operating Result – Surplus/ (Deficit)	629,900
Add: Non cash expenses – Depreciation	13,175,500
Add: Capital Grants and Contributions	24,867,700
Add: Loan Funds Used	2,160,000
Add: Asset Sales	0
Less: Capital Works	(44,685,100)
Less: Loan Principal Repayments	(2,639,800)
Funding Result – Surplus/(Deficit) (Cash Movement)	(6,491,800)
Reserves Movement – Increase/(Decrease)	(6,541,800)
Overall Budget Result – Surplus/(Deficit) (Operating + Funding)	50,000

The above budget result in Table 1 is assuming the Council’s application for a Special Rate Variation(SRV) of 7.50% including rate pegging of 1.50% is approved by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART). If Council’s SRV is not approved, the Draft 2017/2018 Budget Result on a Consolidated (All Funds) basis still forecasts a surplus budget result with the details of that result being included below at Table 2.

Table 2 – Forecast Budget Result 2017/2018 Consolidated (All Funds)

Item	Amount $
Operating Result
Operating Revenue	74,318,500
Less: Operating Expenditure	74,770,100
Operating Result – Surplus/(Deficit)	(451,600)

Funding Result

Operating Result – Surplus/ (Deficit)	(451,600)
Add: Non cash expenses – Depreciation	13,175,500
Add: Capital Grants and Contributions	24,867,700
Add: Loan Funds Used	2,160,000
Add: Asset Sales	0
Less: Capital Works	(43,822,700)
Less: Loan Principal Repayments	(2,639,800)
Funding Result – Surplus/(Deficit) (Cash Movement)	(6,710,900)
Reserves Movement – Increase/(Decrease)	(6,760,900)
Overall Budget Result – Surplus/(Deficit) (Operating + Funding)	50,000

The impact of the SRV in gross terms if not approved alters the Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates on a Consolidated (All Funds) basis as outlined in Table 3:

Table 3 – Forecast SRV Impact on Budget Result 2017/2018 Consolidated (All Funds)

Item	Amount $
Operating Result
Operating Revenue	(1,185,000)
Less: Operating Expenditure	(103,500)
Operating Result – Surplus/(Deficit)	(1,081,500)

Funding Result

Operating Result – Surplus/ (Deficit)	(1,081,500)
Add: Non cash expenses – Depreciation	0
Add: Capital Grants and Contributions	0
Add: Loan Funds Used	0
Add: Asset Sales	0
Less: Capital Works	(862,400)
Less: Loan Principal Repayments	0
Funding Result – Surplus/(Deficit) (Cash Movement)	(219,100)
Reserves Movement – Increase/(Decrease)	(219,100)
Overall Budget Result – Surplus/(Deficit) (Operating + Funding)	0

As Table 3 indicates the additional revenue from the SRV if approved is estimated to be $1,185,000 which equates to 6.00% of the 7.50% overall SRV increase. As the 7.50% includes the announced 1.50% rate peg, if the SRV is not approved, it will be the 6.0% component or the estimated $1,185,000 in 2017/2018 that Council will not be able to raise.

The detailed Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates prepared on the assumption the SRV is approved are detailed at Attachment 1. The amount of SRV revenue is currently allocated to the following budget items listed in Table 4 below:

Table 4- Proposed SRV Allocation 2017/2018

Item	Total Budget $	SRV Funding $	Other Funding $
Operating Expenditure
Rural Drainage Maintenance	146,500	36,900	109,600
North – Urban Drainage Maintenance	136,400	21,100	115,300
South – Urban Drainage Maintenance	155,200	21,100	134,100
Byron Bay Pool Maintenance	40,900	12,200	28,700
Mullumbimby Pool Maintenance	40,800	12,200	28,600
Total Operating Expenditure	519,800	103,500	416,300

Item	Total Budget $	SRV Funding $	Other Funding $
Capital Expenditure
Broken Head Road	1,191,600	300,000	891,600
Station Street Bangalow	46,600	46,600	0
Pine Avenue Mullumbimby	610,000	75,500	534,500
The Terrace Brunswick Heads	379,400	379,400	0
Byron Bay Town Centre – Landscape/Precinct Plan	88,400	60,900	27,500
Total Capital Expenditure	2,316,000	862,400	1,453,600

Transfer to Reserve
Byron Bay Pool – Renewals to be determined	219,100	219.100	0
Total Transfer to Reserve	219,100	219,100	0

Total SRV	3,054,900	1,185,000	1,869,900

Should the SRV not be approved, then the budget items in Table 4 above will not proceed or will need the extent of works proposed revised to accommodate available funding.

Table 1 (with SRV) and Table 2 (without SRV) indicates a forecasted budget surplus result of $50,000 and this relates to the General Fund. The forecast General Fund Unrestricted Cash Balance position based on the draft budget included at Table 1 and 2 is outlined in Table 5 below:

Table 5 – Forecast General Fund Unrestricted Cash Balance

Item	$
Forecast unrestricted cash balance to 30 June 2017 at 31 December 2016 Budget Review	1,146,500
Add: Estimated initial draft 2017/2018 budget result	50,000
Forecast unrestricted cash balance at 30 June 2018	1,196,500

In addition to Tables 1 and 5 above, budgeted financial statements incorporating a Operating Statement and Cash Flow Statement have been produced. These financial statements replicating the format of Council’s Annual Financial Statements are included in Attachment 2 along with a one page summary of all Council budget program outcomes and the estimated balance of Council reserves as at 30 June 2018.

To arrive at the Draft Budget Results outlined in Table 1 (SRV option) for the 2017/2018 financial year, Council’s revenue and operational expenses are expected to be derived from the following sources and allocated respectively as outlined in the graphs below:

In addition to the operational aspects of the proposed Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates, Council is proposing a capital works program of $44.685million (SRV option). By Fund, the projected capital works are:

· General Fund $38.436million

· Water Fund $1.890million

· Sewerage Fund $4.358million

Specific capital works projects have been detailed in Attachment 1, which for 2017/2018 has been presented in a different format for the General Fund, to improve the disclosure of funding sources for specific projects including:

· Section 94 funding to describe the specific part of the Section 94 Plan and catchment that is providing the funding for a project.

· Where reserve funds are funding a project, identification of the reserve being utilised.

· Separation of funding provided by Special Rate Variations (SRVs) including previously granted SRVs prior to 2008/2009 (Council’s last approved SRV) and the proposed SRV for 2017/2018.

Of the $38.436million for capital works related to the General Fund, $34.777million is allocated towards Roads and Drainage projects including $19.812million allocated to the Byron Bay Bypass.

The Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates also propose new loan borrowings of $2.160million of a $6.000million borrowing program over the next three financial years to fund a bridge replacement program. These are the first new loan borrowings for Council in at least the last five years as Council has been concentrating of debt reduction. Whilst only $2.160million is required for 2017/2018, should Council approve the loan borrowings, it may be worth testing the market to consider the merits of borrowing the entire $6 million loan program up front, investing what is not required but considering interest rates on offer at the time borrowings may be sought.

Draft 2017-2018 Revenue Policy

The Draft 2017/2018 Revenue Policy has been prepared to support the funding requirements of the Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates.

The major components of the Draft 2017/2018 Revenue Policy are discussed in this report including:

· Draft General Land Rates and Charges

· Draft Fees and Charges

· Implementation of the Fire and Emergency Services Levy (FESL)

Draft General Land Rates and Charges

The Draft 2017/2018 Revenue Policy includes two rating structure tables with the only difference being the rating yields derived. As Council has applied for a Special Rates Variation (SRV), it must show a rating structure table with the SRV included and one without the SRV, on the basis that the SRV is not approved and only normal rate pegging is applied.

The Draft 2017/2018 Revenue Policy in regards to the Ordinary Rates section as been re-written to outline a proposed new rating structure for Council to consider. The rating structure outlined in Attachment 3 is based on outcomes from the following events:

· Council resolution 17-023 from the Ordinary Council Meeting held 2 February 2017.

· Presentation to the Finance Advisory Committee 16 February 2017

· Review by the Executive Team 1 March 2017

· Presentation to the Council Strategic Planning Workshop 9 March 2017

· Presentation to the Council Strategic Planning Workshop 6 April 2017 in conjunction with the Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates.

There were a number of alternate options provided but the option currently presented in the Draft 2017/2018 Revenue Policy is based on the following:

· Retention of the ad valorem rate subject to a minimum rate.

· Retention of existing rating categories.

· Abolition of the historical differentials where the ad valorem rate was established for Residential, then the ad valorem rate for Business was set at 150% of Residential, then the ad valorem rate for Business Byron Bay CBD set at 200% of Residential and the Farmland ad valorem rate was set at 73.73% of Residential.

· Application of new land values provided by the Valuer General for the 2017/2018 financial year to coincide with the introduction of the Fire and Emergency Services Levy (FESL) by the NSW Government.

· Application of the Special Rate Variation (SRV) of 7.50% if approved. On this basis the minimum rate will increase for 2017/2018 from $695.00 to $747.00 or $52.00.

· Redistribution of the rating yields between rating categories as outlined in Table 6 below compared to the rating yields from 2016/2017 which has reduced the rate yield from the Residential category but increased the rate yield to the Business and Farmland categories.

Table 6 – Proposed Rating Yield % by Rating Category

Rating Category	% Proposed Yield 2017/2018	Actual % Yield 2016/2017
Residential	74.00%	76.20%
Business – Other	12.50%	11.50%
Business – Byron Bay CBD	8.50%	7.90%
Farmland	5.00%	4.40%
Total	100.00%	100.00%

The current ratepayer population in Byron Shire Council is distributed amongst the following rating categories outlined in Table 7:

Table 7 – Ratepayer Population Distribution 2017/2018

Rating Category	Number of Ratepayer Assessments	Proportion of Ratepayer Population %
Residential	13,339	87.00%
Business – Other	1,098	7.20%
Business – Byron Bay CBD	349	2.30%
Farmland	542	3.50%
Total	15,328	100.00%

Given the distribution of the Ratepayer population, if Council alters the redistribution of the rating yield amongst the rating categories, a small decrease in the Residential rating category creates significant increases in the Business and Farmland rating categories.

A comparison of the proportion of the ratepayer population and proportion of rate yields contributed by each rating category is provided in the graph below:

If Council proceeds with the suggested rating option contained in the Draft 2017/2018 Revenue Policy, and assuming the SRV is approved, a series of tables has been prepared to compare current 2016/2017 ordinary rates payable and to show the ordinary rate price path over the four years of the proposed SRV by land value range and rating category as follows:

Table 8 – Residential Rating

Table 9 – Business – Other Rating

Table 10 – Business - Byron Bay CBD Rating

Table 11 – Farmland Rating

Please Note: *** The land values in tables 3 to 6 above are the new 2016 base date land value ranges to apply in the 2017/2018 financial year. To calculate the comparable 2016/2017 rates payable, these land values have been discounted by the increase in the actual 2016 base date land values by rating category to provide a more realistic and accurate comparison. The discount applied is Residential 9.7%, Business – Other 11.00%, Business – Byron Bay CBD 13.40% and Farmland 8.40%.

The outcome of the four tables immediately above (Tables 8 to 11) naturally will be different if the Special Rate Variation is not approved and Rate Pegging only is to apply but represent an indicative outcome if it is approved.

As the recommended rating structure for 2017/2018 will create a redistribution of the rating yield, especially to the Business category as a whole, which is now proposed to contribute 21.00% of Council’s rate yield overall compared to the 19.40% previously contributed. Council during the normal public exhibition period of the Draft 2017/2018 Operational Plan (including the Revenue Policy), will need to conduct additional consultation with the Byron Shire Business community to ensure they are informed of the proposed changes.

Given the proposed SRV, a review of waste, water and sewerage charges has been conducted and it is proposed for 2017/2018 not to increase these unit charges from those charged in 2016/2017. In respect of waste charges, these have been reviewed to the extent of proposed service types with the three bin service offered by Council. In addition, the stormwater charge has not increased given it is a regulated charge that has not changed over the last ten years.

Draft Fees and Charges

The Draft 2017/2018 Fees and Charges have been reviewed by respective program managers and included at Attachment 4. Where possible, fees have been altered/increased to reflect the following specific changes:

· Increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI)/Indexation assumed at 1.50%.

· Review of fees and charges including benchmarking/cost of service provision and where possible introduction of new fees to assist Council generate additional/enhanced revenue as themed by its Financial Sustainability Plan(FSP).

· The Office of Local Government is yet to determine the fee to apply for Section 603 Certificates or the Statutory Interest Rate to apply to overdue rates and charges. Once determination has been advised, it is proposed Council apply the maximum amounts advised in respect of both items.

· Fees currently disclosed for Richmond Tweed Regional Library are the current fees for 2016/2017. Council is yet to receive advice from Lismore City Council as to the fees to apply for 2017/2018.

For the 2017/2018 financial year, the Draft Fees and Charges have continued to be developed utilising fees and charges software to manage fees and charges that was implemented on 2016/2017 for the first time.

Fire and Emergency Services Levy (FESL)

All Councils in NSW for the first time will be required to levy the Fire and Emergency Services Levy (FESL) on all rateable property from 1 July 2017. The levy will be calculated on the basis of a rate applied to land value depending upon the FESL classification applied to each property.

It clearly needs to be understood, whilst the FESL will appear on the Rate Notice, it is not Council revenue but is revenue for NSW Treasury to assist in the funding of Emergency Services. This levy will replace the previous levy included in insurance premiums for those in the community who hold property insurance.

With respect to the FESL, Councils do not determine the fixed charges/ad valorem rates to apply and will remit all FESL revenue collected to the NSW Treasury. Councils are simply the collection agent on behalf of NSW Treasury. It is for this reason, whilst there is some disclosure in the Revenue Policy on the FESL, Council has not and will not provide the fixed charges/ad valorem rates to be charged. Council is also not required to approve the FESL charges.

Consultation

A presentation was provided to the Council Strategic Planning Workshop held on 6 April 2017 concerning the Draft 2017/2018 Revenue Policy subject of this report. A report is also being provided to the Finance Advisory Committee for consideration at its Meeting to be held on 13 April 2017 consistent with this report for review and consideration. Recommendations from the Finance Advisory Committee will be advised to Council by way of Memo prior to the 20 April 2017 Ordinary Council Meeting.

The Draft 2017-2018 Statement of Revenue Policy incorporating the Draft 2017-2018 Budget Estimates will be included in the Draft 2017-2021 Delivery Plan that incorporated to Draft 2017-2018 Operational Plan will be placed on public exhibition for a period of no less than 28 days seeking submissions from the community.

Financial Implications

The proposed Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates provided in this report indicate a projected budget surplus of $50,000. This projected surplus is the estimated outcome whether Council’s application for a Special Rate Variation (SRV) is approved by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) or not approved.

Detailed financial aspects of the Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates are outlined for Council to consider earlier in this report.

The Draft 2017/2018 Revenue Policy is an integral part to Council’s Operational Plan and provides the basis for Council to raise the required revenue to fund the estimated operating and capital expenditures contained in the proposed Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates.

There are direct financial implications to ratepayers of Council in regards to the proposed rates and charges contained in the Draft 2017/2018 Revenue Policy as it will determine, subject to final adoption after public exhibition and consideration of submissions, what ratepayers will be requested to pay when rate notices are issued in July 2017.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

In respect of the Draft 2017-2018 Operational Plan including the Statement of Revenue Policy, Council must comply with the provisions of Section 405 of the Local Government Act 1993 as described below concerning the adoption of an Operational Plan.

405 Operational plan

“(1) A council must have a plan (its operational plan) that is adopted before the beginning of each year and details the activities to be engaged in by the council during the year as part of the delivery program covering that year.

(2) An operational plan must include a statement of the council’s revenue policy for the year covered by the operational plan. The statement of revenue policy must include the statements and particulars required by the regulations.

(3) A council must prepare a draft operational plan and give public notice of the draft indicating that submissions may be made to the council at any time during the period (not less than 28 days) that the draft is to be on public exhibition. The council must publicly exhibit the draft operational plan in accordance with the notice.

(4) During the period of public exhibition, the council must have for inspection at its office (and at such other places as it may determine) a map that shows those parts of its area to which each category and sub-category of the ordinary rate and each special rate included in the draft operational plan applies.

(5) In deciding on the final operational plan to be adopted, a council must consider any submissions that have been made concerning the draft plan.

(6) The council must post a copy of its operational plan on the council’s website within 28 days after the plan is adopted.”

The specific statements required by Council to be disclosed as part of its Revenue Policy are determined by Clause 201 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 as follows:

201 Annual statement of council’s revenue policy

“(1) The statement of a council’s revenue policy for a year that is required to be included in an operational plan under section 405 of the Act must include the following statements:

(a) a statement containing a detailed estimate of the council’s income and expenditure,

(b) a statement with respect to each ordinary rate and each special rate proposed to be levied,

Note: The annual statement of revenue policy may include a note that the estimated yield from ordinary rates is subject to the specification of a percentage variation by the Minister if that variation has not been published in the Gazette when public notice of the annual statement of revenue policy is given.

(c) a statement with respect to each charge proposed to be levied,

(d) a statement of the types of fees proposed to be charged by the council and, if the fee concerned is a fee to which Division 3 of Part 10 of Chapter 15 of the Act applies, the amount of each such fee,

(e) a statement of the council’s proposed pricing methodology for determining the prices of goods and the approved fees under Division 2 of Part 10 of Chapter 15 of the Act for services provided by it, being an avoidable costs pricing methodology determined by the council in accordance with guidelines issued by the Director-General,

(f) a statement of the amounts of any proposed borrowings (other than internal borrowing), the sources from which they are proposed to be borrowed and the means by which they are proposed to be secured.

(2) The statement with respect to an ordinary or special rate proposed to be levied must include the following particulars:

(a) the ad valorem amount (the amount in the dollar) of the rate,

(b) whether the rate is to have a base amount and, if so:

(i) the amount in dollars of the base amount, and

(ii) the percentage, in conformity with section 500 of the Act, of the total amount payable by the levying of the rate, or, in the case of the rate, the rate for the category or sub-category concerned of the ordinary rate, that the levying of the base amount will produce,

(c) the estimated yield of the rate,

(d) in the case of a special rate-the purpose for which the rate is to be levied,

(e) the categories or sub-categories of land in respect of which the council proposes to levy the rate.

(3) The statement with respect to each charge proposed to be levied must include the following particulars:

(a) the amount or rate per unit of the charge,

(b) the differing amounts for the charge, if relevant,

(c) the minimum amount or amounts of the charge, if relevant,

(d) the estimated yield of the charge,

(e) in relation to an annual charge for the provision by the council of coastal protection services (if any)-a map or list (or both) of the parcels of rateable land that are to be subject to the charge.

(4) The statement of fees and the statement of the pricing methodology need not include information that could confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council. “

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.10

Report No. 13.10 PLANNING - Submissions Report - 26.2015.1.1 - Planning Proposal to permit a heliport and amend the minimum lot size at Tyagarah Airfield

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Rob Van Iersel, Consultant Planner

File No: I2017/322

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

This report presents the outcomes of the public exhibition of the planning proposal relating to the Tyagarah Airfield site. The proposal seeks to amend Byron Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 to permit a heliport at the site and to amend the minimum lots size applicable to the land.

The proposed amendment relates to eight Council-owned lots, located immediately north of the airfield runway. It relates only to the areas within the site that are zoned RU2 under Byron LEP 2014.

There are two areas that are Deferred Matters under the LEP. Those parts of the site are not included in the planning proposal.

The planning proposal is included as Attachment 1. It will amend Schedule 1 of the LEP to specify that development for the purposes of a heliport is permitted with development consent on the land.

It will also amend the Minimum Lot Size Map to establish a minimum lot size of 1,000m² for the land (currently 40ha). The reduction in minimum lot size will allow the subdivision of the land to rectify lots that were previously created for lease purposes but not registered, formalise the existing internal roadway, and create additional lots to utilise operational Council land to ensure that the airfield is economically sustainable.

The planning proposal received an initial Gateway determination from the Department of Planning and Environment on 24 March 2016. A revised Gateway was issued on 28 November 2016 following Council’s request for an extension of time in order for additional technical studies to be prepared in response to the submission from the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).

The planning proposal was placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days, from 5 May 2016 to 2 June 2016. Seven public submissions were received during the exhibition period (see Attachment 2), in addition to submissions from the Australian Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (Attachment 3), NSW Rural Fire Service (Attachment 4) and NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (Attachment 5). One further late public submission was received in February 2017, with a supplementary submission provided shortly after (included in Attachment 2).

Of the eight public submissions received (includes the late submission):

· one was in objection, suggesting that the use of the land as an airfield should be discontinued and the site used instead for “high technology industry”, and raising a number of other issues that are addressed in the body of this report;

· three submissions expressed support for the proposal; and

· four submissions were not directly relevant to the planning proposal, instead including:

- suggested improvements to existing facilities at the site;

- a desire by existing tenants to remain on-site;

- suggested opportunities to increase revenue; and

- concerns from the Cape Byron Pistol Club regarding potential impacts on their site (located outside of the planning proposal area) associated with ecological offset proposals.

NSW OEH raised a number of concerns in regard to the planning proposal, requesting further detail and assessment regarding cultural heritage issues; flooding and biodiversity.

A number of additional studies were prepared to address these concerns and, following review of that additional information, OEH advised that they have no remaining concerns regarding the planning proposal.

The remaining agency submissions raised no objections to the planning proposal.

This report recommends that Council proceed with the planning proposal.

The Minister for Planning and Environment has issued an authorisation for Council to exercise delegation to make this LEP amendment, should Council decide to proceed with it.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council

1. Forward the planning proposal to the NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office requesting that a draft LEP instrument be prepared.

2. Liaise with Parliamentary Counsel’s Office as necessary to finalise the content of the draft LEP and to enable the Office to issue an Opinion that the plan can be made.

3. Make the draft LEP under delegated authority and forward the plan to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for notification on the NSW Government legislation website.

Attachments:

1 Planning Proposal as Exhibited, E2016/27739 ⇨

2 Confidential - Public Submissions, E2017/17203

3 Submission - Commonwealth Dept of Infrastructure and Regional Development, E2017/17209 ⇨

4 Submission - NSW Rural Fire Service , E2016/82881 ⇨

5 Office Environment & Heritage - initial submission / comments, E2017/17198 ⇨

6 Office Environment & Heritage Final Response Tyagarah Airfield , E2017/16804 ⇨

7 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment LtdCHA_EV460_160914(2), E2016/84241 ⇨

8 Flood Study , E2017/9027 ⇨

Report

Background

The Airport Group (TAG) was engaged by Council in 2012 to undertake a future options report for the Tyagarah Airfield (resolution 01/12/2011).

The analysis completed by TAG made a number of recommendations as to how the Tyagarah Airfield could become financially sustainable to meet the objectives of Council’s Financial Sustainability Project Plan.

These included:

· Minor runway upgrade works;

· Ratification of occupancy agreements;

· Implementation of formal management processes; and

· Development of existing land.

This Planning Proposal is a result of the recommendation to develop the existing land.

At the Council meeting of 10 December 2015, Council considered a planning proposal relating to the Tyagarah Airfield site and resolved to send the planning proposal to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway Approval (15-659).

The proposal relates to land located on the eastern side of the Pacific Highway, north of Grays Lane at Tyagarah, which is accessed from Yarun Road. The site contains the following Council-owned operational properties.

Lot 2 DP 749851	1,460m²	Leased. Contains an existing industrial shed/ hangar
Lot 1 DP 713023	1.525ha	Subdivided for lease purposes under DP 805678 – see below:
Lot 4 DP 805678	5,136m²	Created for lease purposes. Leased to private individual. Contains the base and business premise of Skydive Byron Bay
Lot 5 DP 805678	1.011ha	Created for lease purposes. Currently vacant.
Lot 6 DP 836887	867.9m²	Leased. Contains two existing hangars
Lot 8 DP 856832	385.7m²	Leased. Contains an existing building owned by the Byron Lapidary Society
Lot 9 DP 856832	747.8m²	Leased. Contains an existing building servicing as administration for a joy flight operator
Lot 49 DP 881232	13.21ha	Residual of the Council-owned land. Contains the western end of runway and, in the north-eastern sector, the Tyagarah Public Hall and associated amenities building. The land leased and used by the Tyagarah Clay Shooting Club is partially on this land, and partially on the adjoining Crown Land (Lot 181). Part of the land is also leased to the Tyagarah Recreation and Flying Club as the site for their hanger.

The proposal relates only to the areas within the site that are zoned RU2 under Byron LEP 2014. There are two areas that are Deferred Matters under the LEP. Those parts of the site are not included in the planning proposal.

The proposal will amend Schedule 1 of the Byron LEP 2014 to specify that development for the purposes of a heliport is permitted with development consent on the land.

Consultation

In accordance with the requirements of the Gateway determination, the planning proposal was placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days, from 5 May 2016 to 2 June 2016. Seven public submissions were received during the exhibition period, in addition to submissions from the Australian Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, NSW Rural Fire Service and NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. One further late public submission was received in February 2017, with a supplementary submission provided shortly after.

The Gateway determination required Council to consult with:

· NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH);

· Department of the Commonwealth responsible for aerodromes and the lessee of the aerodrome;

· NSW Roads and Maritime Service (RMS); and

· NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS).

The submissions received from those agencies are included as Attachments 3, 4 and 5 and are summarised below (Note: RMS did not make a submission).

NSW Rural Fire Service:

The RFS raised no objection to the planning proposal, and provided the following comments:

· The proposed internal road, at subdivision stage, shall comply with the public road provisions of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006.

· Reticulated water supply to the development, at subdivision stage, shall comply with Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006.

· All buildings to be constructed on each proposed and existing allotments, shall have a minimum 15 metre separation distance from the property boundary adjoining the hazard.

· Each proposed lot shall be maintained as an ‘inner protection area’ as per Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006 and the NSW RFS document Standards for Asset Protection Zones.

Australian Government Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development:

The Department provided no comment on the intent and content of the proposal, noting that if, in the future, an application is made to establish a heliport at the site the Department would welcome the opportunity to comment.

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage:

Prior to finalising a submission, OEH advised that, while the addition of heliport to the Schedule of additional permitted uses was supported, they identified a number of issues requiring further consideration. They provided a number of recommendations, which are identified below, together with comments relating to how those recommendations were subsequently addressed.

1. Prepare an Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment in support of the planning proposal.

Council engaged Everick Heritage Consultants to undertake an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment for the project (see Attachment 6). That assessment was undertaken in conjunction with representatives of the Arakwal Aboriginal Corporation Byron Bay. It concluded that there are no culturally significant sites or areas affected by the proposal.

The Cultural Assessment Report was provided to OEH, who advised that they have no outstanding issues relating to the planning proposal.

2. Prepare an appropriate flood assessment in support of the planning proposal.

Council engaged BMT WBM to undertake the flood assessment for the project (see Attachment 7). That assessment involved the expansion of existing contemporary flood modelling to account for the site. In that modelling, the assessment conservatively assumed that the entire planning proposal site would be filled.

The modelling demonstrated negligible food increases external to the site, associated with the assumed filling.

The Flood Assessment was provided to OEH, who advised that they have no outstanding issues relating to the planning proposal.

3. Confirm the location and extent of proposed “new lots” and associated infrastructure to be enabled by the planning proposal to allow the OEH to accurately assess the potential extent of direct and indirect impacts on biodiversity arising from the proposed Minimum Lot Size Map and whether these lots and associated infrastructure extend into deferred areas. The Minimum Lot Size Map should align with the boundaries of the proposed subdivision area and avoid deferred areas and areas of high environmental value.

There was some confusion created by the inclusion (as appendices to the planning proposal) of various technical studies previously prepared to examine the subdivision potential of the land.

Further information was provided to OEH clarifying that a detailed subdivision proposal has not yet been developed, but that avoidance of areas of high environmental value would be a design criteria for any future development. The extent of the planning proposal site was also clarified, noting that deferred areas are not included within the proposal.

4. Confirm whether Endangered Ecological Communities are present in the planning area and their full extent by demonstrating due consideration of the edaphic features of the site in addition to the floristic characteristics present, including in areas identified as regrowth native vegetation.

Additional ecological information was provided as requested.

5. Assess the indirect impacts on biodiversity values of future land uses to be enabled by the planning proposal.

6. Confirm the full extent of requirements for Asset Protection Zones and consider these in assessing the planning proposal.

7. Confirm the planning proposal is consistent with the NSW Coastal Policy and apply appropriate zonings recognising the land’s inherent conservation values.

8. Confirm the planning proposal is consistent with the Far North Coast Regional Conservation Plan

Additional information was provided as requested in relation to these matters, and OEH have advised that they have no outstanding issues relating to the planning proposal.

Public Submissions

Seven public submissions were received during the exhibition period, with one further late public submission received in February 2017 (with a supplementary submission provided shortly after).

Of the eight public submissions received (includes the late submission):

· one was in objection, suggesting that the use of the land as an airfield should be discontinued and the site used instead for “high technology industry”; and raising a number of other issues that are addressed in the body of this report;

· three submissions expressed support for the proposal; and

· four submissions were not directly relevant to the planning proposal, instead including:

- suggested improvements to existing facilities at the site;

- a desire by existing tenants to remain on-site;

- suggested opportunities to increase revenue; and

- concerns from the Cape Byron Pistol Club regarding potential impacts on their site (located outside of the planning proposal area) associated with ecological offset proposals.

The following table summarises issues raised in the submissions, and provides staff comments for Council’s consideration.

Issues Raised	Staff Comment
Letter of Objection (late submission):
Cumulative environmental and social impacts of the compliance works necessary to bring the airstrip up to CASA standards have not been addressed	The planning proposal does not relate to any works proposed or required on the airstrip. It deals primarily with existing and proposed use of land directly adjoining the strip to the north.
A better alternative would be to maintain the planning proposal to reduce minimal lot size but to replace the use of “heliport permitted with consent” with “high technology industry permitted with consent”	Suggestion is noted. It would require a new planning proposal, a new Gateway determination and re-exhibition.
The Tyagarah Airfield Aviation Option Report prepared by The Airport Group – Australian Airports Association (2013), commissioned by Council, was not publicly released as part of the planning proposal.	That report was commissioned to provide internal advice to Council regarding the operation of the airfield. It was referred to in the planning proposal, to provide relevant background and context to the current proposal.
The Byron Shire Council Tyagarah airfield future strategic direction project was not made publicly available	The planning proposal is part of the project, but it is not considered to be relevant for the whole of that project to be publicly exhibited for the purposes of finalising this planning proposal.
No social impact assessment was completed regarding increased noise pollution as part of expanded or intensified airfield operations or possible new heliport operations	The planning proposal merely establishes a mechanism whereby a heliport and subdivision proposals could be considered at the site. Any future development proposals would be subject to a detailed merits assessment, which would include an examination of noise and other potential impacts. The amendment of the LEP, as proposed, provides no guarantees regarding the merit assessment, nor does it in any way suggest that such development would be approved in the absence of positive merit assessment outcomes. As such, it is considered that social assessment is not required at this planning proposal stage.
No report on existing noise and operational complaints relating to the Tyagarah airfield was prepared	See above. In relation to noise, the TAG Tyagarah Airfield Options Report (March, 2014) noted: “The airstrip and the approaches to the North east and South West ends of the runway are not close to any township. As such, noise abatement and mitigation is not an important operational consideration. It is understood that BSC has received some complaints on aircraft movements but due to limited movements and space population density, aircraft noise is considered minimal relative to background noise including traffic noise along the highway.”
No Tyagarah airfield operational plan or occupational health and safety plan has been prepared to accompany the proposal	Such plans are not considered necessary in relation to this planning proposal.
Notice should also have been issued to the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman and Air Services Australia for comment on the planning proposal	Consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Department of Planning and Environment’s Gateway Determination.
The additional use map for helicopter use does not need to cover the entire area of the planning proposal. It is inappropriate to do so and a heliport is not needed at Tyagarah airfield. Even the need for a helipad is questionable. All reference to a heliport should be removed from the planning proposal. If it is deemed that helicopter landing facilities are required, then references to “heliport” in the planning proposal should be replaced with “helipad”	The justification for, and location of, and heliport proposal will be assessed in a future development application, should one be lodged. Having the additional use map cover the whole of the planning proposal site provides flexibility. The relevant LEP definitions are: *helipad* means a place not open to the public used for the taking off and landing of helicopters. *heliport* means a place open to the public that is used for the taking off and landing of helicopters, whether or not it includes: (a) a terminal building, or (b) facilities for the parking, storage or repair of helicopters. The definition of helipad is much more limited in terms of potential future operations. It is considered that, subject to detailed assessment of any future development applications, a heliport could be a suitable use at this site.
The changed minimum lot size map is appropriate but the use of the land for retail or residential purposes should be further investigated. A way should be found to specifically NOT permit any ancillary use of the land for retail or residential uses until further studies on impacts are carried out.	The planning proposal does not alter the existing planning controls in relation to retail or residential uses.
Due to the existing social impact of the Tyagarah Airfield on a small percentage of the population in Tyagarah, Myocum and Brunswick Heads all residences should have received written notification of the planning proposal and been notified of the 28 day public exhibition period. No formal written notice was provided. The Byron Shire News published council notices but it is only delivered to less than half of the residences in this area. As a consequence, many community members who are directly impacted by Tyagarah Airfield missed out on any opportunity to publicly comment on the planning proposal.	The public exhibition was appropriate for the nature of the proposal. Any future application for a heliport would require notification and public exhibition.
The ecological assessment that was carried out as part of the Planning Proposal included the condition that the number of lots be significantly reduced but the planning proposal continues to recommend a 15 lot sub-division. This should be changed to reflect the conditions in the ecological assessment.	The ecological assessment was undertaken in relation to a proposed subdivision layout that is no longer relevant. The ecological report, and other technical reports, were included in the planning proposal to provide background overview of the site. The planning proposal does not recommend or promote any development layout. Any future development application for subdivision of the land will need to include a detailed and updated ecological assessment that demonstrates that the subdivision design is an appropriate response to the environment of the site.
I am requesting a Public Hearing be held on the Tyagarah Airfield Planning proposal despite the gateway determination not requiring one.	Section 57(5) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 provides that, in relation to a draft LEP, a person making a submission may request a public hearing into the matters raised. Council can arrange such a hearing if it considers that the issues raised in the submission are of such significance that they should be the subject of a hearing. In the circumstances of this planning proposal, it is considered that the submission does not raise issues of a significance to warrant a public hearing.
The submissions also included a number of detailed comments and objections relating to airfield operational matters and in relation to proposals for clearing / pruning works undertaken in relation to maintaining the Obstacle Limitation Surface around the airfield. These matters are not directly relevant to the planning proposal, which seeks only to allow ‘heliport’ as a permissible use (subject to consent) and to reduce the minimal lot size that could be applicable for the future subdivision of land.
Letters of support:
I recognise the economic, social and transport benefit that the airfield provides to the community and I also acknowledge the need for a commercial heliport in the region to accommodate the increasing helicopter traffic and usage in the area.	Noted.
As a long term lessee at Tyagarah Airfield, I support Council in this proposal. I feel the measures outlined, together with an equitable “users pays” system will go a long way to ensuring the future viability of the Tyagarah Airfield.	Noted.
As a flight instructor, business owner and lessee, I express strong support for the proposal	Noted.
Other letters:
New hangars should be built on higher ground, a safe distance from both sides of the airstrip. Suggestions relating to location of parking areas.	Noted.
Tyagarah Clay Target Club wishes to continue tenure over the lands currently used	Noted.
Detailed submission from Cape Byron Pistol Club, primarily relating to ecological issues, such as offset proposals that have potential to impact on the area leased by the Club.	The area leased by the Club is outside of the area covered by the planning proposal. The ecological offset proposals relate to Obstacle Limitation Surface works, which are not part of this planning proposal.
A number of opportunities suggested that have the potential to increase Council’s ability to increase revenue from the airfield.	Noted. Not directly relevant to the planning proposal.
Some inaccuracies identified in the leasing arrangements outlined in the planning proposal.	Noted.

Many of the issues and concerns raised relate to the specifics of potential future land use, particularly helicopter use, and potential ecological impacts associated with current and proposed vegetation management works (tree clearing and pruning to maintain the obstacle limitation surface adjoining the airstrip).

In relation to future uses, the planning proposal merely provides a mechanism whereby development for the purposes of a heliport and/or subdivision of the land can be considered. Development consent will be required for any such proposals and the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act will apply, requiring a detailed environmental assessment of any proposal.

The planning proposal does not provide any guarantee regarding the success of any such assessment.

Recommendation

It is recommended that Council proceed with the planning proposal (Attachment 1).

Financial Implications

As a Council initiated planning proposal, the administration cost has been met by Council.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Council has followed the appropriate statutory process to amend BLEP 2014 through this planning proposal.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.11

Report No. 13.11 PLANNING - 10.2016.273.1 Multi Dwelling development plus Strata Subdivision, 21 Ballina Road Bangalow

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Rob Van Iersel, Consultant Planner

Chris Larkin, Major Projects Planner

File No: I2017/359

Theme: Ecology

Development and Approvals

Proposal:

Proposal description:	Stage One: Two (2) Lot Subdivision; Stage Two: Construction of 20 Two Bedroom Dwelling Houses and Staged Strata Subdivision
Property description:	LOT: 3 DP: 1220608
Property description:	21 Ballina Road BANGALOW
Parcel No/s:	268262
Applicant:	Ardill Payne & Partners
Owner:	Ms G Hart-Hughes
Zoning:	R3 Medium Density Residential / PART DM Deferred Matter (1(a) General Rural under BLEP 1988)
Date received:	5 May 2016
Integrated Development:	Yes Controlled Activity under Water Management Act 2000; Bush Fire Safety Authority under Rural Fires Act 1997
Public notification or exhibition:	- Level 2 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications - Exhibition period: 19/05/16 TO 01/06/16 - Submissions received: 2 objections
Other approvals (S68/138):	Not applicable
Planning Review Committee:	Meeting 23/6/2016
Delegation to determination:	Council
Issues:	· SEPP No. 1 Objection – minimum lot size in 1(a) zone (residual lot) · Cl 4.6 variation – building height limit · Compliance with DCP provisions – minor encroachment into Building Height Plane

Summary:

The development application proposes a two lot subdivision, which will create a ‘development lot’ 6,000m² in area, to be developed by the staged construction (and staged strata subdivision) of five separate two-storey buildings, each containing four two-bedroom residential units (i.e. 20 units in total). A residual lot of 1.822 hectares will also be created with a dwelling entitlement.

The site is located at the end of Ballina Road, which was previously the Pacific Highway and now terminates in a cul-de-sac at the frontage to the site. The development site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential, and the proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives of this zone.

It is considered the development generally complies with the provisions of Byron LEP 2014 and Byron DCP 2014 for multi dwelling housing and subdivision. A minor breach of the 9 metre height limit is proposed in relation to a small section of Building 5, containing Units 17-20 by half a metre for a length of approximately 1.2m. The applicant has sought a variation to the height limit, and having regard to the topography of the land and the level of variation being sought, strict compliance with the development standard is not warranted in this instance.

In general the development will not generate adverse impacts on the surrounding built and natural environment, whilst the proposal is unlikely to create a dangerous precedent. The development will provide for an alternate form of accommodation not readily available in Bangalow which will suit those wishing to live in smaller housing within the town. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

RECOMMENDATION:

That, pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, development application 10.2016.273.1 for the subdivision of land and the construction of a multi-dwelling residential development (including staged strata subdivision), be granted approval subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 3 (#E2017/21284).

Attachments:

1 Proposed Plans Multi Dwelling development plus strata subdivision at 21 Ballina Road Bangalow , E2017/20985 ⇨

2 Proposed Engineering Plans subdivision 21 Ballina Road Bangalow prepared by Ardill Payne , E2017/22589 ⇨

3 Recommended Conditions of Consent, E2017/21284 ⇨

4 Confidential - Submission received DA 10.2016.273.1 17 Ballina Road Bangalow , E2017/20987

Assessment:

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 History/Background

The property is vacant and rural and residential land with no specific development history at present

1.2 Description of the proposed development

This application seeks approval for residential development to be carried out in stages:

1. The subdivision of the site to create two lots:

· proposed Lot 1, with an area of 6,000m², encompassing the majority of the area zoned R3 Medium Density Residential (at Ballina Road frontage); and

· proposed Lot 2, with an area of 1.882ha, being the residue of the existing site (containing a small area fronting Ballina Road within the R3 zone, and the remainder of the lot containing the deferred land, which is zoned 1(a) General Rural under BLEP 1988).

2. Construction and strata subdivision of a multi-dwelling development, containing 20 two-bedroom units in 5 separate double-storey buildings.

The construction and strata subdivision of the units is proposed to be under taken in stages, with the western-most building, containing units 1-4, to be constructed first. This building will be subdivided under the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015, and the staged strata subdivision will also create four additional ‘development lots’, to be developed in the following subsequent stages of building construction:

· Stage 2 – Building 2 containing Units 5-8;

· Stage 3 – Building 3 containing Units 9-12;

· Stage 4 – Building 4 containing Units 13-16; and

· Stage 5 – Building 5 containing Units 17-20.

Construction of the whole of the internal driveway and associated engineering and stormwater works will occur with the Stage 1 building construction.

Each of the five buildings has the same design and materials, constructed using a combination of fibre cement cladding, metal wall sheeting, rendered brickwork with a metal roof. Each building contains garages toward the street frontage, with the unit buildings behind stepping down the slope. A single garage is provided for each unit, with five open visitor spaces provided along the internal driveway.

One-way access is proposed, with an entry from Ballina Road on the western side and exit on the east. Given the slope of the land, the internal driveway is below street level. The units are similar in design and layout, containing two bedrooms toward the street frontage, with kitchen, dining and living areas toward the east. Balconies are included off all living areas with an area of 18m². The units each have a floor area of approximately 100m², proving a total Gross Floor Area of 2,000m²for the development.

1.3 Description of the site

Land is legally described as:	LOT: 3 DP: 1220608
Property address is:	21 Ballina Road BANGALOW
Land is Zoned:	R3 Medium Density Residential / PART DM Deferred Matter (1(a) General Rural under BLEP 1988)
Land area is:	2.482ha
Property is constrained by:	Bush fire prone land (vegetation buffer)
	Drinking water catchment
	Key fish habitat
	Regionally significant farmland

The site is located at the edge of the Bangalow Village, in an area characterised mainly by single dwellings. The site has an eastern frontage of 324m to the Hinterland Way and a south-western frontage of approximately 160m to Ballina Road (the old Pacific Highway) which terminates in a cul-de-sac at the southern end of the property.

The site is vacant, with some stands of vegetation, located primarily in the north of site and parts of the eastern and western boundaries. A small creek traverses the site, located behind the proposed building location. The site falls sharply from the Ballina Road frontage, where the elevation is at around RL 60m AHD. The low lying parts of the site, around the creek and in the northern section average around RL 50m AHD.

The Site (Source: Six Maps)

Site Locality (Source: Six Maps)

2. SUMMARY OF REFERRALS

Referral	Issue
Environmental Health Officer	No objections subject to conditions.
Development Engineer	A Strata Development Contract and associated Plan have been submitted for the proposal that links the approved development to the vacant strata lots created during subdivision process No objections subject to conditions.
S64 / Systems Planning Officer	No objections subject to conditions.
S94 / Contributions Officer	Contributions are payable. Condition recommended.
Rural Fire Service	Bush Fire safety Authority issued. Included in recommended conditions.
Department of Planning & Environment	Concurrence issued relating to SEPP No. 1 Objection (see explanation below).
Department of Primary Industries Water	General Terms of Approval issued for Controlled Activity Approval. Included in recommended conditions.

Issues:

Department of Primary Industries Water

The Department initially expressed concerns regarding the proximity of the buildings to an existing water course within the site. The applicants responded by amending the proposal to move two of the buildings forward on the site, to maximise the set back to the creek. In response to this amendment, the Department has now issued their General Terms of Approval, agreeing to the integrated development consent.

NSW Rural Fire Service

The property is on land that is identified as bushfire prone land. The development application was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service, whereby a Bush Fire Safety Authority was issued under Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997. The conditions contained in that Authority are included in the Recommendation of this Report below.

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

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

3.1 State Environmental Planning Instruments

	Satisfactory	Unsatisfactory
State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards	☒	☐
Consideration: Stage 1 of the development involves the subdivision of the existing Lot 3, to create Proposed Lot 1, being the majority of land zoned R3, to be developed in Stage 2 for the units, and a residue parcel, Proposed Lot 2. Lot 2 contains a potential dwelling site within the R3 zone, but the majority of the lot is zoned 1(a) General Rural under BLEP 1988. The minimum lot size for subdivision of land zoned 1(a) is 40ha. Proposed Lot 2 has an area of 1.882 ha. The applicants have submitted an objection under SEPP No 1, arguing that the need to adhere to the 40ha development standard is unreasonable in the subject case, based on the fact that the 1(a) zoned land is not fragmented by the proposed subdivision. The objection is well founded in this case and can be supported. The Department of Planning and Environment have issued concurrence to the approval of this objection.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 14—Coastal Wetlands	☒	☐
Consideration: There are no mapped SEPP 14 wetlands in this locality.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 26—Littoral Rainforests	☒	☐
Consideration: There are no mapped SEPP 26 Littoral Rainforests in this locality.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 44—Koala Habitat Protection	☒	☐
Consideration: The site has an area greater than 1ha. It does not, however, contain potential koala habitat.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land	☒	☐
Consideration: The potential for contamination was assessed as part of the previous rezoning of the site (2007), concluding that the land use history is such that there is no likelihood of soil contamination. No further assessment is necessary.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development	☒	☐
Consideration: The SEPP only applies to residential development containing 3 or more storeys. Not applicable in this case.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004	☒	☐
Consideration: ABSA certification has been provided.

3.2A Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP 2014)

Zone: R3 Medium Density Residential and part DM Deferred Matter (zoned 1(a) General Rural under Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988)

Definition: Multi dwelling housing means 3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, each with access at ground level, but does not include a residential flat building (which is defined as 3 or more dwellings within a single building).

Multi dwelling housing is a type of residential accommodation.

Permissibility: Subdivision is permissible pursuant to clause 2.6 of the LEP. Multi dwelling housing is permissible with consent in the R3 zone.

Schedule 3 of the LEP provides that strata subdivision is exempt development, but only where it proposes the subdivision of an existing lawfully erected building. The subject application proposes a staged strata subdivision, to create a number of ‘development lots’ so that the residential unit buildings can be constructed and sold in stages. As such, the staged strata subdivision requires development consent, and is permissible pursuant to cl. 2.6.

LEP - Summary of Requirement	Proposed	Complies
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 development provides for additional residential housing and is consistent with these zone objectives.	Yes
Clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size The minimum lot size for the R3 component of this site is 300m².	Proposed Lot 1 (which will be development for the residential units) has an area of 6,000m². The minimum lots size development standard does not apply to the strata subdivision component.	Yes
Clause 4.1E Minimum lots sizes for dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings Provides that multi dwelling housing cannot be approved in the R3 zone unless the lot has an area of at least 800m².	The multi dwelling housing will be constructed on proposed Lot 1, which has an area of 6,000m².	Yes
Clause 4.3 Height of buildings The Height of Buildings Map specifies a maximum height of 9m.	There is a section of the building containing Units 17-20 that exceeds the maximum height limit, with a maximum height of 9.5m over a section of roof for approximately 1.2m in length. The application includes a request, made pursuant to cl 4.6, to approve a variation to the 9m building height development standard. The variation request is addressed below.	No
Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio The Floor Space Ratio Map specifies a maximum of 0.6: 1 for this site.	The development site (proposed Lot 1) has an area of 6,000m². The total floor space of the units is approximately 2,000m² (see above) providing a maximum FSR of 0.3:1.	Yes
Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards This clause provides a degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards.	See assessment below. The requested variation is acceptable in the subject case. The concurrence of the Department of Planning and Environment can be assumed, because BLEP 2014 incorporates the Standard Template clause for this purpose.
Clause 6.2 Earthworks The intent of this clause is to minimise the environmental impacts associated with earthworks.	Some cut and fill is required to set the internal driveway and buildings into the sloping site. The concept design provided is based on minimising cuts required for the access and internal driveway, with garage levels and building floor levels dependant on the driveway level. The driveway requires minor cut at its western end and minor filling at the east. Overall, it is apparent that the design has minimised the earthworks required, and that these works will not result in adverse environmental impacts.	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.	Previous flood modelling in the Bangalow locality suggest a 1 in 100 year flood level of RL 47.85m AHD. Given that a low lying watercourse traverses the site, it is apparent that the low lying areas of the site will experience some local flooding. The proposed buildings have a minimum floor level at around RL 54m AHD, so will not be impacted by flooding. Being above the flood level, the development will also not effect flood behaviour within or outside the site.	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. As originally lodged, the proposed development raised issues relating to effective stormwater management. The applicants were requested to revise aspects of the design to correct these issues and, as currently proposed, the development is satisfactory in relation to stormwater management.	Yes
6.7 Affordable housing in residential and business zones In approving development for residential accommodation in the R3 zone, Council must consider the need for providing affordable housing.	While the application has not been made pursuant to the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing), in providing 20 two-bedroom apartments, the development will provide housing that is affordable in the Bangalow context. The majority of housing stock in Bangalow consists of single dwellings on larger lots. There are very few units available in the village, and these units will therefore provide additional housing options for moderate income families.	Yes

Clause 4.6 – Variation to development standard: maximum building height

The Applicant has submitted a clause 4.6 variation request, which is considered with reference to relevant matters as follows:

1. Introduction – Summary of proposed development

The development application proposes the construction of multi dwelling in the form of 5 buildings, each containing 4 two-bedroom units, providing a total of 20 units.

2. Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards

Clause 4.6 of Byron LEP 2014 provides that development consent may be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by the LEP.

It specifies, however, that consent must not be granted unless Council has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

These matters are assessed below in item 7.

3. The Development Standard to be varied

The development standard to be varied is contained in clause 4.3 of LEP 2014. In this case, the Height of Buildings map specifies a maximum height of 9m.

4. Extent of Variation to the Development Standard

The architects’ plans show that the building containing Units 17-20 (the eastern most building) has a maximum height of 9.5m. The 9m development standard is breached for a distance of approximately 1.2m of the roof line.

5. Objective of the Development Standard

The objectives of the development standard are:

(a) to achieve building design that does not exceed a specified maximum height from its existing ground level to finished roof or parapet,

(b) to ensure the height of buildings complements the streetscape and character of the area in which the buildings are located,

(c) to minimise visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to existing development.

6. Objectives of the Zone

The objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential Zone are:

· 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.

7. Assessment – the specific questions to be addressed:

(a) Clause 4.6(3)(a) – Is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

Non-compliance with the standard arises, in this case, primarily due to the topography of the site, which slopes relatively steeply down from the road frontage, and also falls slightly across the site, from west to east. The floor level of each of the five unit buildings is linked to the internal driveway level and the floor level of the garages. BCA access requirements limit the grade allowable from garage level to the adjoining floor level.

In the eastern end of the site, because of existing topography, the internal access (and garage level) is approximately 1-1.5m above ground level. This is necessary to achieve the appropriate access grade and to minimise the need to cut the driveway at the western end.

Because the garage is set above the natural ground level, the associated building also needs to be set above natural ground (to achieve the required access grades). Given the slope down the hill and across the property, the NW corner of the building ends up at a maximum height of 9.5m for a short distance. Reducing this corner to comply with the development standard would require lowering the whole of the development, which would result in the need to cut into the hill for the western end of the driveway, which would require further substantial earthworks to get the driveway from the adjoining road level into the site.

The overall impacts of that would be greater than the potential impacts associated with the small extent of non-compliance with the height limit.

Given that this section of the building overlooks the vacant residue lot, which has an entitlement for a single dwelling, it is considered that the height does not result in impacts on adjoining land.

Overall, in the circumstances, compliance with the development standard is unreasonable.

(b) Clause 4.6(3)(b) – Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

See above. Given the zoning of the site and the location of the non-compliance within the site, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to support the variation required.

(c) Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) – Is the proposed development in the public interest? Is it consistent with the objectives of the standard and the zone as set out above?

The development is consistent with the R3 Medium Density zone objectives. It is also consistent with the objectives of the building height standard, in that the majority of the buildings are well below the 9m maximum and the small area of breach is located at the point furthest away from existing development. There are also no lots located further to the east, which could be impacted by the height.

The proposed development would produce a better planning outcome than one that strictly complies with the development standard because requiring strict compliance would result in a need for more earthworks across most of the development site.

3.2B Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988 (LEP 1988)

The majority of Proposed Lot 2 is zoned 1(a) Rural under the BLEP 1988. The creation of this lot will not fragment the area zoned 1(a); the entirety of that area remains unchanged within this residue lot (which also has a small area adjacent to proposed Lot 1 which is zoned R3 under BLEP 2014).

LEP - Summary of Requirement	Proposed	Complies
Objectives of the 1(a) General Rural Zone • to encourage and permit a range of uses creating a pattern of settlement, at a scale and character that maintains or enhances the natural, economic, cultural, social and scenic amenity of the rural environment of the Shire of Byron, • to encourage and permit a pattern of settlement which does not adversely affect the quality of life of residents and visitors and maintains the rural character, • to ensure development only occurs on land which is suitable for and economically capable of that development and so as not to create conflicting uses, • to allow the use of land within the zone for agricultural purposes and for a range of other appropriate purposes whilst avoiding conflict between other uses and intensive agriculture, • to identify lands (shown hatched on the map) which in the opinion of the council possess a limited capability for more intensive uses or development, • to restrict the establishment of inappropriate traffic generating uses along main road frontages other than in road side service areas, • to ensure sound management of land which has an extractive or mining industry potential and to ensure that development does not adversely affect the potential of any existing or future extractive industry, • to enable the provision of rural tourist accommodation and facilities only where such facilities are compatible with the form and density of the nature of the locality, and • to permit the development of limited light industries which do not pose any adverse environmental impact, (eg software manufacture and film processing), and • to ensure that the development and use of land shown cross-hatched on the map adjacent to areas of significant vegetation and wildlife habitat do not result in any degradation of that significant vegetation and wildlife habitat, and that any development conserves and protects and enhances the value of the fauna and flora.	The proposed development creates a lot which contains the area zoned 1(a) General Rural, but no development is proposed within that area. The lot created will have a dwelling entitlement, but there is an area zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under BLEP 2014 which is more likely to contain a future dwelling. The proposal raises no issues which are inconsistent with the zone objectives.	Yes
Clause 10 Subdivision generally Specifies that consent is required for the subdivision of land		Yes
Clause 11 Subdivision in rural areas for agriculture etc. This clause specifies a minimum lot size of 40ha for land zoned 1(a) General Rural.	Proposed lot 2, which contains the 1(a) zoned land, does not have an area of 40ha. The applicants have provided an objection under SEPP No. 1 (discussed above) in relation to this standard. The objection is considered to be well founded in this case as the proposed subdivision does not fragment the existing area of 1(a) or create any additional entitlement within that zone.	No
Clause 24 Development of flood liable land Council must be satisfied that development will not restrict the flow of flood water or increase the level of flooding outside the site.	The 1(a) zoned land contains an existing creek and the areas immediately around this creek are flood liable. There is no physical development in this flood liable area, so the development is acceptable in regard to the requirements of this clause.	Yes

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

There are no applicable draft planning instruments.

3.4A 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.	Reticulated water supply is available to the site and can be provided and/or upgraded as required to service the proposed development.	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
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.	Stormwater Management Plan was provided to support the application.	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.	Access is provided from Ballina Road by way of a one-way driveway entering from the western side of proposed Lot 1 (unit site) and exiting at the eastern end. Access is also available to the residual lot (proposed Lot 2) by a separate driveway off Bangalow Road, immediately east of the proposed unit exit driveway. Concepts have been provided to demonstrate these access works can be designed and constructed in accordance with relevant standards.	Yes
Chapter B4 Traffic Planning, Vehicle Parking, Circulation and Access
*B4.2.1 Traffic Impact* Development likely to result in moderate to high traffic impacts (10-15+ peak hour trips) is required to be supported by a Traffic Impact Statement	A Traffic Impact Statement has been submitted. It identifies that the development is likely to generate in the order of 8-10 peak hour trips. The property is located at the eastern end of Ballina Road, which terminates at the SE boundary of the land. This was previously the Pacific Highway and contains a two-way bitumen sealed road. Ballina Road intersects with Byron Street at an intersection containing dedicated turning lanes. The Statement concludes that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of traffic generation and potential impacts.	Yes
B4.2.3 Vehicle Access and manoeuvring areas Driveways and manoeuvring areas are to be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the current editions of Australian Standard 2890 and the Northern Rivers Local Government Development & Design Manual.	Sufficient information has been provided demonstrating that access can be provided to both lots and all buildings in accordance with these requirements.	Yes
B4.2.5 Car parking requirements In relation to medium density residential development, the DCP requires: · 1 space per 1 or 2 bedroom unit; · 1 visitor space per 4 units (or part thereof); Each dwelling is to have at least 1 covered space.	The proposed development includes: · 20 two-bedroom units @ 1 space = 20 spaces; and · 1 visitor space per 4 units = 5 spaces. A total of 25 spaces are provided, with 20 provided in garages (one for each unit) and 5 open spaces in the access driveway.	Yes
Chapter B9 Landscaping
B9.4 Multi dwelling housing, residential flat buildings and attached dwellings
B9.4.1 Landscape Principles The following design requirements apply to multi dwelling housing, attached dwellings and residential flat buildings developments: · retention of suitable existing vegetation; · screen planting to street frontages and driveway areas, to provide privacy between dwelling houses and around the boundaries of the site; · provision of pleasant landscaped settings for the enjoyment of residents; · planting selection that relates to building scale and mass.	The proposed development requires the removal of a single Camphor laurel tree. There is no other significant vegetation within the development footprint. Landscaping is proposed along the street frontage side of the internal driveway, but the grades here, with the driveway well below the level of the street, are such that this planting will not provide an effective screen. A condition is recommended requiring screen planting within the verge of the Ballina Road reserve.	Yes
The common landscaped area must be at least 90m² per unit (large units). A minimum of 75% of the total common landscaped area of the site must consist of deep soil areas. Areas of landscaping over underground car parks, and the like, cannot be included in the calculation of deep soil areas.	There is sufficient area available within Proposed Lot 1 to meet this requirement. A detailed landscape plan will be required at Construction Certificate stage to demonstrate where this common landscaped area will be provided.	Yes
Chapter B13 Access and Mobility
B13.2.2 Multi dwelling housing, attached dwellings, residential flat buildings, shop to housing and serviced apartments Design and Access in accordance with AS1428.1 – Design for Access and Mobility –General Requirements for Access – New Buildings (for class 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 buildings) and AS 4299 -Adaptable Housing must be provided to and within a minimum of 10% of units.	Proposed Units 1 & 2 have been designed in accordance with these requirements.	Yes
Chapter D1 Residential Accommodation in Urban, Village and Special Purpose Zones
D1.2 General Provisions
D1.2.1 Building Height Plane The building height plane in combination with boundary setbacks prescribed in this DCP, and building height prescribed in the Byron LEP 2014, form the maximum building envelope for all residential development	The proposal involves minor encroachments into the Building Height Plane, which are identified and assessed below. As outlined below, the encroachments do not result in overshadowing or privacy issues and can therefore be supported.	No – but variation supported
D1.2.2 Setbacks Street frontage – 4.5m Side & Rear – 1.5m (& BHP) Between buildings – 3m	Proposed: Street frontage: min. approx. 9m Sides: min. approx 3.4m Between buildings: 3.1m	Yes
D1.6 Multi dwelling housing, residential flat buildings and attached dwellings
D1.6.1 Private open space courtyards Each dwelling must have access to an individual courtyard at ground level having a minimum area of 30m² and a minimum length and width each of 4 metres, not including any area used exclusively for the circulation or parking of vehicles. The courtyard must be designed to facilitate access to winter sunshine and must be landscaped to Council’s satisfaction.	Each ground floor dwelling has access to yard space meeting these requirements. Upper floor dwellings are provided with balconies (see below).	No – but open space balconies provided (see D1.6.2)
D1.6.2 Open space balcony Where dwellings are situated or have access entirely above the ground level of the development, Council may consent to the provision of private open space by means of a balcony which is of sufficient size and which is located so as to provide a usable private outdoor area to Council’s satisfaction. A private open space balcony must have a minimum area of 15m²and a minimum length and width of 2.4 metres. A private open space balcony must be demonstrated to have appropriate orientation and adequate provision for winter sun and summer shade	The proposed upper floor units all include balconies that meet the requirements.	Yes
D1.6.5 Sound proofing Division walls between dwellings must be of sound-resisting construction to Council's satisfaction. The floors in single storey multi-dwelling housing, residential flat buildings and attached dwellings must be so constructed or treated as to minimise the conduct of sound between dwellings.	The proposed development can comply. Relevant BCA provisions will apply.	Yes
D1.6.6 Clothes drying facilities The minimum provision of clothes drying facilities must be at the rate of 7.5 metres of line per dwelling, located in suitably screened external drying areas.	Drying areas/ decks are provided for each unit.	Yes
Chapter E2 – Bangalow
*E2.1.2 Objectives of this Chapter* 1. To facilitate and provide guidelines for the development of the Bangalow Urban Area consistent with the provisions of Byron LEP 2014 and other relevant Chapters of this DCP. 2. To maintain and enhance the unique character and amenity of Bangalow as a rural township with strong historical linkages and heritage values; and to encourage new development to complement that special character to support and strengthen the historical context, heritage values, living amenity and tourist potential of the town. 3. To provide for a variety of residential development forms and densities, including innovative multi dwelling housing and other medium density forms which best utilise the town’s topography and maximises the use of services. 4. To establish specific guidelines for the conservation of places and buildings identified as historically significant with criteria for extensions, alterations and infill development sympathetic to the important buildings in terms of design, scale, detailing, materials, colours, etc. 5. To provide for an upgraded network of public open space, integrated with pedestrian access, cycleway and recreation facilities to meet public open space and recreation needs as the town expands. 6. To preserve areas of significant habitat and vegetation value, to promote their active regeneration and to protect them from the impacts of development and domestic animals. 7. To allow for the provision and upgrading of community facilities to meet needs as growth occurs.	The proposed development is generally consistent with these aims. It will provide for a variety of housing, in a medium density form. There is little existing medium density in the Village, so the development provides complimentary housing options.	Yes
*E2.2.1 Character, Bulk and Scale of Development* Proposed development must respect and complement this historical and architectural significance in its setting. Development applications must demonstrate that: a) The character, bulk, scale, density and landscape treatment of proposed development will be compatible with and will enhance the low rise, historical character and scale of Bangalow, its built environment and its surrounds, including the characteristics (a) to (e) inclusive in Section E2.1.3 above. b) Building materials, textures, finishes and colours will be compatible with and will enhance the low rise, historical character and scale of Bangalow, its built environment and its surrounds, including the characteristics discussed above where relevant. Reflective colours or surfaces are to be avoided unless required for heritage reasons. c) Where applicable the proposed development is consistent with the requirements of Chapter C1 Non-Indigenous Heritage.	The subject site is one of only two sites zoned for medium density development in Bangalow. It is expected therefore, that the development on this site would be of a greater density than the remainder of the village. The existing residential stock within the village is generally characterised by single timber dwellings. The design of the proposed units does not reflect that existing character, with five two-storey buildings that are virtually identical. The materials are more in keeping with the existing character, using fibre cement sheeting and colourbond roofing. The topography of the site helps to mask the bulk of the buildings, in that they are sited well below the level of the adjoining street. The location at the end of this street also assists. Overall, it is considered that the design of the development is acceptable in its context.	Yes
*E2.4 Development outside the Conservation Area*
*E2.4.3 New Urban Areas* New development must complement the bulk, scale and character of development in the existing town to assist compatibility between new and old development in terms of streetscape, landscaping, building materials, colour, roof pitch and materials	Discussed above.	Yes
*E2.5 Bangalow Urban release Areas*	The site is nominated as Urban Release Area 4 (South).
*E2.5.3 Desired Future Character* Street Design: Not relevant to this area Natural Environment: Remnant bushland, wetland and riparian vegetation are to be retained where possible and enhanced as significant natural features within the land. Water Sensitive Urban Design: Stormwater management including at-source treatments. Pedestrian and Cycle Linkages: Not relevant to this area Solar Access: Dwellings should be sited to maximise solar access.	The riparian area associated with the small creek that flows through the site will be enhanced in accordance with a vegetation management plan required by the Controlled Activity approval (Water Management Act). Stormwater management measures have been assessed and are acceptable. The units are appropriately orientated to maximise solar access.	Yes
*E2.5.6 Buffers and Environmental Corridors* A riparian corridor must be rehabilitated adjacent to the new residential areas.	See above	Yes

Building Height Plane encroachments:

1. The western elevation of Building 1 (Units 1-4):

The encroachment involves a small section of the roof edge.

This building adjoins an existing residential lot, containing a single dwelling. The area of encroachment is located slightly downslope of the rear of the adjoining dwelling, which is to the west. The encroachment is not likely to result in overshadowing or privacy impacts for the adjoining dwelling.

2. The eastern elevation of Building 5 (Units 17-20):

The encroachment involves the upper floor balcony (Unit 20).

This encroachment is associated with the Stage 1 (internal) subdivision boundary between proposed Lots 1 and 2. There is no dwelling on proposed Lot 2.

The Building Height Plane encroachments are quite minor, resulting from the topography of the site. They do not result in overshadowing or privacy impacts for neighbouring lots and can therefore be supported.

3.4B Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2010 (DCP 2010)

DCP 2010 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 its purpose is to provide planning strategies and controls for various types of development permissible in accordance with LEP 1988.

There is no physical development proposed within the 1(a) zoned land, and therefore there are no relevant provisions of DCP 2010.

3.5 Any Planning Agreement or Draft Planning Agreement?

	Yes	No
Is there any applicable planning agreement or draft planning agreement?	☐	☒

3.6 Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 Considerations

The proposal raises no issues for consideration in terms of Clauses 92, 93, 94 and 94A of the Regulations.

3.7 Any coastal zone management plan?

The site is not in the coastal zone and no CZMP applies.

3.8 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	The proposal will not have a significantly adverse impact on the natural environment of the locality.
Built environment	The proposal will not have a significantly adverse impact on the built environment of the locality.
Social Environment	The proposal will not have a significant social impact on the locality.
Economic impact	The proposal will not have a significant economic impact on the locality.

Minor impacts are anticipated during the construction phase. Appropriate conditions of consent are recommended in relation to hours of work, construction noise, builders waste and the like to manage such impacts

3.9 The suitability of the site for the development

The site is one of only two areas of R3 Medium Density Zoning in Bangalow, with the other also located along Ballina Road. The site is a cleared, serviced, urban lot on the edge of the existing village. Given the location and the slope of the lot down from the road frontage, medium density development is somewhat ‘hidden’ from view.

The development is consistent with the planning intent of the land and the site is suitable for the development as proposed.

3.10 Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

The development application was publicly exhibited. There were 2 submissions made on the development application, objecting to the proposed development. The issues raised in objection are addressed below:

*Issue*	*Comment*
The development is out of character with the surrounding residences which are of workers cottage or ‘Queenslander’ styles. Some of heritage value that date back to the early 1900s.	The proposed units are quite different in design from the single dwellings located in the area. The site, however, is zoned differently to the adjoining land, with an R3 Medium Density Residential zone as opposed to an R2 Low Density residential Zone. It is considered that the density and character of the development is consistent with the planning intent of the R3 zone.
Twenty apartments on such a small block is unprecedented in Bangalow and is certainly not in keeping with the semi-rural nature of Ballina Road.	See above. The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential. The development is consistent with the planning controls applicable to this zone.
The aesthetic nature of the proposed buildings is on no way sympathetic to the style of architecture commonly seen in the rest of the street, or the town of Bangalow for that matter.	The buildings are of a more conventional medium density design, and not reflective of the ‘Queenslander’ style that is prevalent in Bangalow. The Queenslander style, however, is specific to low density, predominantly single-dwelling, residential development and does not translate well to a multi-dwelling form. The matter was raised with the applicant who provided a evidence of contemporary residential design existing throughout Bangalow, particularly in more recent subdivision areas near the subject site. Having regards to the location of the site on the southern periphery of the Bangalow, the design of the development set well below street level reducing the impact of the bulk of the proposed buildings, and in the absence of any clear development guidelines to direct applicants to construct Queenslander style housing, this is not a reason for refusal.
Concern regarding impacts on the water course	Conventional construction management techniques will be able to effectively manage protection of the creek. The General terms of Approval associated with the Department of Primary Industry Water’s Controlled Activity approval also require rehabilitation and vegetation management plans that will further protect the water course.
Flooding – concerns that development will exacerbate flooding of downstream properties	Flood modelling undertaken in this area indicates that the 1 in 100year flood level is approximately at the location of the water course on the land. The buildings are all set above this level and will therefore have no impact on downstream flooding.

3.11 Public interest

The proposed development will provide for a form of medium density housing which is not readily available in Bangalow. It is likely such housing will be utilised by smaller households such as couples, young families and others wishing to downsize. It is considered the development is unlikely to prejudice or compromise the public interest or create a dangerous precedent.

3.12 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 no tree clearing is required.

3.13 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.

4. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

4.1 Water & Sewer Levies

Water & Sewer levies are payable.

4.2 Section 94 Contributions

Developer contributions are payable.

5. CONCLUSION

It is concluded the development will not generate impacts on the surrounding built and natural environment, whilst the proposal is unlikely to create a dangerous precedent. The development will provide for an alternate form of accommodation not readily available in Bangalow which will suit those wishing to live in smaller housing within the town. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent

6. RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that, pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, development application 10.2016.273.1 for Stage One: Two (2) Lot Subdivision; and Stage Two: Construction of 20 Two Bedroom Dwelling Houses and Strata Subdivision, be granted consent subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 3(#E2017/21284).

7. DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL DONATIONS AND GIFTS

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

Provide Disclosure Statement register details here: Not applicable

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 13.14

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services

Report No. 13.14 Erosion at Clarkes Beach, Byron Bay

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: James Flockton, Drain and Flood Engineer

Chloe Dowsett, Coastal and Estuary Officer

File No: I2017/411

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting held 23 March 2017 it was resolved that a report be provided to the next Council meeting outlining the issues contributing to “erosion taking place through the tertiary coastal dune” at the far end of Clarkes Beach near the Holiday Park.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council note the report outlining the issues contributing to the erosion at Clarkes Beach, Byron Bay.

Background

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting held 23 March 2017 it was resolved:

17-095 Resolved that Council:

1. Prepare a report for Council's meeting on the 20th of April outlining the issues that are contributing to the massive erosion taking place through the tertiary coastal dune and caused by a stormwater outlet which is discharging from a height of approximately 5m above Main Beach at the far end of Clarke's Beach Caravan Park, also exposing ancient Aboriginal middens.

2. Establish whether Council consulted or gave any opinion or approval on the design of the stormwater outlet.

3. Take urgent action to reduce its contributions to erosion at the stormwater outlet and work with other stakeholders, encouraging them to do the same while an alternative outlet arrangement is established and implemented.

4. Ascertain its responsibilities in relation to the stormwater outlet and determine whether it meets best practice guidelines or method for this sensitive, much loved, public and controversial coastal environment.

5. Receive a report at its Ordinary Meeting in May outlining what corrective actions were agreed to for the eastern stormwater outlet (to protect the midden currently being exposed) and when they will be carried out.

Report

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an outline of the issues contributing to the large-scale shoreline erosion of tertiary dunes at Clarkes Beach and localised erosion in the vicinity of the Clarkes Beach Holiday Park eastern stormwater outlet currently threatening an Aboriginal midden.

The beach erosion that has occurred (and is occurring) along Clarkes Beach particularly in the vicinity of the Clarkes Beach Holiday Park is caused by the macro-effects of the northward movement (or lack) of sand along the east coast. The eastern stormwater outlet at the Clarkes Beach Holiday Park is causing localised erosion effects only.

Council has been liaising with technical staff from the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and has received professional advice from the Senior Coastal and Estuary Officer (OEH) that the eastern stormwater outlet is creating localised erosion only, and that erosion of the seaward toe of the tertiary dune is by wave action.

It is the erosion of the seaward toe of the dune that is threatening an Aboriginal midden, however, stormwater flows from Lighthouse Road and the Holiday Park are also contributing to the loss of the midden.

Erosion of the seaward toe of the dune by wave action is a natural process and an issue quite unrelated to the stormwater outlet issue. This is also stated in a Technical Report prepared by Coastal Zone Management and Planning (Angus Gordon, previous NSW Coastal Panel member). This Technical Report, “Stormwater Management and Gully Rehabilitation Clarkes Beach, Byron Bay’ (Report No 2016/4 prepared September 2016) provides a peer review of an engineering and site rehabilitation report prepared for NSW Crown Holiday Parks Trust (NSWCHPT) titled “Concept Design Options for Stormwater management and Site Rehabilitation Clarkes Beach Reserve” (Ardill Payne and Partners, June 2016).

Excerpts from the Angus Gordon report “Stormwater Management and Gully Rehabilitation Clarkes Beach, Byron Bay’ (Report No 2016/4 prepared September 2016) state:

“The report (Concept Design Options for Stormwater management and Site Rehabilitation Clarkes Beach Reserve) presents the predicted coastal erosion hazard for the Holiday Park as contained in the Water Research Laboratory Report (Coastal Hazard management Study, Byron Bay Embayment, Carley et al, 2016). Figure 2 of this report shows that the midden on the eastern side of the erosion gully is under threat from the “Immediate erosion hazard” due to natural processes. Further, it also shows that much of the gully will be impacted by the projected 2050 recession of the coastal shoreline. In addition, by 2100 the gully will potentially have been totally eliminated. These findings are in keeping with the results of earlier studies (Gordon et al, 1978 and WBM, 2000)”.

“While there is some indurated sand/rock material that may slow the shoreline recession rate, the available evidence is that the midden will be lost in the short to medium term and will suffer progressive degradation in the shorter term, as is currently happening. This is due to the projected natural ambulation of the coastal shoreline, not erosion from the gully. The current erosion escarpment at the back of the beach along the length of the holiday park is testament to this natural recessional trend in this area of the embayment”.

Council has received professional advice from OEH that the Byron Bay Embayment is presently starved of sand, especially in the southern area of Clarkes Beach due to the limited sand bypassing of Cape Byron. Coastal processes at the moment are not conducive to the accretion of beaches as there has been an insignificant southerly swell regime for the past 1- 2 years which is the primary factor for movement of sand by longshore drift. The area also received a large north-easterly swell last year in June 2016.

In parallel with present reduced longshore sand transport (and as stated in the report excerpts above), the Byron Bay Embayment is undergoing a long term trend of shoreline recession which is significantly higher in embayments north of controlling headlands, such as Clarkes Beach (Byron Shire Coastline Hazards Assessment Update, BMT WBM report prepared for Byron Shire Council, September 2013).

NSWCHPT have completed various upgrades to the park, including road, stormwater drains and structures in the eroded gully. Council and NPWS have also undertaken upgrade works in the Captain Cooks carpark that has increased the pavement area contributing to runoff. These works may or may not have increased the erosion in the gully. This is hard to quantify or prove either way, therefore, it is not proposed to investigate it further. However, it is noted that Council staff are not aware of Council ever being consulted about the NSWCHPT works.

There are no typical best practice guidelines for resolving issues such as these. There a various hard and natural engineering solutions for gully and beach erosion around stormwater outlets and all have good and bad features. Council staff will be working with NSWCHPT, NPWS and Consultant Ardill Payne and Partners to prepare the most efficient engineering design available that maintains the beauty of the area, while protecting it from erosion in the long term.

Council staff met with North Coast Holiday Park (NSWCHPT) staff, OEH and NPWS staff on site at Clarkes Beach on Wednesday 8 March 2017. Agreement was reached for NSWCHPT and Council to immediately implement corrective action at the eastern stormwater outlet to protect the midden currently being exposed. It was acknowledged that the macro-effects of the northward movement of sand causing the general beach erosion would eventually impact significantly on the midden regardless of what short term actions are implemented.

A follow up meeting between Council staff and NSWCHPT was completed on Friday 10 March 2017 to initiate the approval process for both the short term and medium term work required for this area, to outline stakeholder responsibilities and to commence the project. NSWCHPT are leading the project and commissioning the design/s for the short term and longer terms works identified. There is in principle agreement from Council staff that there will be a contribution to the project in relation to stormwater flow coming from Lighthouse Road into the holiday park. The quantum of the contribution and the methodology to quantify the cost split between the various parties is yet to be determined.

Council staff will continue to liaise with NSWCHPT to finalise the engineering design/s and provide advice/support on the planning pathway and approvals (as required).

Council staff will provide a further report once more details of the proposed corrective actions have been agreed to for the eastern stormwater outlet, and the proposed time frames and costs. It is noted Council is not the lead agency in the delivery of this project and is subject to the time frames and execution of on-ground actions by NSWCHPT.

Financial Implications

The NCHP has indicated it will be the lead agency in undertaking this work. Council will however need to identify funds to contribute to the short term mitigation measures to protect the midden. The NPWS has indicated legal action may be taken in relation to the midden damage if no action is taken in the short term.

It is expected that the total cost of the short term mitigation measures around the stormwater outlet will be of the order of $200,000, Council’s contribution to this is yet to be discussed in detail or agreed.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The Local Government Act 1993 also sets out a broad range of Council responsibilities to ensure Council manage the local environment effectively. They are no clear clauses that cover this particular issue, however, clause 7 states:

7 Purposes of Act

The purposes of this Act are as follows:

(a) to provide the legal framework for the system of local government for New South Wales,

(b) to set out the responsibilities and powers of councils, councillors and other persons and bodies that constitute the system of local government,

(c) to provide for governing bodies of councils that are democratically elected,

(d) to facilitate engagement with the local community by councils, councillors and other persons and bodies that constitute the system of local government,

(e) to provide for a system of local government that is accountable to the community and that is sustainable, flexible and effective.

OEH have the ability to use the POEO Act 1997 for environmental protection, they may issue clean up notices to a Council, to enforce resolution of inappropriate practices. Clause 91 of this Act deals with clean up notices. They are not appealable and can incur fines of up to $250,000 for corporations. They can also use the NPWS Act 1974 for similar issues.

At this stage NPWS are satisfied Council and NSWCHPT are working towards a resolution to the issue. However, this may change if it does not continue to progress to on ground works.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Reports of Committees - Infrastructure Services 14.2

Report No. 14.2 Report of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 21 March 2017

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Dominic Cavanough , Contract Engineer

File No: I2017/445

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Local Roads and Drainage

Summary:

The attachment to this report provides the minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 21 March 2017 for determination by Council.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council note the minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 21 March 2017.

2. That Council adopt the following Committee Recommendations:

Report No. 6.1 Traffic - Events - Anzac Day 2017 - Road Closures in Byron, Mullumbimby, Brunswick Heads, Bangalow

File No: I2017/154

Committee Recommendation 6.1.1

1. That Council approve the Traffic Management Plan for the four ANZAC Day Marches for 25 April 2017 for the Return Services League sub branches of Byron Bay, Mullumbimby, Bangalow and Brunswick Heads / Billinudgel.

2. That the approval provided in Part 1 is subject to:

a) separate approvals by NSW Police and RMS being obtained, noting that the Bangalow event is on a state road or may impact the state road network

b) implementation of the approved Traffic Management Plan and Traffic Control Plan, including the use of signed detours, as designed and implemented by those with appropriate accreditation

c) that the impact of the event be advertised via a notice in the local weekly paper a minimum of one week prior to the operational impacts taking effect, noting it must include the event name, specifics of any traffic impacts or road closures and times, alternative route arrangements, event organiser, a personal contact name and a telephone number for all event related enquiries or complaints

d) the event be notified on Council’s webpage

e) the event organiser:

i. undertake consultation with community and affected businesses including adequate response / action to any raised concerns

ii. undertake consultation with emergency services and any identified issues addressed

iii. holding $20m public liability insurance cover which is valid for the event

iv. paying Council’s Road Event Application Fee prior to the event

v. that a debrief be held within two weeks of the event involving staff, Police (if they had incidents) and traffic controllers

3. That Council:

a) assists where requested with implementing the necessary temporary road closures and detours

b) places a public notice advertisements in a local weekly newspaper which is circulated prior to the event and a copy of which is placed on Council’s web site

c) write to the applicants, RSL sub-branches at Byron Bay, Bangalow, Brunswick Heads and Mullumbimby asking them to have their requests for their 2018 events to Council by 08 January 2018.

4. That the approvals provided above are subject to NSW Police approval being obtained and that each event is undertaken either under Police escort and / or traffic control and / or Council’s implemented traffic control.

3. That Council adopt the following Committee Recommendation(s):

Report No. 6.2 Events - Mullum2Bruns Paddle - 28 May 2017 - Road One Way

File No: I2017/156

Committee Recommendation 6.2.1

1. That Council approve the Traffic Management Plan for the Mullum2Bruns Paddle 2017 to be held Sunday 28 May 2017, that includes the temporary road closure below:

a) Brunswick Terrace, Mullumbimby between Tincogan Street and Gordon Street One Way), between 06:30am and 10:00am on Sunday 28 May 2017.

2. That the approval provided in Part 1 is subject to:

a) separate approvals by NSW Police and RMS being obtained

b) implementation of the approved Traffic Management Plan and Traffic Control Plan, including the use of signed detours, as designed and implemented by those with appropriate accreditation;

d) the event be notified on Council’s webpage.

e) the event organiser:

i. undertake consultation with community and affected businesses including adequate response/action to any raised concerns.

ii. undertake consultation with emergency services and any identified issues addressed.

iii. holding $20m public liability insurance cover which is valid for the event.

iv. paying Council’s Road Event Application Fee prior to the event.

3. That a debrief be held within two weeks of the event involving staff, Police (if they had incidents) and traffic controllers.

4. That Council adopt the following Committee Recommendation(s):

Report No. 6.3 Regulatory Signage - Wilfred St 2 - No Stopping - Emergency Services

File No: I2017/300

Committee Recommendation 6.3.1

That Council:

1. approve the installation of No Stopping signs and lines at the Billinudgel Ocean Shores Rural Fire Brigade Station at 2 Wilfred St, Billinudgel

2. approve funding for the works

5. That Council adopt the following Committee Recommendation(s):

Report No. 7.1 Event - Byron St, Bangalow - Road Closure - Bangalow Billy Cart Derby 21 May 2017

File No: I2017/151

Committee Recommendation 7.1.1

1. That Council approve the Traffic Management Plan for the Bangalow Billy Cart Derby to be held on Sunday 21 May 2017, that includes the temporary road closure below:

a) Byron Street, Bangalow between Ashton Street and Granuaille Road, between 6am and 4pm on Sunday 21 May 2017.

2. That the approval provided in Part 1 is subject to:

a) separate approvals by NSW Police and RMS being obtained, noting that the event is on a state road or may impact the state road network

b) implementation of the approved Traffic Management Plan and Traffic Control Plan, including the use of signed detours, as designed and implemented by those with appropriate accreditation

d) the event be notified on Council’s webpage

e) the event organiser:

i. undertake consultation with community and affected businesses including adequate response/action to any raised concerns

ii. undertake consultation with emergency services and any identified issues addressed

iii. holding $20m public liability insurance cover which is valid for the event

iv. paying Council’s Road Event Application Fee prior to the event

3. That a debrief be held within two weeks of the event involving staff, Police (if they had incidents) and traffic controllers.

6. That Council adopt the following Committee Recommendation(s):

Report No. 7.2 Traffic - Events - Byron Bay Triathlon 13 May 2017 - Road Closures

File No: I2017/160

Committee Recommendation 7.2.1

1. That Council approve the Traffic Management Plan for the Byron Bay Triathlon to be held Saturday 13 May 2017, that includes the temporary road closure below:

a) Lawson Street (Middleton Street to Massinger St), between 11:30am and 3:30pm on Saturday 13 May 2017

b) Marvell Street, Middleton Street , Bay Street (Fletcher St to Middleton St), Bay Ln (Fletcher St to Middleton St), Marvell St (Middleton St to Tennyson St), Tennyson St, between 12:00pm and 3:30pm on Saturday 13 May 2017

c) Bangalow Road (Browning St to Broken Head Rd), between 12:25pm and 3:30pm on Saturday 13 May 2017

d) Broken Head Road (Bangalow Rd to Ross Lane), between 1:00pm and 3:30pm on Saturday 13 May 2017

2. That the approval provided in Part 1 is subject to:

a. separate approvals by NSW Police and RMS being obtained, noting that the event is on a state road or may impact the state road network

b. implementation of the approved Traffic Management Plan and Traffic Control Plan, including the use of signed detours, as designed and implemented by those with appropriate accreditation

c. that the impact of the event be advertised via a notice in the local weekly paper a minimum of one week prior to the operational impacts taking effect, noting it must include the event name, specifics of any traffic impacts or road closures and times, alternative route arrangements, event organiser, a personal contact name and a telephone number for all event related enquiries or complaints

d. the event be notified on Council’s webpage

e. the event organiser:

i. undertake consultation with community and affected businesses including adequate response/action to any raised concerns.

ii. undertake consultation with emergency services and any identified issues addressed.

iii. holding $20m public liability insurance cover which is valid for the event.

iv. paying Council’s Road Event Application Fee prior to the event.

3. That a debrief be held within two weeks of the event involving staff, Police (if they had incidents) and traffic controllers.

7. That Council adopt the following Committee Recommendation(s):

Report No. 7.3 Traffic - Events - Byron Bay Blues Festival 13 to 17 April 2017

File No: I2017/162

Committee Recommendation 7.3.1

1. That Council approve the Traffic Management Plan for the Byron Bay Bluesfest 2017 to be held on Thursday 13 April 2017 to Monday 17 April 2017, that includes the including the installation and enforcement of No Camping and No Stopping signs between 6am and 6pm, subject to conditions at:

a. Gulgan Road, from Mullumbimby Road intersection to the Pacific Highway interchange at Tyagarah

b. Foxs Lane, Tyagarah

c. Tanner Lane and Yarin Lane, Tyagarah and

d. Grays Lane, Tyagarah

2. That the approval provided in Part 1 is subject to:

a. separate approvals by NSW Police and RMS being obtained, noting that the event is on a state road or may impact the state road network

b. implementation of the approved Traffic Management Plan and Traffic Control Plan, including the use of signed detours, as designed and implemented by those with appropriate accreditation

d. the event be notified on Council’s webpage

e. the event organiser:

i. undertake consultation with community and affected businesses including adequate response/action to any raised concerns

ii. undertake consultation with emergency services and any identified issues addressed

iii. hold $20m public liability insurance cover which is valid for the event

iv. pay Council’s Road Event Application Fee prior to the event

3. That a debrief be held within two weeks of the event involving staff, Police (if they had incidents) and traffic controllers.

8. That Council adopt the following Committee Recommendation(s

Report No. 8.1 DA - Splendour in the Grass, 21-23 July 2017

File No: I2017/301

Committee Recommendation 8.1.1

1. That Council approve the Traffic Management Plan for Splendour in the Grass 2017, to be held Friday 21 July 2017 to Sunday 23 July 2017, that includes including the installation and enforcement of No Camping and No Stopping signs between 6am and 6pm, subject to conditions at Tweed Valley Way, Brunswick Valley Way and Yelgun Road

2. That the approval provided in Part 1 is subject to:

a. separate approvals by NSW Police and RMS being obtained, noting that the event is on a state road or may impact the state road network

b. implementation of the approved Traffic Management Plan and Traffic Control Plan, including the use of signed detours, as designed and implemented by those with appropriate accreditation

d. the event be notified on Council’s webpage

e. the event organiser:

i. undertake consultation with community and affected businesses including adequate response/action to any raised concerns

ii. undertake consultation with emergency services and any identified issues addressed

iii. holding $20m public liability insurance cover which is valid for the event

iv. paying Council’s Road Event Application Fee prior to the event

v. the holding of an event debrief within a month following the festival which includes but not limited to Council, RMS and Police

3. Council’s Parking Enforcement be invited to assist the event in compliance of no stopping areas within the Road Reserve

4. That a debrief be held within two weeks of the event involving staff, Police (if they had incidents) and traffic controllers

Attachments:

1 Minutes Local Traffic Committee Meeting 21/03/17, I2017/348 ⇨

Report

The attachment to this report provides the minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 21 March 2017 for determination by Council. The agenda for this meeting can be located on Council’s website at:

http://byron.infocouncil.biz/Open/2017/03/LTC_21032017_AGN_709_AT.PDF

The committee recommendations are supported by management and are provided in the attachment to this report.

Financial Implications

As per the Reports listed within the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 21 March 2017.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

As per the Reports listed within the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 21 March 2017.