Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion 9.2

Notice of Motion No. 9.2 Byron Bay Bypass

File No: I2017/788

I move:

1. That Council

a) Provide an updated estimate for the full construction costs of the proposed Byron Bay bypass;

b) Provide an estimate for the full construction costs of a roadway within the rail corridor from Lawson Street to Browning Street Byron Bay; and

c) Identify the available sources of funds to construct the Byron Bay bypass.

Attachments:

1 Letter from Min Transport regarding Casino to Murwillumbah rail line dated 19 Dec 2014, E2017/61876 ⇨

2 Letter from Parliamentary Sec for Transport and Infrastructure dated 1 June 2017, E2017/61934 ⇨

Signed: Cr Paul Spooner

Councillor’s supporting information:

Tamara Smith MP received a letter on 1 June 2017 (see attached) written on behalf of the NSW Minister for Transport and Infrastructure that stated the following:

“…if Byron Shire Council, the relevant road authority, wishes to propose the construction of a road within a specific section of the rail corridor in the vicinity of Byron Bay, the NSW Government would be happy to consider its proposal in further detail.”

This letter provides confirmation from the NSW Government that the unused rail corridor within Byron Bay could be used as a roadway.

It would seem both prudent and financially sensible for Council to be fully informed of the relevant costs associated with the two viable options now possible for constructing a bypass around the Byron Bay CBD.

This motion will inform Council of both the costs and budget available to proceed with the construction of the Byron Bay bypass.

Staff comments by Executive Team members in collaboration

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

Responses to parts (a) and (c) of the motion can be addressed as follows:

a. Current estimate for the bypass built on the Butler Street alignment is $20M.

c. Available funding sources at this time are $10.5M funding from the Roads and

Maritime Services, and $4M collected to date in Section 94 Developer Contributions specifically for the bypass. Approximately $2M of these funds have already been spent in preparing the EIS, BioBanking Statement and detailed design. A further $450K has been spent defending the Land and Environment Court legal challenge instigated by the Butler Street Community Network (BSCN). In order for the full bypass project to proceed the shortfall in funding would have to be addressed and would have to be sourced from either the State or Federal governments.

With respect to part b. of the motion the following information is put forward:

· Transport for NSW (TfNSW) has consistently advised Council that a roadway within the rail corridor is not viable if the rail infrastructure is to be retained.

The previous member for Ballina, the Honourable Don Page, sought advice from the General Manager, Country Rail Contracts, TfNSW, Mr Terry Brady on 3 September 2014.

The advice from TfNSW was that the corridor was unlikely to be wide enough for the existing operational rail track, a two lane road with associated infrastructure and the proposed rail Trail.

Mr Brady confirmed his advice on 11 November 2014 regarding the feasibility of the rail corridor to accommodate the combined needs of the necessary buffer for any return of trains, a rail trail and the proposed bypass and associated infrastructure to Mr Brady advised that the option for the return of rail services was not closed and as such any proposal associated with the rail corridor needed to consider the buffer requirement of operational trains.

This advice was supported by the then NSW Minister for Transport, Gladys Berejiklian, who provided a letter to Council on 19 December 2014 that advised the rail corridor was not suitable for multimodal transport use. See attachment 1.

The letter quoted by Cr Spooner in his motion from TfNSW to the Honourable Tamara Smith reiterates this advice “I am advised the Casino to Murwillumbah rail corridor is not wide enough to support multi-modal transport”. See Attachment 2.

The request made by Ms Smith was to “update a letter that you sent as Minister for Transport in 2014 or ask the current Minister for Transport to do so”. The update confirmed what had previously been advised.

· To construct a roadway within the rail corridor would:

o require an Act of Parliament to de-classify the land as a railway corridor. See section 99A of the Transport Administration Act 1988.

99A(1) A rail infrastructure owner must not, unless authorised by an Act of Parliament or an order under subsection (1A) (which refers to the Greater Metropolitan Region) close a railway line.

99A(2) For the purposes of this section, a railway line is closed if the land concerned is sold or otherwise disposed of or the railway tracks and other works concerned are removed.

Until a rail line is closed, and even if not operational, it is managed under relevant legislation pertaining to the rail network.

o create heritage impacts associated with works within the Railway Precinct Conservation Area. As to this, the Land and Environment Court in its 2 June 2017 judgement said:

“According to Mr Staas (Heritage Expert), locating the bypass road on the rail corridor instead of joining the existing Butler Street would be a worse outcome in terms of the impact on the heritage significance of the State listed Railway Station and yard group heritage item, as such a proposal would have a major impact on the setting of those heritage items… I accept Mr Staas’ evidence that the alternative route through the centre of the Byron Bay Railway Station and yard precinct would potentially have a significant impact on the setting of the State listed heritage item”.

o create impacts on the 6 residential properties on the eastern side of Butler Street which would be more difficult to manage than those impacts associated with the presently approved route.

o require clearing of an additional 0.8 ha of native vegetation which includes SEPP14 Wetland, comprising Coastal Swamp forest heavily dominated with Paperbark trees.

The JRPP Assessment Report included consideration of vegetation impacts in the context of the options available. It said :

“(the Grab the Rail route) would also require clearing of additional native vegetation within the Railway Corridor within the Byron Bay Railway Yard precinct and east of the dwellings in Butler Street. Council mapping shows this to be predominantly Coastal Swamp Forest with a small area of Coastal Dune Dry Sclerophyll Forest near the Water Tower. It is estimated that the additional clearing would be more than half a hectare compared to using the existing formed Butler Street.”

· It is anticipated that construction of the bypass within the rail corridor would cost substantially more than the bypass proposed on the Butler Street alignment for the following reasons:

o Council would not invest substantial community funds to construct a major piece of roads infrastructure on land that it does not own – therefore Council would have to factor in the purchase price of that section of the rail corridor. As the rail corridor land abuts the Byron Town Centre it is likely that the market value of the land would be substantial and run to millions of dollars.

o It is likely that the land comprising the rail corridor would be substantially contaminated after many years use as a railway and shunting yards. The cost of remediation of this land prior to construction of a roadway would likely be several million dollars.

o If the roadway was to be constructed within the rail corridor where the space was shared with a rail trail and light rail (as proposed by the BSCN) substantial costs would be incurred in constructing infrastructure to separate the competing uses to ensure public safety.

o Traffic noise amelioration requirements (and costs) would be exacerbated because the bypass would move closer to the densely populated Byron CBD area.

o Council would not be able to use the existing road formation on Butler St but would have to build up a new and costly road profile for a significant distance along the rail corridor

· Previous investigations of the comparative environmental impact of the two routes have indicated little difference between the two, however the additional necessary vegetation clearing in the rail corridor must be accounted for in the BioBanking process and will require additional compensatory credits.

· In order for “full construction costs of a roadway within the rail corridor from Lawson Street to Browning Street” to be ascertained full construction drawings and bill of quantities would have to be prepared and costed. This would take at least 12 months and would cost of the order of $1M to prepare (see outline below). In preparing these plans and associated costs details of costs associated with potential site acquisition, contamination remediation, safety separation, traffic noise amelioration etc would have to be accurately assessed.

Extensive further investigation and assessment is required including:

· Concept design preparation to direct investigation and assessment

· Flooding impact assessment to ensure the design does not result in adverse impacts.

· Noise assessment to facilitate the design and costing of remediation measures.

· Survey to facilitate the concept design, cross sections and bill of quantities.

· Land contamination assessment to inform remediation costs.

· Geotechnical to facilitate the road construction design.

· Heritage assessment to ensure any proposed alignment does not impact on the Water Tower and associated curtilage.

· Ecological assessment particularly as it pertains to the increased amount of tree removal.

· Biobanking assessment.

· Estimate of costs associated with a new EIS and approval pathway through the JRPP

· Given the complexity of negotiations and detailed design it is likely that Council would not be in a position to construct the bypass within the rail corridor for at least 5 years assuming that these matters could be successfully negotiated and TfNSW could be convinced as to the viability of such a project.

· To proceed with a roadway in the rail corridor would also mean:

o Forfeiture of the $10.5M in RMS funding which was provided exclusively for a bypass constructed on the Butler Street alignment;

o Wasting the $2.45M already spent in getting the current proposal to the construction stage;

o A significant opportunity cost due to thousands of hours of Council staff time spent on the project to date having to be duplicated – this would have significant consequences for the capacity of staff to focus on other significant Council projects and service delivery.

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

As indicated in staff comments

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

a. and c. Yes

b. No

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Petitions 10.1

Petitions

Petition No. 10.1 Flood Mitigation and Response

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Chloe Dowsett, Coastal and Estuary Officer

File No: I2017/649

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

At Council’s Ordinary meeting held on 25 May 2017 Cr Simon Richardson tabled a petition containing 233 signatures which states:

“….We the undersigned request the following action from Byron Shire Council in the immediate

affect;

· A Resident and Business Forum with the aim at re-evaluating our Flood Mitigation Plan

and discussion about ongoing viability of the area should work not be undertaken.

· The Dredging of Marshal's Creek and Reading's Bay and possible outlets to the sea.

· Revision of SES capacity to handle flood response and evacuation practice.

· The maintenance of storm water drains to be undertaken and maintained regularly.

· Proper consultation with the community regarding systems that are put in place and

transparent action plans to be undertaken during future events.

· Council to effectively lobby State Government as to the Shire's plight, so that we are on

equal footing with our neighbours’’

Comments from Director Sustainable Environment and Economy and Director Infrastructure Services:

Resident and Business Forum

The petition presented to the 25 May 2017 Ordinary Council meeting raised a number of issues regarding flood mitigation and response which were raised following the March/April flooding experienced in the Shire.

It is understood that flood response is a key issue for the community and Council has already taken a number of actions following the recent event. These are summarised below:

· A business forum was held on 26 April with flood affect business owners and operators. Some 30 businesses attended. Attachment 1 (E2017/28326) provides the unofficial minutes of this meeting. In response to this forum the following key actions have been undertaken:

- A submission was made to the State Government in support of the NSW Government Application to the Commonwealth for the declaration of Category C Disaster Assistance for affected Businesses in Byron Shire Local Government Area. This application was successful with notification on 25 May that Flood Recovery grants of up to $10,000 are now available for small businesses in Billinudgel and additional support also includes surrounding buffer zones: Mullumbimby, Ocean Shores and The Pocket. Businesses in these areas are in the process of being advised of the availability of this grant.

- At the Business Roundtable on 17 March natural disaster resilience preparation was an agenda item. Attachment 2 (E2017/34451) provides a summary of matters arising from Discussion on Natural Disaster Resilience.

· A combined meeting with residents and business community was held on 1^st June with approximately 100 people attending. Various issues were discussed, including flood mitigation, flood planning processes, disaster management and differences between Council and SES responsibilities.

Dredging of Marshal's Creek and Reading's Bay and possible outlets to the sea

Flood mitigation options including dredging of Marshalls Creek and Readings Bay, and consideration of creating floodwater outlets north of Brunswick Heads were investigated in the Marshall Creek Floodplain Management Plan (adopted by Council November 1997).

The following text is an extract from the complete report document in relation to floodwater outlets:

10.4 Ocean Outlets

Three sites have been identified for assessment for the construction of flood outlets through the frontal dune to the Pacific Ocean. The sites are located at:

· Holiday Village" between New Brighton at South Golden Beach;

· Ocean Shores North, north of the "Fern Beach" subdivision; and

· Wooyung, some 3.5 km north of South Golden Beach.

The proposed outlets comprise the excavation of 75 m wide slots through the dune with variable bed levels. The outlets at "Holiday Village" and Ocean Shores North are to be some 1.7 m above high tide level, while the outlet at Wooyung is proposed to be tidal. The proposed combinations of flood outlets above was defined by the Floodplain Management Committee after the Value Management Workshop (Reference 13) was completed.

The coastal dynamic processes are discussed in detail in Chapter 4. The impact of these processes on the performance of the ocean outlets is outlined below.

As noted in Chapter 4, the ocean water levels can be seen as comprising of a series of components principally:

· tidal variations;

· storm surge;

· coastal wind set-up;

· nearshore wave set-up; and

· possible addition to the above by "Greenhouse" changes to ocean static levels .

The various components of the "Steady" ocean water levels are indicated on Figure 6.

It is estimated that wave setup on the open beaches at the identified outlet sites resulting from 5 m high offshore waves would effectively raise the ocean water level on the beach by 0.8 m. By comparison, these waves would pass through the Brunswick River entrance with minimal obstruction and dissipate as they travelled up the main river channel.

As a result, there would be a difference in water level of 0.8 m between the beach and the river. This means that any outlets must be located where the flood level in Marshalls Creek is at least 0.8 m higher than the ocean water level at the entrance to the Brunswick River in order that floodwaters can discharge to the ocean. If this condition is not satisfied, seawater from the ocean will flow through the opening and increase flooding along Marshalls Creek.

The identified outlet sites satisfy the water level differential constraint. However, the Wooyung outlet in the early stages of a flood event would tend to admit water from the ocean into the Marshalls Creek area. This would be the direct opposite of the proposed function of the outlet, ie to discharge floodwaters to the ocean.

The outlets at "Holiday Village" and Ocean Shores North would discharge floodwaters when the level of the floodwaters in Marshalls Creek exceeded the water level on the beach and exceeded the level of any constructed weirs at the outlets. This would depend on the magnitude of the creek flood, tidal phase and ocean storm conditions.

The ocean outlets would need to be located at a level which prevented ocean storm waves from passing through the outlets and discharging seawater into the Marshalls Creek system.

This occurred in May 1975 when the ocean waves broke through the frontal dune at "Sheltering Palms", the southern end of New Brighton and north of New Brighton.

The dune north of New Brighton had been overtopped in October 1972 and had not built up to an adequate height. Earthmoving machinery was used to repair the break in the dune following the 1974 event. The coastal processes have continued the replenishment of the dune. The location of the break-through is still evident in recent aerial photography, some 20 years after the event.

The analysis of ocean storm water levels outlined in Chapter 4 recommends a minimum crest level for the outlets at RL 4.0 m AHD. This level is 1.2 m above the 1% AEP flood level in Marshalls Creek at the "Holiday Village" site.

There are conflicting requirements for the dune heights. Prevention of ocean break through into the Marshalls Creek floodplain requires the dunes to be kept high. However, allowance for (or dependence on) a flood breakout through the dunes to reduce flood levels requires the dunes to be kept low such that a natural break can occur.

It would be possible to adjust the dune height by earthmoving machinery by:

· maintaining the dune height to prevent ocean inundation;

· maintaining a stockpile of material at the break-out point;

· on receipt of flood warning, cutting the beach dune such that a natural erosion process can begin; and

· refilling the low level break from the stock pile after the flood recession to accelerate the natural re-building of the dune.

It is not considered prudent to undertake the alternative procedure of keeping the dune low and building during ocean storms because of the dangers of operation of machinery near a surf zone.

The short time scale of Marshalls Creek flooding, the limited warning and the occurrence of ocean storms would require earthmoving equipment to be on virtually permanent standby to lower the outlet in advance of the creek flood and to rebuild the outlet to withstand ocean storm conditions immediately following the creek flood.

Large volumes of sand would have to be excavated, stored and returned within a short period of time. This is clearly not practical.

The estimated reduction in 1% AEP flood levels which may be achieved with the ocean outlets is 0.08 to 0.1 m at New Brighton and Ocean Shores (Ref.l6). There are 4 houses in New Brighton and 4 houses in Ocean Shores which are inundated in floodwaters less than 0.1 m deep in the 1% AEP flood. This option may prevent floodwaters entering some these houses.

Therefore, construction of the ocean outlets is considered to be relatively ineffectual, due to the small number of houses protected and impracticable due to the management and operational requirements.

Therefore at this stage the construction of outlets is not recommended.

The following text is an extract from the complete report document in relation to dredging of Marshalls Creek and/or lowering/removal of training walls:

Prior to the construction of the Brunswick River training walls in the early 1960's, the Marshalls Creek channel joined the Brunswick River channel at the eastern edge of Reading Bay. The initial river works retained this channel confluence.

Following the severe ocean storm which washed over the beach dune and destroyed part of the "Sheltering Palms" village in 1974, a new low level training wall was constructed in Reading Bay in order to prevent a break-through from Marshalls Creek to the ocean which could ultimately replace the Brunswick River entrance.

At this time, a section of the northern wall of the Brunswick River was removed at the western end and the confluence with Marshalls Creek diverted 500 m upstream.

The channel of Marshalls Creek between Capricornia Canal and the Orana Bridge has a meandering alignment with a number of residual meander loops immediately downstream of the canal.

A number of options for dredging the channel of Marshalls Creek between the Capricornia Canal

and Reading Bay have been investigated in previous studies.

Lowering the training walls was found to reduce the flood levels by 0.11 m at Orana Bridge and

0.06 m at Capricornia Canal.

This would reduce the number of houses inundated in the 1% AEP flood in New Brighton by three with no alteration in the number of houses flooded elsewhere.

The early dredging investigations assumed dredging to a bed level of RL -2.5 m AHD. The preliminary EIS investigations indicated dredging of this magnitude would yield some 330,000 cubic metres of material but that recognition of environmental issues would reduce this volume by two thirds (that is a dredge yield of less than 100,000 cubic metres). Thus, it is concluded that the full reductions in flood levels quoted by dredging to RL -2.5 m AHD are unlikely to be achieved.

As discussed in Chapter 3, rock outcrops have been observed at a number of locations along Marshalls Creek within the proposed dredging limits. Therefore, it is considered unlikely that a significant increase in channel capacity can be achieved by dredging.

Notwithstanding the potential environmental impacts associated with the dredging option, the estimated reduction in flood levels which could be achieved is 0.10 m in Ocean Shores and New Brighton.

Thus, dredging of Marshalls Creek and lowering the training walls in Reading Bay would possibly save 4 houses in Ocean Shores and 4 houses in New Brighton from being inundated in the 1% AEP flood.

The channel of Marshalls Creek is a dynamic area with sediment transport being a continuous process. Material eroded from the catchment is transported along the creek during floods and discharged into the Brunswick River and carried out to the ocean. Some of this material settles to the bed of Marshalls Creek and does not reach the ocean. It is also likely that some of the bed material in Marshalls Creek is a relic of past ocean breaks through the dune system transferring dune material from the beach to the creek channel.

The normal tidal cycle transports sand up and down the creek channel. The limit of this active tidal sediment transport is considered to be located near the Marshalls Creek/Brunswick River confluence.

Comparison of creek channel surveys in 1986 and 1991 indicates that there is a relatively slow build-up of sediment in Marshalls Creek, downstream of Capricornia Canal, under the current hydraulic regime.

It should be noted that the time interval between surveys was short, when compared to the time scale of the sedimentary processes. The apparent nett sediment accumulation rate may well be distorted by the occurrence of a major flood (the 1987 event) in the period between surveys.

The natural hydraulic processes determine the channel geometry and alignment. These natural processes tend to respond to man-made changes in such a manner as to return the channel to a "natural" condition. Thus, it can be reasonably expected that sediment will build up in the dredged section of the channel over a period of time until the channel returns to the quasi-stable configuration existing at the present time.

The time-scale for the filling of the dredged channel is dependent on a number of factors, principally related to rainfall and oceanic factors. However it is generally accepted that dredging of creek and river channels is not a permanently effective flood mitigation works option unless regular maintenance dredging is carried out to retain the improved hydraulic capacity of the channel.

The channel dredging and lowered training walls option is considered to be relatively ineffectual due to the small reduction in flood levels achievable and the small number of properties which would benefit from the works. The option also requires on-going commitment to the maintenance of the dredged channel in order that the benefits are not diminished as time goes by.

Therefore at this stage the dredging of Marshalls Creek and/or the lowering/removal of training walls is not recommended.

Should Council wish to further pursue the above mitigation options the most appropriate method is via a Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan.

Such a plan will scientifically investigate the effects of such mitigation options on flood levels and complete a cost benefit analysis of such a mitigation option.

Council is currently awaiting a grant approval from the Office of Environment and Heritage for the purposes of preparing the North Byron Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan. This is the next step following on from the North Byron Flood Study. A number of flood mitigation options will be investigated in this study, included a fresh review of the ocean outlet and dredging idea. The most cost effective options will be included in the Floodplain Management Plan for action.

Without an adopted plan state government are very unlikely to fund a flood mitigation scheme because it has not been investigated appropriately and its likely success has not been proven.

Council simply does not have the budget to complete a flood mitigation scheme without the support of state government; therefore, any flood mitigation schemes for North Byron Shire will need to await the adoption of the North Byron Floodplain Management Plan

Revision of SES capacity to handle flood management

The question of the capacity of the SES to handle flood response and their evacuation practice is an internal SES matter and not one for Council. SES are and will be having debrief meetings at local, regional and state level within their organisation. Council staff have made SES aware of these issues already. A local debrief meeting was held locally at the Ocean Shores Country Club on 28 May 2017

There have already been multi agency debrief meetings held at the regional level within our Region.

Stormwater Maintenance

On 29 May 2017 Council resolved the following. This resolution addresses the petitions concerns regarding stormwater maintenance.

17-189 Resolved:

1. That Council use the North Byron Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plans to investigate potential methods for lowering flood levels in the Marshall’s Creek floodplain through options such as floodwater outlets, dredging, rock wall alterations and flood levies.

2. That Council considers doubling the funding for north urban drainage maintenance and rural drainage maintenance from all available resources to speed up the flood mitigation works in the Marshalls Creek Floodplain including:-

a. Gutter maintenance

b. drain and channel cleaning

c. increasing pipe sizes where necessary

d. road culverts maintenance; and

e. causeways

3. That the maintenance program is reviewed annually.

4. That to support items 1 & 2 above, staff provide funding source options and wider financial implications to the 22 June 2017 Council meeting, to be considered as part of the adoption of the 2017/18 Operational Plan.

5. That Council establish a North Byron Floodplain PRG for a 12 month period to examine the implications of the recent flood event and review previous modelling and to invite community membership and notify past members.

6. That parts 1 to 5 inclusive here of are resolved without admissions and without prejudice.

(Hunter/Richardson)

In accordance with Part 4 of the Resolution, Parts 1 and 2 are to be considered separately at this meeting as part of the adoption of the 2017/2018 Operational Plan.

Consultation with the community regarding actions to be taken during future events

This has been noted as part of the questions Council has received from the community and during the community forum on 1^st June at Ocean Shores.

Council have relied upon the SES’s education programs in the past to direct the community on what to do during disaster events. Following this event Council will be considering the option to have its own annual disaster education program.

The option for an app such as the Sunshine Coasts SCC App will also be considered. See link for information on this app. https://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/Site-Help/SCC-App

This issue will also be considered as part of the North Byron Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan project.

Council to effectively lobby State Government

Council has made two separate submissions through the State Government to the Federal Government for financial assistance for flood affected businesses and residents. The Federal Government Assistance sought is the same as was announced for the neighbouring Local Government areas of Tweed Shire and Lismore City.

Both submissions have been supported by lobbying from the Mayor and staff to both State and Federal Local Members and the responsible State and Federal Ministers, as well as lobbying by the State Local Members and Ministers of their Federal counterparts.

The submissions made by Council were for:-

· Eligibility for affected Byron Shire residents to receive the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment/Disaster Recovery Allowance

· Eligibility for Australian Government Category C Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery arrangements for affected businesses

As indicated in the comments under the Resident and Business Forum above, the latter submission and application was successful, with notification on 25 May that Flood Recovery grants of up to $10,000 are now available for small businesses in Billinudgel and additional support also includes surrounding buffer zones: Mullumbimby, Ocean Shores and The Pocket. Businesses in these areas are in the process of being advised of the availability of this grant.

The first submission is yet to be determined by the Federal Minister, and Council staff have provided additional information to the Office Federal Minister for Justice in response to request from the Minister.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the petition regarding flood mitigation and response be noted.

2. That action taken to date with respect to the issues raised in the petition be noted

3. That the petition be referred to the Director Sustainable Environment and Economy and Director Infrastructure Services for appropriate action.

Attachments:

1 Flood Impact Business Meeting Minutes 26 April 24.2017.15.1, E2017/28326 ⇨

2 Byron Shire Business Roundtable May 2017 Summary of Ideas for Natural Disaster Resilience linked to presentation E2017/29189, E2017/34451 ⇨

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - General Manager 13.1

Staff Reports - General Manager

Report No. 13.1 Competitive Grant Funding

Directorate: General Manager

Report Author: Ken Gainger, General Manager

File No: I2017/749

Theme: Corporate Management

Organisation Development

Summary:

In accordance with Council’s adoption and adherence to successive Financial Sustainability Plans since 2013, considerable effort has been placed into focusing on improved grant funding from various sources but in particular, State and Federal governments. Changes adopted by the Council in an effort to improve grant funding performance include the employment of a dedicated Grants Officer, adoption of a centre led organisational Grants team comprising grants “champions” across Directorates, subscribing to on-line grants information services, establishing active relationships with Northern Rivers RDA and other funding agencies/facilitators, developing networks of grants specialists and research capacity to learn from others and build grants success.

Apart from a handful of recurrent annual grants such as Financial Assistance Grants (FAGs) and Roads to Recovery which are automatically received without a competitive application process, most grant opportunities require councils to actively compete for funding pools where demand significantly exceeds available funds and where grant funding eligibility criteria is continually becoming more onerous and expectations are that applicants must demonstrate that they are “shovel ready” to deliver projects in a timely manner should funding applications be successful.

It is of growing concern that because of tightening state government operating/capital budgets grant funding eligibility is being increasingly broadened to include state agencies, i.e. local government is now often having to compete for the grant funding dollar with hitherto ineligible state government agencies in funding domains previously the exclusive province of local government and/or community based organisations. Thus state government agencies who would have previously placed budget bids for projects and programs are now being forced to scrounge for grant funding opportunities to fund those projects/programs effectively robbing already financially squeezed councils of limited grant funding prospects.

This report seeks to highlight this growing problem and encourage the Council to take the issue up with governments and peak local government organisations.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council notes the report and:

1. Writes to the state Treasurer and Minister for Local Government and local members seeking a reversal of the practice of including federal and state government agencies among those eligible for grant funding opportunities/programs;

2. Writes to adjoining councils, NOROC and LGNSW seeking their support.

Report

It is of growing concern that because of tightening state government operating/capital budgets grant funding eligibility is being increasingly broadened to include state government agencies, i.e. local government is now often having to compete for the grant funding dollar with hitherto ineligible state government agencies in funding domains previously the exclusive province of local government and/or community based organisations. Thus state government agencies who would have previously placed budget bids for projects and programs are now being forced to scrounge for grant funding opportunities to fund those projects/programs effectively robbing already financially squeezed councils of limited grant funding prospects.

This growing practice is akin to a Council calling for community applications for Section 356 grants then forcing staff to prepare competing applications for those funds in order to fund projects that have been excluded from the adopted Council budget. Council staff have become increasingly aware of state government agencies competing for grant funding pools with Council. A recent discussion with one state government department referenced applications for regional transport infrastructure grant funding that were being prepared by government officials which would be in direct competition with BBTCMP project applications.

The below table reviews a random selection of grant schemes and considers the eligibility criteria to ascertain competition. Results indicate that State government departments do indeed compete with Local Government Authorities and community groups for available funds. However, this is not uniform and depends upon the context in which the grant programme is being developed and offered.

The attached document reviews twelve grant schemes, with thirty nine sub-programs, to ascertain whether Council is competing with the NSW Government departments for grant funds. In thirteen cases, State government departments were eligible to apply for funding.

One such area is in black spot funding. Australian Black Spot funding is provided for both State and Local Government controlled roads. The main schemes are the Australian Black Spot Programme (Australian Government) and Safer Roads-State Black Spot (NSW RMS). At present, the Australian Government Black Spot Programme is only for Councils, but NSW RMS State Black Spot funding, assesses nominations for Local Government controlled roads and state roads.

In other areas, such as many of the programs that deliver funds for projects dealing with the environment, Local Government competes with State departments for funds. This is an effect of budget cuts, and state departments using grants to deliver projects that might have once been delivered through central funding.

An important consideration is that community groups are also provided opportunities to apply under many of these schemes.

For this reason, the table below outlines examples from thirteen schemes and shows eligibility for Local Government (LG); State Government (SG) and Community Groups (CG).

	GRANT SCHEME	ELIGIBILITY	LG	SG	CG	COMMENTS
1	Black spot funding	Roads and Maritime Services administer (on behalf of the Australian Government) the Australian Government Black Spot Programme in NSW. This includes: · Reviewing all NSW Black Spot nominations received against the eligibility criteria · Undertaking an economic assessment of the proposed treatment · Preparing a summary of the nominations received to present to the NSW Black Spot Consultative Panel for consideration · Roads and Maritime advises other road authorities within NSW of project approval and the process for delivery and payment for works completed. This includes management of any variation requests. Nominations for the Australian Government Black Spot Programme will be automatically considered for the NSW Government’s Safer Roads Program. Other road authorities do not need to re-submit their nomination again, but will need to indicate their willingness to contribute to the funding of their project.	●			Australian Government Black spot Programme is administered by NSW RMS. Council only has to apply with one nomination to be eligible for both state and federal schemes. This year’s Federal Black Spot Progamme will be wholly for Councils. This is likely to continue into the future. Last year the State/Council split was 2015/16 – 80%/20% 2014/2015 – 50%/50% One component of assessment is by BCR which must be very strong, but Feds provide 100% funding if successful – up to $2M.
2	Safer Roads	The NSW Government’s Safer Roads Program is a key initiative of the NSW Road Safety Strategy, which aims to make state roads safer and reduce crashes on the road network. This program provides treatments where there are clusters of casualty crashes on local and regional roads. This is achieved by implementing low cost engineering treatments and countermeasures. The program is split into several sub-programs, all targeting high severity crash types, locations and/or vulnerable road users. The sub-programs include: · State Black Spot · High Risk Curves · Fatigue · Safe Systems Pedestrian Safety · Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS) · Local Government Road Safety · Motorcycle Safety · Intersection Safety · Cycling Safety · Fatal Crash Response · Highway Route Review · Aboriginal programs	●	●		Council and RMS compete for this pool of black spot funds. Councils must provide matching funding, with total project cost up to $5M One component of assessment is by safety index.
3	NSW Liquor and Gaming Arts and Cultural Grants Sport and Recreation Grants Emergency Relief Grants	based in NSW incorporated, not-for-profit organisations, which are solvent (financially sound and not in debt) hold a current ABN NSW local councils	●
5	Building Better Regions Fund – Infrastructure and Community Investments	Your project must: · be located in regional Australia outside the major capital cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, and Canberra	●		●	State not specifically excluded, but projects that partner with State gov departments are encouraged.
5	Community War Memorials Fund	An application may be made by any organisation or individual, provided the Owner or Custodian of the Memorial, local RSL Sub-Branch and local council support the bid, where applicable.	●	●	●
6	Elsa Dixon Aboriginal Employment Program	Organisations applying for funding must be: ▪ a NSW public service agency, ▪ a NSW local government authority operating under the Local Government Act 1993, ▪ an Aboriginal community organisation incorporated under the: - Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, - Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976, - Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006, or and other Aboriginal incorporated organisation under the: - Associations Incorporation Act 2009, - Corporations (NSW) Act 1990, or - Co-operatives Act 1992.	●	●
7	Environment Trust	Eco schools		●
		Education (Government) Government stream: · state government agencies and/or statutory committees · local councils · Local Land Services · regional organisations of councils other local government controlled organisations · universities	●	●
		Lead Environmental Community Groups
		Protecting Our Places
		Research · The following organisations are eligible to apply as the lead applicant: Universities · State government agencies and/or statutory committees · Community organisations or groups (see note below) · Incorporated associations/non- profit organisations · Non–commercial Cooperatives Councils · Local Land Services · Regional Organisations of Council · Other local government controlled organisations · Local Aboriginal Land Councils	●	●	●
		Restoration and Rehabilitation The following organisations can apply for the government stream: · State government agencies and/or statutory committees · Councils · Regional organisations of councils · Other local government controlled organisations · Universities (only eligible to apply for funding for projects on their own land)	●	●	●
		Saving our Species Partnership Grants Program · encourage partnerships between government, the community, non-government organisations and industry	●	●	●
		Waste Less, Recycle More Initiative · Community Recycling Centres · Recycling Innovation Fund · Landfill Consolidation · Organics Collection Systems · Major resource recovery infrastructure · Organics Infrastructure	● ● ● ● ●
8	Floodplain Management Program	The following organisations are eligible to apply. · local councils · county councils · other government bodies with equivalent floodplain risk management responsibilities to local councils (e.g. Lord Howe Island Board, Hunter Local Land Services (LLS)). · Local councils can also work together in a group, provided that: · one council is the lead agency in terms of signing of the funding agreement, managing monies and reporting on the project, or · a relevant Regional Organisation of Councils applies for and manages the funding.	●			Local Land Services are state authority
9	Flying-foxes grant program	Grants are open to NSW Local Government organisations including councils and ROCs. Collaboration with NSW agencies, Aboriginal Land Councils, business, research and community organisations is encouraged however each grant application must be lodged by a Local Government organisation that will be responsible for administering the grant.	●
10	NSW Heritage Grants	Aboriginal Heritage To be eligible for assistance applicants must be: a) an Aboriginal organisation / community group, or b) an individual, consultant or organisation supported by an Aboriginal organisation /community, or c) a NSW Local Council or group of Councils or d) a State Government Agency where heritage is not: · its core business or · part of its development obligations	●	●	●
		Community Heritage – Peak Organisations 5.1.1 an applicant must have an ABN and 5.1.2 be assessed by OEH as a recognised peak community group, association or organisation including from the not for profit sector (excludes state or federal Government bodies) 5.1.3 be assessed as having capacity and commitment to undertake and complete the project.	●		●
		Community Heritage Projects				No past guidelines available
		Major Works 5.1.1 an applicant must be the owner and manager of the State Heritage Register listed item involved in the project 5.1.2 the applicant must agree to provide matching funding towards the project if successful and 5.1.3 an applicant must be assessed as having capacity and commitment to undertake and complete the project.	●	●	●	Must be a state heritage item – this means can be competing against departments like Public works, national parks and wildlife
		Local Government Heritage Advisors	●
		Local Heritage Places the applicant must be: · a NSW Local Council (local government entity/authority) · a group of NSW Local Councils or · an Agency acting upon behalf of an unincorporated area	●
		Emergency Works a) be an individual, organisation, community group, trustee or a NSW Local Council which is the owner (or perpetual lessee) and manager of a State Heritage Register-listed item or item with a current Interim Heritage Order within NSW, or b) be a State government agencies involved as a project partner assisting one of the owners and managers noted at 5.1.1 a)	●	●	●
11	Heritage Near Me	Activation Grants Applications will only be accepted from owners or managers of heritage items that are: • listed on LEPs, and • regularly accessible to the public. Applicants must be holders of an Australian Business Number (ABN), and may be individuals, companies, not-for-profit organisations, or local government. State government owned assets may be eligible for activation projects that are demonstrably outside core activities	●	●	●
		Local Heritage Strategic Projects EOIs are sought from a wide range of applicants, including owners and managers of heritage items, local government, and businesses and organisations seeking to develop projects that meet the program’s priorities.
12	Recreational Fishing Trusts	Anyone can apply for funding from the Recreational Fishing Trusts, including fishing clubs and organisations, universities, councils, community groups, individuals and so on. Joint applications are also encouraged.	●	●	●
13	NSW Community Safety Fund	• community groups; • non-government organisations; • not-for-profit organisations; • councils; • chambers of commerce; and • businesses seeking funding for projects that demonstrate community benefit.	●		●
14	Regional Growth – Environment and Tourism Fund	Project applications are invited from: · local and state government agencies; · Aboriginal Land Councils and other Aboriginal groups; · community groups registered as incorporated associations; and · non-government organisations. · The NSW Government encourages proponents to work together through their relevant Joint Organisation of Councils, Regional Organisation of Councils, Destination Networks and local tourism organisations to identify projects that involve more than one LGA and have been identified as regional priorities. Applicants are also encouraged to work with private operators and industry organisations to identify potential projects. Applications that involve	●	●	●

Financial Implications

Clearly increasing and unfair competition for limited grant funding pools has significant implications for local government in NSW which is already reeling under pressure to find additional recurrent funding to reduce infrastructure backlogs and maintain key services.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Not applicable.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.5

Report No. 13.5 Adoption of the Community Strategic Plan 2027, Delivery Program 2017-2021 and Operational Plan 2017-2018 (including Statement of Revenue Policy, Budget, Fees and Charges)

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Mila Jones, Corporate Governance Coordinator

James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2017/557

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary:

Council at its 20 April 2017 Ordinary meeting, endorsed the Community Strategic Plan 2027 (with minor amendments for Disability Inclusion Access Planning compliance), Delivery Program 2017-2021 and Operational Plan 2017-2018 (including the Statement of Revenue Policy, 2017-2018 Budget and 2017-2018 Fees and Charges) for public exhibition (Resolution 17-123 and Resolution 17-139), noting that a major review of the Community Strategic Plan will occur during 2017-2018.

This report reports the submissions received during public exhibition for Council’s consideration and recommends a number of proposed amendments. It also recommends that Council adopt the revised documents.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council consider the submissions received during the public exhibition period for the Integrated Planning and Reporting documents 2017, including the Community Strategic Plan 2027, Delivery Program 2017-2021 and Operational Plan 2017-2018 (including the Statement of Revenue Policy, 2017-2018 Budget and 2017-2018 Fees and Charges).

2. That Council adopt the following Integrated Planning and Reporting documents:

a) Community Strategic Plan 2027 as exhibited with the only amendment being the inclusion of the updated data from the 2011 census provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

b) Delivery Program 2017-2021 and Operational Plan 2017-2018 as exhibited.

c) 2017-2018 Statement of Revenue Policy incorporating the changes outlined in the Report under the heading ‘Management Comments – 2017/2018 Revenue Policy’ and the 2017/2018 Budget Estimates including:-

i) the amendments identified in the Financial Implications section and summarised at Table 6 of this Report, and

ii ) an increase to the budget allocation for north urban and rural drainage maintenance of $202,300, funded by a reduction of $202,300 to the proposed budget for the Lighthouse Road project between Massinger Street and Tallows Beach Road.

d) 2017-2018 Fees and Charges incorporating wording changes outlined in the Report under the heading ‘Management Comments - 2017/2018 Fees and Charges’ and with the following amendments:-

i) Addition of a new fee being the Information Technology Service Fee, to be levied against all new Development Applications received at 0.07% of the value of Development Applications.

ii) Addition of a new fee relating to Temporary Food Businesses (ie Market Stalls) for inspections to be set at $80 for high risk, $60 for medium risk and $40 for low risk.

subject to the new fees in recommendation 2(d)(i) and 2(d)(ii) above, being exhibited for public comment for a period of 28 days, that the fees be incorporated into Council’s adopted Fees and charges for 2017/2018 should no submissions be received during public exhibition,

Attachments:

1 Confidential - Integrated Planning and Reporting 2017-18 Submissions Complete, E2017/61124

2 Media Release dated 30 May 2017 fron NSW Government deferring FESL, E2017/61517 ⇨

Report

Integrated Planning and Reporting provides a framework that sets out community’s main priorities and aspirations for the future and outlines how these will be achieved. The framework is led by the Community Strategic Plan and supported by a series of plans and strategies.

The Community Strategic Plan sets out the 10-year vision and is developed in partnership between council, government agencies, community groups and individuals. The Delivery Program is a statement of commitment outlining the priorities for the next four years and how these will be achieved. The annual Operational Plan further details the Delivery Program and outlines what individual projects and activities will be undertaken.

Council is required to review its Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) documentation within nine months of a council election (by 30 June 2017). Council is also required to undertake disability inclusion action planning by 1 July 2017 – this has been included in the IP&R framework rather than developing a stand-alone Disability Inclusion Action Plan.

At the Ordinary Meeting on 20 April 2017 Council resolved (17-123) and (17-139) to place the IP&R documents on public exhibition including the Community Strategic Plan 2027(with minor amendments for Disability Inclusion Access Planning compliance), Delivery Program 2017-2021 and Operational Plan 2017-2018 (including the Statement of Revenue Policy, 2017-2018 Budget and 2017-2018 Fees and Charges), noting that a major review of the Community Strategic Plan will occur during 2017/18.

This report presents the submissions received and seeks Council’s consideration of any proposed amendments from the submissions, Council resolutions adopted during the public exhibition period and the accompanying management comments. Following that consideration and the inclusion of any further amendments endorsed by Council, it is recommended Council adopt the revised Integrated Planning and Reporting documents as outlined in this report.

Resourcing Strategy – Long Term Financial Plan

Council reviews its Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) on an annual basis and put it on public exhibition (resolution number February meeting 17-020). The LTFP included the base case and three scenarios which formed part of the Special Rate Variation application to IPART in February 2017.

On 9 May 2017 the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) approved Council’s special rate variation of 7.5 per cent per year for four years. Future LTFPs will be updated to reflect this the IPART determination along with any revisions to the Strategic Asset Management Plan.

Consultation and public exhibition

All of the documents were placed on public exhibition from 21 April 2017 to 25 May 2017. Key engagement activities included:

· Community information stands which were attended by staff at:

Renew Fest Mullumbimby, 6 May 2017

New Brighton Farmers Market, 9 May 2017

Byron Bay Farmers Market, 11 May 2017

· Community Roundtable, 3 May 2017

· Business Roundtable, 17 May 2017

· Direct email, including documents to various community and sporting groups, schools, Byron Youth Service, people with lived experience of disability and chambers of commerce

· Weekly display advertisements in the Byron Echo and Byron Shire News

· Weekly advertisements in Council Notices in the Byron Shire News

· Daily 30 second announcements on BayFM

· Council’s e-newsletter

· Media release

· Council’s website www.byron.nsw.gov.au displayed a full copy of the documents, including an eight page Community Summary and a four page Business Rates Handout.

The Integrated Planning and Reporting documents endorsed by Council at the 20 April 2017 Ordinary Council Meeting for public exhibition can be viewed using the following link:

www.byron.nsw.gov.au/integrated-planning-and-reporting-documents

Submissions

Council is required to consider any submissions received during the exhibition period prior to the Council’s endorsement and/or adoption of these documents. Full copies of the submissions are provided at Attachment 1 on a confidential basis. The full copies of the submissions contain personal information such as names and addresses of the person's lodging submissions which are relevant matters to be taken into consideration in determining this matter.

Community and Business Roundtable:

A presentation was made to the Community Roundtable on 3 May 2017 with questions raised and answered at the event. There were 20 people in attendance with no submissions received at the event.

A presentation was made to the Business Roundtable on 17 May 2017. There were 21 people in attendance. Issues discussed at the Business Roundtable during the presentation included the impact on the properties categorised as Business under the rating structure proposed in the Statement of Revenue Policy.

Community Information Stands:

Issues raised at information stands included:

· Renew Fest 6 May 2017 – Approximately 15 people attended the information stand with no submissions made at the time however one matter was raised in discussion:

Enforcement of no cats and dogs in Lillypilly – concerned with Council’s action to allow existing pets to remain in the neighbourhood

· New Brighton Farmers Market 9 May 2017 – 22 people attended the information stand with no submissions made at the time however one matter was raised in discussion:

Flood mitigation – Requesting Council do everything possible to mitigate flooding in the Shire

· Byron Bay Farmers Market 11 May 2017 – 18 people attended the information stand with three matters being raised:

Byron Bay Markets – raised pedestrian surface outside the nursing home needs to be cleaned as well as to be marked with a white line as it is a trip hazard and had caused someone to fall that morning

The state of the roads, where are rates going – no drainage, no kerb or channel, pot holes, beach side suburbs especially.

By email, mail or telephone:

Council received 18 submissions by email, 0 by mail and 0 by telephone.

Table 1 – Summary of submissions to the Draft Delivery Program 2017-2021 and Operational Plan 2017-2018

	Doc No.		Regarding	Staff comment
E2017/29735 E2017/29737		CI4.1.5 Implement Future Options for Tyagarah Airfield: Tyagarah Aerodrome is not a community priority and should not be a delivery program priority without further community consultation.		Council has previously resolved (17-121) to undertake a range of studies and evaluations regarding Tyagarah Airfield.
	E2017/31478		CM1.1.3 Ensure Council’s information systems are efficient, effective, resilient and accessible: Development application tracking interface	Searching by development application “type” will be included in new website to be implemented in 2017/18
			CI1.1.1 Ensure an integrated and accessible transport network: Bike paths and bike lanes, road works at Mullumbimby Road and Gulgan Road interchange; safety precautions at top of the hill on Mullumbimby Road between Saddle Road and McAuleys Lane	Council has proposed funding in 2017/18 to undertake a review of its Bike Plan and prepare a Pedestrian and Mobility Plan (PAMP). The funding for both includes a grant application to RMS. If the grant application is not successful then Council will need to consider whether it funds this work by itself. It is expected that the Bike Plan will identify a prioritised list of bike projects for the future. The plan will cover the routes listed in this submission. No works are proposed for the intersection of Gulgan Rd and Mullumbimby Rd. It is recommended that this request be scoped and considered in budget discussions for 2018/19 for both short term and long term options and solutions. No works are proposed for a bus shelter and bus layby on the western side of Mullumbimby Rd near The Saddle Rd. It is recommended that this request be scoped and considered in budget discussions for 2018/19. The issue of signs for concealed driveways will be investigated by staff.
			CI1.2.1 Implement road and related projects: Safety and amenity of Saddle Road	The traffic and stormwater issues will be investigated and scoped by staff and considered in budget discussions for 2018/19. The issue of illegal camping will be investigated by rangers and compliance staff.
			SC2.4.3 Ensure the heritage of the Shire is protected, managed and utilised: Heritage Near Me – Local Heritage Strategic Projects Grant program	Staff are alerted to invitations for grant applications and will seek funding by submission of an application for any appropriate grants. For 2017/18 and 2018/19 Council has been successful in receiving grant funds from the NSW Heritage Office for the continuation of the Local Heritage Advisor program and Local Places Program. Both are listed in the Operational Plan. Other grants under the Heritage Near me fund will be reviewed and applied for as relevant. The suggestion that a Saddle Road/MacAulay’s Lane Heritage Conservation Management Plan be prepared will be referred to the Council Heritage Advisor for consideration and possible grant funding opportunity.
			CI1.7.1 Identify future use options for former sewage treatment plant sites: Consult with Brunswick Heads community about options for Brunswick Heads sewerage treatment station.	Council is currently completing the demolition and remediation of the site. Future use options will then be considered by Council in consultation with the community.
			CI4.1.5 Implement future options for Tyagarah Airfield: Consult community regarding future uses of the facility	Options regarding the Tyagarah Airfield can initially be the subject of consultation through the community Transport & Infrastructure Advisory Committee. The studies associated with Resolution 17-121 will be relevant in this regard.
			CI1.4.1 Implement review of parking management: Introduce paid parking in Brunswick Heads and Mullumbimby	Parking strategies have been completed and community consultation is underway for Mullumbimby. The strategy for Brunswick Heads will be reported to Council in the near future before any community consultation in undertaken.
			EN1.3.1 Implement Coastal Zone Management Program and EN1.4.1 Implement Estuary Management Program: Review the Coastal Zone Management Plan for the Brunswick Estuary	This Estuary Management Plan for Brunswick Estuary is currently under review in consultation with Office of Environment and Heritage for resubmission to the Minister for certification as a Coastal Zone Management Plan.
			EN1.1.2 Restore degraded areas and habitats that have or provide significant or high environmental and or community value and EN3.1.2 Support inclusive community environmental and sustainability projects: Council has not identified any eligible projects for Environment Trust – Council Roadside Reserves Grant Program	Staff are alerted to invitations for grant applications and will seek funding by submission of an application for any appropriate grants.
			EN1.1.1 Protect and enhance our natural environment and biodiversity: Inclusion of Saddle Road area has not been included in the Byron Shire Draft Koala Plan of Management	The Byron coast koala planning area comprises approximately 13,790 hectares of land located along the coastal portion of the Byron Local Government Area (BLGA), extending from the BLGA’s boundary with Tweed Shire in the north to its boundary with Ballina Shire in the south. The western boundary is an arbitrarily defined line earlier identified by Council, OEH and DP&E officers that served to delimit that area within which development pressure and other land uses with the potential to impact upon koalas were perceived to be greatest. The Pacific Highway bisects the koala planning area between Brunswick Heads – Billinudgel in the north to where the highway currently exits the planning area boundary in the vicinity of Bangalow to the southwest. Outside of this planning area, other State and Federal legislation applies with respect to the protection of koalas and their habitat.
			SC3.1.2 Ensure Aboriginal and broader cultural heritage management reflects legislative requirements as well as community expectations and values: Saddle Ridge should be given special attention as part of the Byron Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Study	An Aboriginal Stakeholder Steering Committee is supporting and informing the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Study Stage One including site identification through the Shire.
	E2017/32153		External safety audit as recommended by Local Traffic Committee February 2015	Budget proposed in 2017/18 to undertake audit and implement any approved works within the budget limits.
	E2017/32238		1. Mullumbimby Swimming Pool and erosion	Staff have previously investigated and will continue to monitor.
			2. Cease supporting triathlons in Byron Shire	Comments noted.
			3. Consideration of hydroelectric scheme to power Council’s operations and possibly Mullumbimby township	The Wilsons Creek Power Station was listed on the State Heritage Register June 2014. Approval from the Heritage Council is required for any act, work, development etc. Notwithstanding the above, a local community group - Community Owned Renewable Energy (CORE) has been investigating the option and feasibility for a Mullum Mini Hydro Project. No formal project has evolved for Council to consider to date.
			4. Solutions to improve the standard of roads	The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal has approved a Special Rate Variation that will provide ongoing additional funds for infrastructure renewal including roads. Once a pot hole forms it breaks the wearing surface and allows water to enter the base and sub base. If the moisture can not escape through drainage then we could have greater issues with the subgrade. Pot hole repairs are just temporary treatments until that section of road can be excavated, the problem identified then rehabilitated back to the wear surface layer. Highlighting pot holes with coloured paint puts the individual painter and traffic at risk due to the lack of traffic control. This proposal is not supported.
			5. Volume of traffic in townships	Speed Zones are the sole responsibility of Transport for NSW. The best way to request a Speed Zone Review is to lodge a request at https://www.saferroadsnsw.com.au/haveyoursay.aspx Each pedestrian crossing would have to be accessed individually to see if safety improvements could be made. This can be investigated by staff in the short term. The benefit with a pedestrian crossing on a street corner is there is a natural 10m No stopping zone to improve sight distance. Also pedestrians are likely to take the shortest route to their destination.
			6. Providing water bubblers and amenities where they’re needed	The resident will be requested to advise where these water bubblers are needed and then the request referred to the Water Team.
			7. Commissioning of public art	No action required.
	E2017/33102		Proposed civil works in the South Beach Road – Brunswick Surf Life Saving Club Parking area	These requested works are for horse trailer parking and associated facilities. It is recommended that this request be scoped and considered in budget discussions for 2018/19.
	E2017/34165		1. Food and healthy eating	Comments noted.
			2. Environmental Sustainability	Comments noted.
			3. Transport	The support for Council’s plans is noted
			4. Inclusion	Accessible transport is considered relevant to all including those with needs associated with disability.
			5. Physical Activity	The support for Council’s plans is noted
			6. Tobacco and Alcohol	Council’s Safer Community Compact 2016-19 has been endorsed by NSW Attorney General. A number of community partnered initiatives to address alcohol related violence are identified and will be implemented over the life of the Safer Community Compact. Council welcomes the participation of NSW Health in projects relating to alcohol related violence as part of the Compact.
	E2017/33889		1. Signage, Walking and Driving	The request for additional signage for walking and driving around Wategos will be investigated by staff. The requests for additional construction works for footpaths, roundabouts, landscaping, BBQ areas, and a bike path will be scoped and considered in budget discussions for 2018/19. 2 Brownell Drive, Byron Bay belongs to the Bunjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corp (Arakwal). This private property has uncontrolled parking in Julian Place which is the responsibility of the property owner. Council will meet with Arakwal to investigate options to solve this issue.
			2. Surveillance Cameras	It is recommended that this request for installation of surveillance camera be scoped and included in budget discussions for 2018/19.
			3. Marine Pde Stage 4 has not commenced	It is recommended that this request be scoped and considered in budget discussions for 2018/19.
			4. Footpath Palm Valley Drive to Marine Parade (Rae’s side)	The red dashed line is currently being investigated as an option to improve pedestrian access from Marine Parade to Lighthouse Road. It is recommended that this request be scoped and considered in budget discussions for 2018/19.
	E2017/34490		1. Pedestrian and cyclist access along Lighthouse Rd and Palm Valley Dr	Council has proposed funding in 2017/18 to undertake a review of its Bike Plan and prepare a Pedestrian and Mobility Plan (PAMP) in 2017/18. The funding for both includes a grant application to RMS. If the grant application is not successful then Council will need to consider whether it funds this work by itself. It is expected that the Bike Plan will identify a prioritised list of bike projects for the future. The plan will cover the routes listed in this submission.
			2. Speed Zone Review Request	Speed Zones are the sole responsibility of Transport for NSW. The best way to request a Speed Zone Review is to lodge a request at https://www.saferroadsnsw.com.au/haveyoursay.aspx
			3. Illegal U-turns on Marine Parade near the third speed table from Rae’s.	The timber bollard size was selected as the best choice between strength, amenity and not allowing children to hide completely behind the bollard. Upgrading the timber bollards would require extensive capital works to be carried out and wouldn’t stop people turning around. Construction of stage 4 would allow motorists to have a better ability to turn around in safer location.
			4. Relocate the Lighthouse/Wategos sign on the corner of Palm Valley drive & Lighthouse Rd.	The site has been inspected and due to the steep slope downwards onto NPWS land a custom sign and stand is be required. . It is recommended that this request be scoped and considered in budget discussions for 2018/19.
			5. Vegetation maintenance at junction of Marine Parade and Palm Valley Drive	This vegetation is out side of Councils jurisdiction and under the custody of a trust managed by North Coast Holiday Parks.
			6. Road vegetation maintenance on Lighthouse Road and Wategos Beach	Maintenance works have been carried out on roadside vegetation around the Wategos Beach area to improve visibility in traffic lanes. These works are now programmed to be undertaken annually.
			7. Annual Traffic Count request for Lighthouse Rd and Marine Pde.	A biannual Standard Traffic Count Program is conducted on Lighthouse Road near the Paterson St intersection. The traffic counts for Marine Parade will be included in this program
			8. Improved tourist signage	It is recommended that this request be scoped and considered in budget discussions for 2018/19.
			9. Council to seek funding for tourist signage.	Staff are alerted to invitations for grant applications and will seek funding by submission of an application for any appropriate grants.
			10. Improved cyclist access along Lighthouse Rd and Palm Valley Drive	Council has proposed funding in 2017/18 to undertake a review of its Bike Plan and prepare a Pedestrian and Mobility Plan (PAMP) in 2017/18. The funding for both includes a grant application to RMS. If the grant application is not successful then Council will need to consider whether it funds this work by itself. It is expected that the Bike Plan will identify a prioritised list of bike projects for the future. The plan will cover the routes listed in this submission.
			11. Road edge maintenance along Lighthouse Rd and Palm Valley Drive	The request will be investigated by staff.
			12. Ongoing enforcement of No Camping	The issue of illegal camping will be investigated by rangers and compliance staff.
			13. Road and Traffic	It is recommended that the requests for new works of traffic calming, landscape entry treatments, K&G, second entry point into the area, etc be scoped and included in budget discussions for 2018/19. The design of the revised roundabout at Clifford St intersection, pedestrian refuge across Broken Head Rd and other short term traffic works will be investigated in 2017/18 with the existing funding provided. Council has proposed funding in 2017/18 to undertake a review of its Bike Plan and prepare a Pedestrian and Mobility Plan (PAMP) in 2017/18. The funding for both includes a grant application to RMS. If the grant application is not successful then Council will need to consider whether it funds this work by itself. It is expected that the Bike Plan will identify a prioritised list of bike projects for the future. The plan will cover the routes listed in this submission. The preparation of both plans will include consultation with the community. The preparation of the new plan will include bike paths from Suffolk Park into Byron Bay.
	E2017/35805		1. Sports Field	Comments noted
			2. Lake Area	Comments noted
			3. Sports Activity	Comments noted
			4. New Suffolk Community Land	Item 4 and 6 of Council resolution 16-587 with regard to the purchase of the Department of Education land at Suffolk Park states: “4 That upon completion of the purchase the General Manager does all acts and things necessary to classify the land as community land and amend the Byron Local Environmental Plan to rezone the land to RE1 Public Recreation in the next housekeeping amendment.” “6 That Council, upon the purchase of the land, begin discussions with the community of Suffolk Park to ascertain the preferred uses of the land in question.” As at the date of writing this response the sales process is proceeding but has not as yet been completed. It is recommended that Council allocate a budget of $55,000 from the Suffolk Park Open Space Section 94 account to prepare a plan of management, rezone the land and design and consult on the proposed works. Upon completion of the design and consultation the works can be costed and a budget allocated for construction in a quarterly review.
			5. Footpath	This request for a footpath is currently being investigated by staff. The footpath extension is partially on Council and NPWS managed land so it will take time to negotiate a location for a footpath.
			6. Vehicular movement eastern end Marine Parade	The requests for additional construction works for footpaths, roundabouts, landscaping, etc will be scoped and considered in budget discussions for 2018/19.
	E2017/39675		Parking – drainage Julian Place	2 Brownell Drive, Byron Bay belongs to the Bunjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corp (Arakwal). This private property has uncontrolled parking in Julian Place which is the responsibility of the property owner. Council will meet with Arakwal to investigate options to solve this issue.
	E2017/44374		1. Accessible Cycleways and Walkways	Council has proposed funding in 2017/18 to undertake a review of its Bike Plan and prepare a Pedestrian and Mobility Plan (PAMP) in 2017/18. The funding for both includes a grant application to RMS. If the grant application is not successful then Council will need to consider whether it funds this work by itself. It is expected that the Bike Plan will identify a prioritised list of bike projects for the future. The plan will cover the routes listed in this submission. The preparation of both plans will include consultation with the community.
	E2017/44374		2. Traffic management at the intersection of Bangalow Rd and Old Bangalow Rd in Byron Bay	It is recommended that this request be scoped and considered in budget discussions for 2018/19.
	E2017/47738		Community Infrastructure CI 1.5	The report is being progressed through the Coastal Catchment Management Panel and Council. Once a resolution is adopted by Council, works will be implemented.
	E2017/47738		Community Infrastructure CI 2	Council is currently preparing a plan of management for the Valences Rd site that will include energy initiatives and possible cooperative projects with COREM/Enova. Solar farm schemes (new and expanded) are also being reviewed for the other STP sites.
	E2017/47740		1. Condition of roads	In the short term the potholes will be filled. In the long term, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal has approved a Special Rate Variation that will provide ongoing additional funds for infrastructure renewal including roads.
	E2017/47740		1. Condition of roads	McGettigan’s Lane pot holes have been repaired between Parkway Drive North entrance and Ewingsdale Road on Thursday 25/05/2017. Parkway Drive intersection with Avocado Crescent has been raised by the resident as having a rough surface and a 2018/19 budget bid has been created for a 200m long pavement renewal project.
	E2017/48045		Community health and resilience	Request for Council to support and to fund 3 projects: · Centre for Ecoversity Teaching · Byron Water Protectors · Global Repair Summit Council has an existing Sustainability and Environment program that can support initiatives and projects like these. Each request is considered on its merits and within annual budget allocations.
	E2017/40045		Carlyle Street	It is recommended that this request be scoped and considered in budget discussions for 2018/19

Table 2 – 2017/2018 Budget

Doc No.	Regarding	Staff comment
E2017/35645	Heritage Listed interpretative signage – suggested item to include in 2017/18 budget	Staff are alerted to invitations for grant applications and will seek funding by submission of an application for any appropriate grants. For 2017/18 and 2018/19 Council has been successful in receiving grant funds from the NSW Heritage Office for the continuation of the Local Heritage Advisor program and Local Places Program. Both are listed in the Operational Plan. The suggestion that a grant be applied for Interpretative Signage for the WW1 Memorial Pine Park will be referred to the Council Heritage Advisor for consideration and possible grant funding opportunity.
E2017/44361	SC3.3 Encourage and support residents from cultural and linguistically diverse backgrounds to participate in all aspects of community	A budget includes a vote of $1,000 to support Harmony Day activities. A range of support mechanisms including development of a CALD network and identification of priorities for CALD communities are identified activities in the 17/18 financial year.
E2017/48043	Australia Indonesia Hub Project	Council will be developing an international partnership strategy during 2017/18 and the Indonesian Hub proposal may fit within this. It is recommended that should Council include an additional $3,000 allocation in the 2017/18 budget, that this amount be funded from the unallocated S356 donations budget of $36,200 in the Community Development Program.

Table 3 – 2017/2018 Fees and Charges

Doc No.

Regarding

Staff comment

E2017/29735,
E2017/29737

Tyagarah Airfield – suggested adjustment to fees and charges

Comments noted.

E2017/47736

Byron Bay Basketball Association Fees

Current court hire fees are comparable, if not below, the fees charged by Regional Centres at Coffs Harbour, Port Macquarie, Grafton, Tamworth and Yamba. Ref E2017/48641

MOU is underway in consultation with BBBA to address the possibility of volunteerism to reduce weekend and night costs.

Council could consider offering Sunday off peak rates to regular users to increase utilization and alleviate training costs for the club.

Management Comments – Community Strategic Plan

The community and economic profile section of the Community Strategic Plan has been updated with 2011 census data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The previous version had 2006 figures.

Management Comments – Delivery/Operational Plan

The Mayor’s message and infographic on key capital projects will be updated following adoption by Council and final publication of the 2017-2021 Delivery Plan incorporating the 2017/2018 Operational Plan.

Management Comments – 2017/2018 Revenue Policy

Subject to another report to this Ordinary Meeting of Council concerning the making of Rates and Charges, the 2017/2018 Revenue Policy is proposed to be amended as follows:

· Removal of the Rating Structure option that provided for the increase in Council’s rate revenue to comply with the 1.5% rate peg for 2017/2018, which is a required disclosure, should the Council’s application for a Special Rate Variation had not been approved. The Rating Structure for 2017/2018 containing the Special Rate Variation approval and redistribution of the rating yield between Residential, Business and Farmland rating categories as publicly exhibited has been retained.

· The Office of Local Government has announced via Circular 17-09 dated 18 May 2017 the maximum interest rate on overdue rates and charges of 7.50% per annum for the 2017/2018 financial year representing as reduction of 1.0% from the interest rate of 8.50% per annum applicable in 2016/2017. Council traditionally applies the maximum interest rate and the 2017/2018 Revenue Policy will be updated to reflect this.

· There are proposed amendments to waste collection charges placed on public exhibition not in terms of cost of the service but to clarify disclosure around the type of service and frequency of collection as follows:

o Council advertised the addition a new bundled weekly 3 bin collection service for urban domestic customers with a choice of either a 80, 140 or 240 litre mixed waste bin. The 80 litre service was removed as it is unavailable and the Draft 2017/2018 Revenue Policy placed on public exhibition incorrectly listed the recycling as being a fortnightly instead of weekly service frequency. These services are also subject to Council approval as they may not be available to some areas (dependent upon the contractor) and a notation to this effect has been added to the 2017/2018 Revenue Policy document that will be published.

o The frequency of collection of the mixed waste bin for the existing 2 bin multi unit development bundled collection services was erroneously listed as fortnightly instead of weekly.

· Given all the publicity and work behind the scenes by all Councils in NSW to implement the Fire and Emergency Services Levy (FESL) on behalf of the NSW State Government to be collected on the Council rate notice, Council was by surprise so close to implementation that the Premier and Treasurer of the NSW Government announced on 30 May 2017 the FESL implementation will be deferred. This means this charge that is not Council revenue will not be listed on Council rate notices for the 2017/2018 financial year. It is also not clear if or when the NSW State Government proposes to revisit this proposed reform. A copy of the media release issued by the NSW Government is provided at Attachment 2.

Management Comments – 2017/2018 Fees and Charges

Aside from the public submissions received regarding the proposed fees and charges outlined in Table 3 to this report, there are further proposed amendments to the fees and charges that should Council approve will require public exhibition for a period of 28 days in accordance with Section 610F of the Local Government Act 1993. These proposed amendments are:

· Addition of a new fee known as an Information Technology Service Fee levied against all Development Applications received to assist in the cost recovery of:

o The implementation and ongoing costs of the State governments ePlanning reforms and other technology related initiatives;

o The introduction of e-forms, which is a powerful tool that will allow for technical officers to carry out a range of off-site services such as inspections and to investigate an integrated assessment report for development and associated applications, with the ability to integrate with existing document management software.

o Contribution towards and improvements in hardware and software licences relating to DAs online server hardware, firewall hardware, GMP connection, Civica’s ‘Authority’ product and TRIM document tracking;

o Records staff servicing DA requests

It is proposed to set the Information and Technology Service Fee at 0.07% of the value of new Development Applications received.

· Addition of a new fees relating to Temporary Food Businesses (ie Market Stalls) for inspections to be set at $80 for high risk (PHF processing, temperature control required, multi step processing), $60 for medium risk (coffee and cakes, pastries without cream/custards, any taste testing even if low risk food eg pickles/sauce), $40 for low risk (fruit and vegetables only, bottled jams/preserves/pickles, low risk packaged goods ie no refrigeration required, eggs)

· The Office of Local Government have advised that the fee for 2017/2018 for Section 603 property certificates have been set at $80 by Circular 17-09 on 18 May 2017. Given this fee is a statutory fee not set by Council, it is proposed not to advertise this particular fee but to update Council’s adopted fees and charges accordingly.

· Alter the wording associated with Environmental Health and Compliance Fees relating to the service of notices and orders to include ‘S238 of Roads Act 1993’ to allow Council to charge cost recovery fee for notices relating to Roads Act offences. As this amendment is not to the fee itself that was advertised but is to wording, it is proposed not to advertise this particular fee but to update Council’s adopted fees and charges accordingly.

· Alter the wording associated with fees for Annual Food Business Administration – Small food business due to a change in legislation to include ‘Per premises under Food Regulation 2015 Part 3 Clause 15. As this amendment is not to the fee itself that was advertised but is to wording, it is proposed not to advertise this particular fee but to update Council’s adopted fees and charges accordingly.

· Deletion of Subdivision Application Fees currently included in the Draft 2017/2018 Fees and Charges that are duplicated with Development Application Subdivision Fees.

· Alter the wording associated with Construction Certificate fees for subdivisions by removing the wording ‘per hour per lot’ and replacing the wording with ‘per lot’.

Management Comments – 2017/2018 Budget Estimates

Refer to Financial Implications Section below.

Financial Implications

The Draft 2017/2018 Statement of Revenue Policy placed on public exhibition in accordance with resolution 17-139 is based on the 2016/2017 budget reviewed at 31 December 2016 with various changes to reflect the increased price of service delivery across all programs developed from the input received from each Council Directorate.

The Draft 2017/2018 Budget Result placed on public exhibition on a Consolidated (All Funds) basis forecast a surplus result of $50,000 with details of that result being included below at Table 4

Table 4 – 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

Table 4 above assumed inclusion of the additional revenue that would be provided by the Special Rate Variation (SRV) for the 2017/2018 financial year if it was approved. As Council has now been provided advice from the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART), of that approval, the alternate budget option that was also reported to Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 20 April 2017 without the SRV option has not been reproduced but the Budget result with or without the SRV option is still the same. Table 5 below provides the indicated unrestricted cash balance of Council estimated at 30 June 2018 based on the Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates placed on public exhibition.

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

During the public exhibition period, the Draft 2017/2018 Statement of Revenue Policy incorporating the Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates has been further reviewed. The revised budget position is summarised in Table 6 below:

Table 6 – Forecast Budget Result 2017/2018 Consolidated (All Funds) revised during public exhibition period

Item	Amount $
Operating Result
Operating Revenue	74,074,900
Less: Operating Expenditure	75,603,400
Operating Result – Surplus/(Deficit)	(1,528,500)

Funding Result

Operating Result – Surplus/ (Deficit)	(1,528,500)
Add: Non cash expenses – Depreciation	13,175,500
Add: Capital Grants and Contributions	26,917,700
Add: Loan Funds Used	2,160,000
Add: Asset Sales	0
Less: Capital Works	(51,445,400)
Less: Loan Principal Repayments	(2,639,800)
Funding Result – Surplus/(Deficit) (Cash Movement)	(13,360,500)
Reserves Movement – Increase/(Decrease)	(13,367,800)
Overall Budget Result – Surplus/(Deficit) (Operating + Funding)	7,300

Table 6 indicates a forecasted surplus budget result and this relates to the General Fund. The forecast General Fund Unrestricted Cash Balance position based on the Draft Budget included at Table 6 is outlined in Table 7 below:

Table 7 – Forecast General Fund Unrestricted Cash Balance

Item	$
Forecast unrestricted cash balance to 30 June 2017 at 31 March 2017 Budget Review	1,145,200
Add: Estimated initial draft 2017/2018 budget result	7,300
Forecast unrestricted cash balance at 30 June 2018	1,152,500

The revised Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates are also suggesting that Council’s overall 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 Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates as revised during the public exhibition period, Council is now preparing a capital works program of $51.45million. This amount includes $41.86million in the General Fund, $3.06 million in the Water Fund and $6.52million in the Sewerage Fund. In terms of overall proposed capital works expenditure, the graph below indicates the proportionate allocation by Budget Program:

The major changes to the proposed Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates have been realised by the following factors:

Council Resolutions:

· Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 25 May 2017 resolved 17-201 part 4 “That Council allocate the proposal in the Capital Works program for 2017/18 for the Broken Head Road – Off Road Shared path with a budget of $292,600 to an On Road cycleway along Bangalow Street, Byron Bay to Suffolk Park’. This amendment has been made to the Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates.

· Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 25 May 2017 considered Notice of Motion 9.4 Lowering Flood Levels in North Byron Floodplain. Council’s resolution 17-189 part 4 requires that to support resolution 17-189 part 1 and 2 that ‘staff provide funding source options and wider financial implications to the 22 June 2017 Council meeting, to be considered as part of the adoption of the 2017/18 Operational Plan’. The resolution asks Council to consider doubling the funding for north urban drainage maintenance and rural drainage maintenance to speed up works in Marshalls Creek Floodplain.

Based on the funding provided in 2016/2017 for north urban drainage and rural drainage maintenance, this totalled $242,600. If Council were to double this funding level it would need to provide total funding of $485,200. Current provisions in the 2017/2018 Draft Budget Estimates is $282,900 so Council would need to find $202,300.

Should Council wish to consider providing a further $202,300, following review of potential funding sources, Infrastructure Services have indicated Council could reduce the funding proposed to be allocated to the Lighthouse Road project between Massinger Street and Tallows Beach Road. There is $350,000 proposed to be allocated to this project so if the $202,300 was reallocated to north urban and rural drainage maintenance, this would leave $147,700 to undertake some works and reconsider the remaining works for the 2018/2019 financial year. In providing this option for Council’s consideration, in response to resolution 17-189 part 4, it should be noted this option is for the 2017/2018 financial year only. This approach would be consistent with resolution 17-189 part 3 which recommends the drainage program be reviewed annually. The request of staff in respect of this resolution was to provide an option but this option is not currently included in the Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates outlined in Table 7. Should Council wish to proceed, it would need to adopt this option as well when adopting the overall 2017/2018 Budget Estimates.

Other Adjustments:

Aside from the resolutions of Council outlined above, there are proposed adjustments to the Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates that are reflected in the Budget result presented in Table 7 of this report. These adjustments include:

· As part of the 2017/2018 Federal Budget handed down on 9 May 2017, The Federal Government have determined to advance 50% of the Financial Assistance Grants for the 2017/2018 financial year prior to the end of the 2016/2017 financial year. This will require Council to reduce its Financial Assistance Grant revenue in 2017/2018 by an estimated $1,460,500. This will have no impact on the overall budget result as the advance funding received in 2016/2017 will be restricted in reserve and carried forward to the 2017/2018 financial year.

· Council upon adopting the 31 March 2017 Quarterly Budget Review removed $6.854million in works/projects within the Infrastructure Services Directorate that would not be completed in the 2016/2017 financial year. These works and their funding have been added to the proposed 2017/2018 Budget to be completed during the 2017/2018 financial year.

· A memo was provided to Councillors prior to the 20 April 2017 Ordinary Council Meeting following review of the Cavanbah Centre Budget Program by the Finance Advisory Committee. The memo suggested a number of revisions to Cavanbah Centre budgets that will improve the budget result of the Cavanbah Centre by $90,000 and that of the General Fund. These budget adjustments were not adopted by Council prior to public exhibition of the Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates but are now included into the budget result outlined at Table 7 to this report.

· There is an additional $56,500 required to fund revised staffing structure within the Sustainable Environment and Economy Directorate across Environmental Health, Compliance, Economic Development and Planning Policy and Natural Environment Budget Programs.

· Provide an additional $64,000 to fund the net cost of the dedicated Grants Officer that was not included in the original Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates but should have been within the Governance Services Budget Program.

· With the NSW Government not proceeding with the implementation of the Fire and Emergency Services Levy, this will require a reduction of revenue from the Finance Budget Program of $18,000 as estimated revenue payable by NSW Treasury for administration of the FESL will now not occur and needs to be removed from the Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates.

· Provide an additional $12,600 to undertake the New Years Eve event for 2017/2018 with funding sourced from the Special Event and Mitigation Reserve and provide an additional $11,500 for traffic management related to the event funded from budgets in the Community Development Budget Program not required.

· Provide $55,000 to undertake a Plan of Management for the Suffolk Park Sportsfields funded from Section 94 Open Space for Suffolk Park to be undertaken subsequent to the land purchase by Council being completed.

· Provide $20,000 to undertake the survey, design and consultation for the Bay Lane footpath and shared zone with funding provided by Section 94A funds.

Council in the preparation of its Operational Plan is required to include a number of statements in relation to its Revenue Policy for 2017/2018. This includes a statement containing the estimate of Council’s Income and Expenditure or Budget for this period. The other statements identified in Clause 201 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 are in the main dependant upon the rate pegging limits approved by the Minister for Local Government (now the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART)), any application for a special rate variation and Council’s decisions in relation to expenditure, income and the associated fees and charges.

The assumptions/parameters used in preparing the Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates as presented in this report for Council’s consideration include the following:

· Special Rate Variation of 7.5% as approved by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) inclusive of the 1.5% rate peg increase determined previously by IPART for 2017/2018.

· Indexation of expenditure limited to 0.5% where possible to assist in deriving a 1% efficiency gain.

· Allowance of the 2.0% pay increase applicable in 2017/2018 under the Local Government (State) Award. The current Local Government (State) Award expires on 30 June 2017 and a new Award is still to be finalized at the time of preparing this report.

· New loan borrowings of $6million between 2017/2018 to 2019/2020 devoted to bridge replacement programs.

· Interest on investments around 2.6% plus active management of the investment portfolio to keep it short around three month maturities to take opportunities of market offerings or longer term investments to follow Council’s resolution regarding Environmental and Socially Responsible Investments..

· Reflective of the Actions contained in the Draft 2017/2018 Operational Plan.

The immediate financial forecast of the General Fund has been discussed in detail in this report, however it is suggested Council needs to look at its longer term financial position, especially in the area of infrastructure maintenance and renewal in comparison to other areas of service provided. This is especially so given the requirements stipulated by the NSW State Government as part of its ‘Fit for the Future’ reform, and the focus for Council of it approved Special Rate Variation (SRV) for 2017/2018 to 2020/2021 financial years.

The Water and Sewer budgets have been prepared with pricing to generate the required revenue to repay debt (Sewer), to address capital works and ongoing maintenance works in these Funds whilst providing no increase in service pricing for 2017/2018.

Whilst this report is concerned with the oncoming 2017/2018 financial year, Council also needs to consider its longer term financial projections. The budget projections realistically still demonstrate the difficulty Council has absorbing additional costs without corresponding revenue. It can only be emphasised that Council must consider carefully the long term implications on its finances, in any consideration to add a new asset/service.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

In regard to Strategic Planning, Chapter 13, Part 2 of the Local Government Act 1993 states:

402 Community strategic plan

(1) Each local government area must have a community strategic plan that has been developed and endorsed by the council. A community strategic plan is a plan that identifies the main priorities and aspirations for the future of the local government area covering a period of at least 10 years from when the plan is endorsed.

(2) A community strategic plan is to establish strategic objectives together with strategies for achieving those objectives.

(3) The council must ensure that the community strategic plan:

(a) addresses civic leadership, social, environmental and economic issues in an integrated manner, and

(b) is based on social justice principles of equity, access, participation and rights, and

(c) is adequately informed by relevant information relating to civic leadership, social, environmental and economic issues, and

(d) is developed having due regard to the State government’s State Plan and other relevant State and regional plans of the State government.

(4) The council must establish and implement a strategy (its community engagement strategy), based on social justice principles, for engagement with the local community when developing the community strategic plan.

(5) Following an ordinary election of councillors, the council must review the community strategic plan before 30 June following the election. The council may endorse the existing plan, endorse amendments to the existing plan or develop and endorse a new community strategic plan, as appropriate to ensure that the area has a community strategic plan covering at least the next 10 years.

(6) A draft community strategic plan or amendment of a community strategic plan must be placed on public exhibition for a period of at least 28 days and submissions received by the council must be considered by the council before the plan or amendment is endorsed by the council.

(7) Within 28 days after a community strategic plan is endorsed, the council must post a copy of the plan on the council’s website and provide a copy to the Departmental Chief Executive. A copy of a community strategic plan may be provided to the Departmental Chief Executive by notifying the Minister of the appropriate URL link to access the plan on the council’s website.

403 Resourcing strategy

(1) A council must have a long-term strategy (called its resourcing strategy) for the provision of the resources required to implement the strategies established by the community strategic plan that the council is responsible for.

(2) The resourcing strategy is to include long-term financial planning, workforce management planning and asset management planning.

404 Delivery program

(1) A council must have a program (its delivery program) detailing the principal activities to be undertaken by the council to implement the strategies established by the community strategic plan within the resources available under the resourcing strategy.

(2) The delivery program must include a method of assessment to determine the effectiveness of each principal activity detailed in the delivery program in implementing the strategies and achieving the strategic objectives at which the principal activity is directed.

(3) The council must establish a new delivery program after each ordinary election of councillors to cover the principal activities of the council for the 4-year period commencing on 1 July following the election.

(4) A draft delivery program must be placed on public exhibition for a period of at least 28 days and submissions received by the council must be considered by the council before the delivery program is adopted by the council.

(5) The general manager must ensure that regular progress reports are provided to the council reporting as to its progress with respect to the principal activities detailed in its delivery program. Progress reports must be provided at least every 6 months.

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.

406 Integrated planning and reporting guidelines

(1) The Departmental Chief Executive is to establish integrated planning and reporting guidelines (referred to in this Chapter as the guidelines) for the purposes of this Chapter.

(2) The guidelines can impose requirements in connection with the preparation, development and review of, and the contents of, the community strategic plan, resourcing strategy, delivery program, operational plan, community engagement strategy, annual report and state of the environment report of a council.

(3) In particular (but without limiting subsection (2)), the guidelines can impose requirements in relation to any of the following:

(a) the procedures to be followed in the preparation, development or review of plans, strategies, programs and reports,

(b) the matters to be addressed or provided for by plans, strategies, programs and reports,

(c) requirements for consultation in connection with the preparation, development or review of plans, strategies and programs,

(d) the matters to be taken into account or to which regard is to be had in connection with the preparation, development or review of plans, strategies, programs and reports.

(4) A council must ensure that the requirements of the guidelines are complied with.

(5) The guidelines can include other material for the guidance of councils in connection with the plans, strategies, programs and reports to which this section applies.

(6) The Departmental Chief Executive may review and amend the guidelines from time to time.

(7) The guidelines and any amendment of the guidelines must be posted on the Department’s website and notified in writing to each council by the Departmental Chief Executive.

Section 405(2) of the Local Government Act requires that the Statement of the Council’s Revenue Policy that must be included on the Operational Plan. Clause 201 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 details the statements and information that must be included in the Revenue Policy and has been reproduced below:

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.

(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,

(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,

(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.

In accordance with clause 406 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 the following provision applies in relation to the authorisation of expenditure.

211 Authorisation of expenditure

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

(a) has approved the expenditure, and

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

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

(3) All such approvals and votes lapse at the end of a council’s financial year. However, this subclause does not apply to approvals and votes relating to:

(a) work carried out or started, or contracted to be carried out, for the council, or

(b) any service provided, or contracted to be provided, for the council, or

(d) facilities provided or started, or contracted to be provided, for the council,

before the end of the year concerned, or to the payment of remuneration to members of the council’s staff.

The following provision of the Local Government Act applies in relation to the public notice of fees determined by Council.

610F Public notice of fees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.10

Report No. 13.10 Council Investments May 2017

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2017/680

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

This report includes a list of investments and identifies Council’s overall cash position for the period 1 May to 30 May 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 30 May 2017 be noted.

Report

In relation to the investment portfolio for the month of May 2017, Council has continued to maintain a diversified portfolio of investments. At the time of writing this report, the average 90 day bank bill rate (BBSW) for the month of May 2017 was not known, but is estimated to be around 1.75%. Council’s performance to 30 May 2017 is 2.67%. 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 and purchasing floating rate notes with attractive interest rates.

The table below identifies the investments held by Council as at 30 May 2017:

Schedule of Investments held as at 30 May 2017

Purch Date	Principal ($)	Description	CP*	Rating	Maturity Date	Ethical ADI	Type	Interest Rate Per Annum	Current Value
20/06/12	500,000	Heritage Bank Ltd Bonds	N	BBB+	20/06/17	Y	B	7.25%	520,000.00
24/03/17	1,000,000	NAB Social Bond (Gender Equality)	N	AA-	24/03/22	N	B	3.44%	1,000,000.00
28/10/16	650,000	Teachers Mutual Bank	N	BBB+	28/10/19	Y	FRN	3.17%	650,000.00
31/03/17	1,000,000	CBA Climate Bond	N	AA-	31/3/22	N	FRN	3.25%	1,000,000.00
18/04/17	2,000,000	NAB	P	AA-	23/08/17	N	TD	2.53%	2,000,000.00
22/02/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	12/07/17	N	TD	2.56%	2,000,000.00
07/04/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	08/08/17	N	TD	2.55%	2,000,000.00
04/04/17	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	03/07/17	N	TD	2.53%	1,000,000.00
06/03/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	30/08/17	N	TD	2.58%	2,000,000.00
22/02/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	12/07/17	N	TD	2.57%	2,000,000.00
06/04/17	2,000,000	Bank of Queensland	P	BBB+	08/08/17	Y	TD	2.50%	2,000,000.00
01/02/17	2,000,000	Police Credit Union	P	NR	02/08/17	U	TD	2.70%	2,000,000.00
05/04/17	2,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	15/08/17	Y	TD	2.50%	2,000,000.00
01/12/16	2,000,000	Beyond Bank	P	BBB	01/06/17	Y	TD	2.85%	2,000,000.00
10/05/17	2,000,000	Beyond Bank	N	BBB	13/09/17	Y	TD	2.65%	2,000,000.00
07/04/17	2,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	07/07/17	Y	TD	2.45%	2,000,000.00
08/03/17	2,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	08/08/17	Y	TD	2.55%	2,000,000.00
28/02/17	2,000,000	Beyond Bank	N	BBB	21/06/17	Y	TD	2.65%	2,000,000.00
04/01/17	3,000,000	Bank of Queensland	N	BBB+	04/07/17	Y	TD	2.75%	3,000,000.00
04/01/17	1,000,000	Bananacoast Credit Union	P	NR	04/07/17	Y	TD	2.75%	1,000,000.00
08/03/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	07/07/17	N	TD	2.56%	2,000,000.00
16/03/17	2,000,000	AMP Bank	N	A	18/09/17	N	TD	2.75%	2,000,000.00
10/03/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	09/06/17	N	TD	2.52%	2,000,000.00
27/04/17	2,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	30/08/17	Y	TD	2.55%	2,000,000.00
04/04/17	1,000,000	Bank of Queensland	N	BBB+	27/09/17	Y	TD	2.60%	1,000,000.00
04/01/17	2,000,000	Beyond Bank	N	BBB	04/07/17	Y	TD	2.75%	2,000,000.00
16/12/16	1,500,000	Auswide Bank Ltd	P	BBB-	28/06/17	Y	TD	2.80%	1,500,000.00
12/12/16	1,000,000	Auswide Bank Ltd	N	BBB-	13/06/17	Y	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
16/12/16	1,000,000	Police Credit Union	N	NR	05/07/17	U	TD	2.87%	1,000,000.00
20/01/17	1,000,000	AMP Bank	N	A	19/7/17	N	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
20/01/17	1,000,000	Bank of Queensland	N	BBB+	26/7/17	Y	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
03/02/17	1,000,000	Mystate Bank	N	BBB	09/08/17	Y	TD	2.75%	1,000,000.00
17/05/17	2,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	20/09/17	Y	TD	2.55%	2,000,000.00
16/02/17	1,000,000	Bank of Queensland	N	BBB+	15/08/17	Y	TD	2.70%	1,000,000.00
24/05/17	1,000,000	Beyond Bank	N	BBB	24/08/17	Y	TD	2.65%	1,000,000.00
01/03/17	1,000,000	Bananacoast Credit Union	N	NR	06/09/17	Y	TD	2.75%	1,000,000.00
03/03/17	1,000,000	Bananacoast Credit Union	N	NR	06/09/17	Y	TD	2.75%	1,000,000.00
03/03/17	2,000,000	Holiday Coast Credit Union	N	NR	13/06/17	Y	TD	2.70%	2,000,000.00
06/03/17	1,000,000	The Capricornian Credit Union	P	NR	23/08/17	Y	TD	2.70%	1,000,000.00
07/03/17	2,000,000	Beyond Bank	N	BBB	19/07/17	Y	TD	2.65%	2,000,000.00
07/03/17	1,000,000	Regional Australia Bank	P	NR	28/06/17	Y	TD	2.70%	1,000,000.00
23/03/17	1,000,000	Police Credit Union	N	NR	27/09/17	U	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
03/04/17	1,000,000	Beyond Bank	N	BBB	26/07/17	Y	TD	2.65%	1,000,000.00
03/04/17	2,000,000	Police Credit Union	N	NR	04/10/17	U	TD	2.80%	2,000,000.00
03/04/17	1,000,000	Beyond Bank	N	BBB	13/09/17	Y	TD	2.70%	1,000,000.00
02/05/17	1,500,000	Beyond Bank	N	BBB	16/08/17	Y	TD	2.65%	1,500,000.00
03/05/17	1,500,000	Auswide Bank Ltd	N	BBB-	08/11/17	Y	TD	2.68%	1,500,000.00
05/05/17	2,000,000	Beyond Bank	N	BBB	16/08/17	Y	TD	2.65%	2,000,000.00
10/05/17	1,000,000	Auswide Bank Ltd	N	BBB-	15/11/17	Y	TD	2.70%	1,000,000.00
17/05/17	1,000,000	Maitland Mutual Building Society	N	NR	27/09/17	Y	TD	2.60%	1,000,000.00
N/A	2,053,334	CBA Business Online Saver	N	A	N/A	N	CALL	1.40%	2,053,334.04
Total	77,703,334						AVG	2.67%	77,723,334.04

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.	Ethical ADI
	Y = No investment in Fossil Fuels
	N = Investment in Fossil Fuels
	U = Unknown Status

Note 3.	Type	Description
	B	Bonds	Principal can vary based on valuation, interest payable via a fixed interest, payable usually 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.

Environmental and Socially Responsible Investing

An additional column has been added to the schedule of Investments above, to identify if the financial institution holding the Council investment, has been assessed as an “Ethical” institution. This information has been sourced through www.marketforces.org.au and identifies financial institutions that either invest in fossil fuel related industries or do not. The graph below highlights the percentage of each classification across Councils total investment portfolio.

For the period 1 May to 30 May 2017, as indicated in the table below, there is a dissection of the investment portfolio by investment type:

Dissection of Council Investment Portfolio as at 30 May 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	1,650,000.00	0.00
2,053,334.04	Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	2,053,334.04	0.00
1,500,000.00	Bonds	1,520,000.00	20,000.00
77,703,334.04		77,723,334.04	20,000.00

The current value of an investment compared to the principal value (face value or original purchase price) provides an indication of the performance of the investment without reference to the coupon (interest) rate. The current value represents the value received if an investment was sold or traded in the current market, in addition to the interest received.

The table below provides a reconciliation of investment purchases and maturities for the period 1 May to 30 May 2017 on a current market value basis.

Movement in Investment Portfolio – 1 to 30 May 2017

Item	Current Market Value (at end of month) $
Opening Balance at 30 April 2017	75,723,334.04
Add: New Investments Purchased	12,000,000.00
Add: Call Account Additions	0.00
Add: Interest from Call Account	0.00
Less: Investments Matured	10,000,000.00
Less: Investments Sold	0.00
Less: Call Account Redemption	0.00
Add: Fair Value Movement for period	0.00
Closing Balance at 30 May 2017	77,723,334.04

Investments Maturities and Returns – 1 to 30 May 2017

Principal Value ($)	Description	Type	Maturity Date	Number of Days Invested	Interest Rate Per Annum	Interest Paid on Maturity $
3,000,000.00	ME Bank	TD	04/05/17	120	2.75%	27,123.29
2,000,000.00	Beyond Bank Australia	TD	10/05/17	98	2.65%	14,230.14
2,000,000.00	ME Bank	TD	17/05/17	92	2.60%	13,106.85
1,000,000.00	Beyond Bank Australia	TD	24/05/17	92	2.65%	6,679.45
2,000,000.00	AMP Bank	TD	29/05/17	182	2.70%	26,926.03
10,000,000.00						88,065.76

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 period 1 May to 30 May 2017 the table below identifies the overall cash position of Council as follows:

Dissection of Council Cash Position as at 30 May 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	1,650,000.00	0.00
Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	2,053,334.04	2,053,334.04	0.00
Bonds	1,500,000.00	1,520,000.00	20,000.00
Total Investment Portfolio	77,703,334.04	77,723,334.04	20,000.00

Cash at Bank
Consolidated Fund	3,751,855.93	3,751,855.93	0.00
Total Cash at Bank	3,751,855.93	3,751,855.93	0.00

Total Cash Position	81,455,189.97	81,475,189.97	20,000.00

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 13.12

Report No. 13.12 Making of the 2017/2018 Ordinary Rates and Charges

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2017/747

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 20 April 2017, following consideration of Report No.13.7 Public Exhibition – Draft 2017/2018 Statement of Revenue Policy, adopted resolution 17-139, which determined a proposed Rating Structure for the 2017/2018 Financial Year for the purposes of public exhibition, and placed the Draft 2017/2018 Statement of Revenue Policy comprising the Budget Estimates, Rates and Charges, Borrowings and Fees and Charges on public exhibition for twenty eight days.

The Statement of Revenue Policy provides a detailed description of each of the rates, charges and fees that Council will levy on the 2017/2018 Rates and Charges Notice, and also describes the circumstances of a property to which a specific ordinary rate, charge, interest or fee will apply. It also lists relevant sections of legislation that allows for the levy of each rate, charge or fee to be made.

The public exhibition period seeking submissions on the draft documents closed on 25 May 2017, with the details of those submissions being the subject of another report to this Ordinary Council Meeting.

Each year Council is required to make the ordinary rates and charges pursuant to sections 533, 534 and 535 of the Local Government Act 1993 (LGA), with section 543 of the LGA requiring Council to make a short separate name for each rate and charge it makes. Council is also required to set the rate of interest charged on overdue rates and charges in accordance with section 566 (3) of the LGA.

This report satisfies these legislative requirements for the 2017/2018 financial year.

RECCOMENDATION:

That in accordance with Sections 533, 534, 535, 543 and 566 of the Local Government Act 1993 (LGA), Council makes the ordinary rates, makes the charges and sets the interest rate to be charged on overdue rates and charges for 2017/2018 listed in the following tables.

1. Ordinary Rates

Name of Ordinary Rate (Rate Notice short name)	*Rate in the Dollar or Ad-Valorem amount ($)	Minimum Rate ($)
Ordinary Rate Residential	0.2169	747.00
Ordinary Rate Residential Flood	0.2169	374.00
Ordinary Rate Business	0.3715	747.00
Ordinary Rate Business Byron CBD	0.4730	747.00
Ordinary Rate Mining	0.3715	747.00
Ordinary Rate Farmland	0.1935	747.00
Ordinary Rate Farmland Flood	0.1935	374.00

*Applied to 2016 base date land valuation

2. Domestic Waste Management Charges

Name of Domestic Waste Collection Charge (Rate Notice short name)	Annual Charge ($)
Domestic Waste 80L Collection 3 Bins	123.00
Domestic Waste 140L Collection 3 Bins	260.00
Domestic Waste 240L Collection 3 Bins	386.00
Domestic Waste 140L Collect/Wk 3 Bin	680.00
Domestic Waste 240L Collect/Wk 3 Bin	867.00
Domestic Waste Rural Collection 2 Bins	277.00
Domestic Waste Vacant Land Charge Urban	25.00
Domestic Waste Vacant Land Charge Rural	25.00
Domestic Recycling Additional Bin	86.00
Domestic Organics Additional Bin	100.00
Domestic Waste 80L 3Bin Multi Unit Serv	123.00
Domestic Waste 140L 3Bin Multi Unit Serv	260.00
Domestic Waste 240L 3Bin Multi Unit Serv	386.00
Domestic Waste 80L 2Bin Multi Unit Serv	123.00
Domestic Waste 140L 2Bin Multi Unit Serv	260.00
Domestic Waste 240L 2Bin Multi Unit Serv	386.00
Domestic Waste Strata 2Bin Share Service	207.00
Domestic Waste Strata 3Bin Share Service	207.00

3. Waste Management Charges (Non-Domestic)

Name of Waste Management Charge (Rate Notice short name)	Annual Charges ($)
Commercial 140L Waste & Recycle Service	420.00
Commercial 240L Waste & Recycle Service	481.00
Commercial Waste 140L Bin Collection	420.00
Commercial Waste 240L Bin Collection	481.00
Commercial Rural Waste & Recycle Service	433.00
Commercial Recycling 240L Bin Collection	108.00
Commercial Organics 240L Bin Collection	100.00
Waste Operations Charge Residential	70.00
Waste Operations Charge Non-Residential	70.00

4. Mixed Waste Bin Changeover Fee

Fee

Charges ($)

Mixed waste bin – size/capacity changeover fee

(first changeover free of charge then all subsequent changes per property per annum per owner/s attracts fee)

55.00

5. Stormwater Management Service Charges

Name of Stormwater Management Service Charge (Rate Notice short name)	Annual Charges ($)
Stormwater Charge Residential	25.00
Stormwater Charge Residential Strata	12.50
Stormwater Charge Business Strata	$25.00 per 350m² of the land area occupied by the strata scheme (or part thereof), proportioned by the unit entitlement of each lot in the strata scheme, minimum charge $5.00
Stormwater Charge Bus/Mixed Strata Min	12.50
Stormwater Charge Business	$25.00, plus an additional $25.00 for each 350m² or part thereof by which the area of the parcel of land exceeds 350m²

6. Water Charges

Name of Water Charge (Rate Notice short name)	Annual Charges ($)
Water Fixed Charge 20mm Residential	179.00
Water Fixed Charge 20mm Non-Residential	179.00
Water Fixed Charge 25mm Residential	280.00
Water Fixed Charge 25mm Non-Residential	280.00
Water Fixed Charge 32mm Residential	459.00
Water Fixed Charge 32mm Non-Residential	459.00
Water Fixed Charge 40mm Residential	716.00
Water Fixed Charge 40mm Non-Residential	716.00
Water Fixed Charge 50mm Residential	1,119.00
Water Fixed Charge 50mm Non-Residential	1,119.00
Water Fixed Charge 65mm Residential	1,891.00
Water Fixed Charge 65mm Non-Residential	1,891.00
Water Fixed Charge 80mm Residential	2,864.00
Water Fixed Charge 80mm Non-Residential	2,864.00
Water Fixed Charge 100mm Residential	4,475.00
Water Fixed Charge 100mm Non-Residential	4,475.00
Water Fixed Charge Vacant Residential	90.00
Water Fixed Charge Vacant Non-Residential	90.00
Water Fixed Charge Strata Residential	179.00
Water Fixed Charge Strata Non-Residntial	179.00
Water Fixed Charge Fire Service Resident	238.00
Water Fixed Charge Fire Service Non-Res	238.00
	Usage Charges ($)
Water Usage Charge Residential	2.47 per KL to 450 KL 3.70 per KL thereafter
Water Usage Charge Non-Residential	2.65 per KL
Water Usage Charge - Non-Compliance	5.30 per KL

7. Sewer Charges and On Site Sewage Management System Fee

Name of Sewer Charge (Rate Notice short name)	Annual Charges or Fee ($)
Sewer Fixed Charge 20mm Residential	819.00
Sewer Fixed Charge 20mm Non-Residential	819.00
Sewer Fixed Charge 25mm Residential	1,280.00
Sewer Fixed Charge 25mm Non-Residential	1,280.00
Sewer Fixed Charge 32mm Residential	2,097.00
Sewer Fixed Charge 32mm Non-Residential	2,097.00
Sewer Fixed Charge 40mm Residential	3,276.00
Sewer Fixed Charge 40mm Non-Residential	3,276.00
Sewer Fixed Charge 50mm Residential	5,119.00
Sewer Fixed Charge 50mm Non-Residential	5,119.00
Sewer Fixed Charge 65mm Residential	8,651.00
Sewer Fixed Charge 65mm Non-Residential	8,651.00
Sewer Fixed Charge 80mm Residential	13,104.00
Sewer Fixed Charge 80mm Non-Residential	13,104.00
Sewer Fixed Charge 100mm Residential	20,475.00
Sewer Fixed Charge 100mm Non-Residential	20,475.00
Sewer Fixed Charge Vacant Residential	410.00
Sewer Fixed Charge Vacant Non-Res	410.00
Sewer Fixed Charge Rebated Residential (pods)	794.00
Sewer Fixed Charge Rebated Non-Resident (pods)	794.00
On-Site Sewage Management System (OSMS) Fee	44.00
	Usage Charges ($)
Sewer Usage Charge Residential	1.85 per KL
Sewer Usage Charge Non-Residential	*SDF x 2.47 per KL

*SDF = Individual Property Sewer Discharge Factor (%)

8. Liquid Trade Waste Charges

Name of Liquid Trade Waste Charge (Rate Notice short name)	Annual Charges ($)
Liquid Trade Waste Annual Charge Residen	31.00
Liquid Trade Waste Annual Charge Business	31.00
Liquid Trade Waste – Cat 1 Residential	153.00
Liquid Trade Waste – Cat 1 Business	153.00
Liquid Trade Waste – Category 2	255.00
Liquid Trade Waste – Category 2S	255.00
Liquid Trade Waste – Category 3	429.00
	Usage Charges ($)
Liquid Trade Waste Usage Charge	**TWDF x 2.24 per KL
Liquid Trade Waste Usage Charge – Non-Compliance	**TWDF x 3.70 per KL

*TWDF = Individual Property Trade Waste Discharge Factor (%)

9. Interest Rate on Overdue Rates and Charges

Name of Interest Rate

(Rate Notice short name)

Rate (%)

Interest

7.5%

Report

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 20 April 2017, following consideration of Report No.13.7 Public Exhibition – Draft 2017/2018 Statement of Revenue Policy, adopted resolution 17-139, which determined a proposed Rating Structure for the 2017/2018 Financial Year for the purposes of public exhibition and placed the Draft 2017/2018 Statement of Revenue Policy comprising the Budget Estimates, Rates and Charges, Borrowings and Fees and Charges on public exhibition for twenty eight days.

The Statement of Revenue Policy provides a detailed description of each of the rates, charges and fees Council will levy on the Rates and Charges Notice and also describes the circumstances of a property to which a specific ordinary rate, charge, interest or fee will apply. It also lists relevant sections of legislation that allows for the levy of each rate, charge or fee to be made.

This report satisfies these legislative requirements for the 2017/2018 financial year.

Council in addition received Special Rate Variation (SRV) approval from the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) on 9 May 2017 to increase its permissible general income by 7.5% per annum for each of the next four rating years from 2017/2018 (section 508A LGA). This SRV includes the rate pegging limit (which was announced as 1.5% for 2017/2018 and future rate peg announcements up to and including the 2020/2021 financial year).

The amounts outlined in the first table in the recommendation to this report headed Ordinary Rates incorporates the 7.50% SRV as it applies for the 2017/2018 financial year. They also incorporate the distributional yield change in the rating structure, as publicly exhibited, to reduce rates paid by rateable properties categorized as residential, but to increase rates payable by business and farmland categories, whilst staying within the limit of Council’s overall permissible income limit.

The Office of Local Government advised via Circular 17-09 on 18 May 2017 that the maximum interest rate on overdue rates and charges is to be 7.5% for 2017/2018. This is a reduction of 0.5% compared to 2016/2017. Council has traditionally adopted the maximum permissible interest rate to apply for overdue rates and charges.

Financial Implications

The 2017/2018 budget including proposed works and services to be adopted by Council at this Ordinary Meeting is the subject of another report. The Draft 2017/2018 Budget Estimates has been based on the special rate variation increase of 7.5% as approved by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) for the general rate income. Charges proposed for water, sewer, stormwater and waste services have been based on the works and maintenance requirements of those areas and also in conjunction with the legislative requirements of the LGA to establish such charges.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Council is required to make the rates and charges and set the interest rate for 2017/2018 pursuant to sections 533, 534, 535,543 and 566 of the Local Government Act 1993 (LGA). The relevant sections or sub-sections of the LGA are summarised below:

533 Date by which a rate or charge must be made

A rate or charge must be made before 1 August in the year for which the rate or charge is made or before such later date in that year as the Minister may, if the Minister is of the opinion that there are special circumstances, allow.

534 Rate or charge to be made for a specified year

Each rate or charge is to be made for a specified year, being the year in which the rate or charge is made or the next year.

535 Rate or charge to be made by resolution

A rate or charge is made by resolution of the council.

543 Each form of a rate and each charge to have its own name

Council must, when making an ordinary rate or charge, give a short separate name for each amount of the ordinary rate or charge.

566 Accrual of interest on overdue rates and charges

The rate of interest is that set by the council but must not exceed the rate specified for the time being by the Minister by notice published in the Gazette.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.13

Report No. 13.13 2017/2018 Special Rate Variation Outcome

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2017/755

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

In accordance Council Resolution 17-020, an application was submitted to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) for a proposed 7.50% per annum Special Rate Variation (SRV) for a period of four years commencing 1 July 2017. The application was lodged on 13 February 2017, by the due date, with IPART releasing their determination in respect of Council’s application on 9 May 2017.

The intent of this report is to advise Council formally of the IPART’s determination and to recommend to Council the adoption of a Policy Framework for the programming of works, expenditure of SRV funds and the reporting on the expenditure of the revenues generated by the SRV, along number of alternative actions to the actions proposed in Parts 9 and 11 of Resolution 17-020.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council note the determination from IPART in relation to its 2017/2018 Special Rate Application including the following conditions imposed by IPART on Council for the:-

a) use of the additional income derived from the special variation for the purposes of reducing its infrastructure backlog and improving financial sustainability; and

b) reporting on this use against the forecasts included in the Council’s application as part the Council’s annual report for each year from 2017-18 to 2026-27.

2. That Council adopt as a Policy Framework the use and reporting conditions imposed by IPART in the SRV determination and further incorporate reporting on the Special Rate Variation into the development of the 2017/2018 Financial Sustainability Plan and the quarterly updates to Council through the Finance Advisory Committee on the implementation of the adopted Financial Sustainability Plan.

3. That Council establish as a policy framework that funding for infrastructure renewal and maintenance from general revenue sources is not ever lower then the general revenue baseline indicator established in the 2016/2017 Budget.

4. That Council establish as a policy framework that any funds generated by the SRV that remain unexpended at the end of each financial year are to be restricted and held in a internal reserve, to be carried forward to subsequent financial year, for expenditure in accordance with the uses imposed in the SRV approval.

5. That Council incorporate the research of potential non resident revenue sources (if any) as part of the Revenue Review chapter in the development of the 2017/2018 Financial Sustainability Plan, and provide quarterly updates to Council through the Finance Advisory Committee.

6. That Council not proceed with the implementation of part 9 and part 11 of resolution 17-020.

Attachments:

1 IPART determination of Byron Shire Council Special Rate Application 2017/2018, E2017/54521 ⇨

Report

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 2 February 2017 considered Report 13.2 – 2017/2018 Special Rate Variation Application. Following Council’s consideration of this report it resolved as follows (Resolution 17-020):

1. Receive and note the submissions and feedback received from the community during ‘Phase 4 – Public exhibition of the IP&R documents’ during the Special Rate Variation Consultation & Engagement process, conducted over the period from 17 December 2016 to 18 January 2017.

2. Notes that an application for a Special Rate Variation is a key strategy from its “Fit for the Future” Council Improvement Plan (CIP) adopted in June 2015.

3. Adopts ‘Option 1’ – being a 7.5% compounding annual rate increase per year over a four year period commencing July 2017 to June 2021 as its preferred option for a Special Rate Variation.

4. Subject to determination and incorporation of an SRV option as recommended in part 3 of the recommendation, Council adopt the revised Integrated Planning and Reporting documents as presented to Council on 15 December 2016 (#E2016/103981), (#E2016/100839) and (#E2016/103686).

5. Lodge a Section 508A permanent Special Rate Variation application to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, for increases to the ordinary rate income (general revenue) of 7.5% (including rate peg) in 2017/18, 7.5% (including rate peg) in 2018/19, 7.5% (including rate peg) in 2019/2020 and 7.5% (including rate peg) in 2020/21

6. Continue to actively campaign for the state government to legislate to enable the Council to levy a bed tax and thus provide a source of revenue for infrastructure renewal funded by the growing number of tourists to the area.

7. Continue to lobby the Office of Local Government and the NSW Grants Commission for a revision of the Financial Assistance Grants (FAGs) funding distribution formula so that the impact of tourists upon Council and its ratepayers is adequately recognised and compensated for as a disability factor.

8. Continue to closely monitor the IPART review of NSW council rating systems and advocate for an expansion of rating categories that would facilitate Holiday Let establishments being rated as or similar to Business.

9. Establish a Byron Shire Revenue Exploration Working Party to work alongside staff to identify non resident revenue sources and to report the outcomes of research at each community roundtable.

10. Write to the local Member, Tamara Smith, Ben Franklin MLC and Minister of Tourism, seeking an urgent meeting to discuss State Government potential for more targeted tourism support in the Byron Shire.

11. Develop a SRV quarterly expenditure auditing and reporting profile linked to Council’s CIP in conjunction with Council’s auditors within 3 months of any SRV approval issued by the IPART.

In accordance with Council’s resolution above, (Resolution 17-020 part 5) a formal application was lodged by Council to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) addressing the Special Rate Variation (SRV) criteria established by the Office of Local Government by the application due date of 13 February 2017.

IPART released the SRV determinations for the eight Councils in NSW that applied for SRVs for the 2017/2018 financial year on 9 May 2017. The detailed determination for Byron Shire Council is provided at Attachment 1 to this report. In summary, the determination for Byron Shire Council is:

1. Approval to increase general income between 2017/2018 and 2020/2021 by 7.50% each year inclusive of any rate peg announcement (1.50% for 2017/2018).

2. That Council complies with the conditions attached to the SRV approval.

The third page of the IPART determination stipulates the conditions of the SRV approval to which Council must comply with. In detail the conditions are:

IPART’s approval of Byron Shire Council’s application for a special variation over the period from 2017-18 to 2020-21 is subject to the following conditions:

· The council uses the additional income from the special variation for the purposes of reducing its infrastructure backlog and improving financial sustainability as outlined in the council’s application and listed in Appendix A

· The council reports in its annual report for each year from 2017-18 to 2026-27 on:

o the actual revenues, expenses and operating balance against the projected revenues, expenses and operating balance, as outlined in the Long Term Financial Plan provided in the council’s application, and summarised in Appendix B

o any significant variations from its proposed expenditure as forecast in the current Long Term Financial Plan and any corrective action taken or to be taken to address any such variation

o expenditure consistent with the council’s application and listed in Appendix A, and the reasons for any significant differences from the proposed expenditure, and

o the outcomes achieved as a result of the actual program of expenditure.

Appendix A to the determination document indicates that the SRV will provide Council with $43.1 million over the next ten years above assumed rate pegging and this will fund:

· An improvement to the operating balance (excluding capital grants and contributions) of $39.3million to fund capital expenditure to reduce infrastructure backlog.

· $3.8million of operating expenditure for asset maintenance to maintain current service levels.

· Council must disclose in the Annual Report how the actual expenditure compares with the proposed program of expenditure.

Tables A.1 and A.2 to Appendix A of the determination document, outline on an annual basis for the next ten financial years, the SRV funding allocations that Council must provide for different asset types consistent with the SRV application.

It is recommended that on the basis that the level of reporting required by IPART, and included as a condition in the IPART determination is more onerous then that proposed by part 11 of Resolution 17-020, that the reporting conditions required by the IPART replace the reporting framework to be developed under Part 11 of Resolution 17-020. The IPART conditions require Council to publish to the Community on an annual basis outcomes achieved, and extracted from Council’s financial records that have been subject to external audit, against the forecasts included in the Council’s application.

In addition it is proposed to embed this reporting in the 2017/2018 Financial Sustainability Plan and report progressively to Council through the Finance Advisory Committee on a quarterly basis. Furthermore, Council will need to create a reserve to restrict any funds generated from this SRV approval in any financial year, if any of the SRV funds generated remain unexpended. Such a reserve with any balance of funds will be publicly disclosed in Council’s Financial Statements at Note 6 which is subject to external audit.

As an additional measure and to ensure the funds generated by the SRV are used in accordance with the IPART use condition for asset maintenance and renewal, it is recommended that Council adopt as a baseline indicator, that the general revenue funding allocated to asset maintenance and renewal identified in the Long Term Financial Plan submitted with Council’s SRV application to IPART, excluding the additional SRV funding should be the base line. The baseline used in the SRV application was established in the adopted 2016/17 Budget.

This policy setting would mean that future budgets would need to include an allocation for infrastructure maintenance and renewal programs at least equal to a general revenue baseline indicator, and that Council could not adopt a budget that reduced the funding for infrastructure maintenance and renewal programs by funding other priorities/projects, below this adopted baseline indicator for infrastructure maintenance and renewal, before the application of the additional SRV funds raised for this purpose.

Resolution 17-020 part 9 requires that Council establish a Byron Shire Revenue Exploration Working Party to identify non resident revenue sources and report the outcomes of any research to each community roundtable. The issue for Council to be able to raise non resident revenue has been discussed for many years, but aside from the introduction of paid parking, Council has not been able to generate significant additional revenue from this source.

Council and the Community have identified potential non resident revenue sources but these revenue sources continue to be restricted by the Local Government Act 1993. Chapter 15 of the Local Government Act 1993 stipulates the basis of how Councils are financed with Council revenue being derived from rates, charges, fees, grants, borrowings and investments. Within these revenue types, the legislation provides further restrictions as to what Council can raise. It is for this reason why Council cannot do things such as:

1. Impose bed taxes

2. Impose business rates on residential properties used for holiday letting.

Due to such restrictions it is difficult to determine whether the establishment of a Byron Shire Revenue Exploration Working Party will be able to identify other non resident revenue sources for Council. It may come up with new ideas but it is a question as to whether Council can legally impose or enforce any new proposals. The reality for Council is that its revenue generation activities are confined by Chapter 15 of the Local Government Act 1993 and it is the rational applied for recommending to Council to not proceed with the implementation of Part 9 of Resolution 17-020.

Should Council though wish to proceed with Part 9 of Resolution 17-020, it is recommended that a Project Reference Group be established with Terms of Reference and a Reporting period established such as six (6) months. The report could be presented to a Community Roundtable, as well as Council, as envisioned by the Resolution.

Financial Implications

There are no direct financial implications as a result of Council’s consideration of this report itself. In respect of establishing the rates and charges proposed for the 2017/2018 financial year however, this will be a consideration by Council at this Ordinary Meeting where there are two further reports included in the Ordinary Meeting Agenda related to:

1. Adoption of the Draft 2017/2018 Operational Plan including the Budget Estimates and Statement of Revenue Policy.

2. Adoption of the recommendations concerning a report on the Making of the Rate for 2017/2018 which is a statutory requirement for Council to do before 30 June each financial year.

Should Council adopt these reports, for the 2017/2018 financial year, the Special Rate Variation will generate an estimated $1.185 million in additional revenue for Council growing to an estimated additional revenue of $4.789million by the 2020/2021 financial year being the final year of the proposed SRV increase.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The Local Government Act 1993 provides Councils in NSW the ability to increase general land rates over and above the rate peg announcement announced annually. In respect of Council’s SRV application, this was done under Section 508(A) of the Local Government Act 1993. Whilst the legislation refers to the Minister for Local Government to make the determination, the actual determinations are now undertaken by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART).

Chapter 15 (Sections 491 to 625) outline and define the ability for Councils to raise finance.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.15

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report No. 13.15 PLANNING - 10.2016.663.1 Dual Occupancy (detached) swimming pool, strata subdivision 2 lots and tree removal 9 Trees at Granuaille Crescent Bangalow

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Clyde Treadwell, Planner

File No: I2017/293

Theme: Ecology

Development and Approvals

Proposal:

Proposal description:	Dual Occupancy (Detached), Swimming Pool, Strata Subdivision (Two (2) Lots) and Tree Removal (Nine (9) Trees)
Property description:	LOT: 105 DP: 1225545
Property description:	Granuaille Crescent BANGALOW
Parcel No/s:	268398
Applicant:	Mr M Franck
Owner:	Mr C D & Mrs R Proctor & Instant Steel Pty Ltd
Zoning:	R2 Low Density Residential
Date received:	7 October 2016
Integrated Development:	No
Public notification or exhibition:	Level 1 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications Exhibition period: 20 October 2016 to 2 November 2016 Submissions received: 13
Other approvals (S68/138):	Not applicable
Planning Review Committee:	10 November 2016
Delegation to determination:	Council
Issues:	· Vegetation removal · Koala Habitat impact · Adjoins heritage item · Drinking water catchment · Visual impacts · Building Height Plane Encroachment

Summary:

The application seeks development consent for the construction of a dual occupancy (detached), construction of a swimming pool, Strata Title subdivision (Two (2) Lots) and Tree Removal Nine (9) trees. The dual occupancy comprises one x two storey four bedroom dwelling and one x one storey two bedroom dwelling; each with modest living and dining areas and a lap pool is located to the east of proposed dwelling Unit A. Vegetation to be removed includes four (4) flooded gums, a silky oak, pink euodia and a blue quandong. The flooded gums in particular provide potential koala habitat and also a vegetated backdrop to the ridgeline.

Thirteen (13) submissions were received raising a number of issues including heritage, environmental and visual impacts. Whilst some issues could be addressed, it is considered the proposal will have an unacceptable impact on the visual and scenic amenity of the locality, ecologically, Council cannot be satisfied based on the information provided that koala habitat won’t be adversely affected. The application is recommended for refusal.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That Pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, development application 10.2016.663.1 for Dual Occupancy (Detached), Swimming Pool, Strata Subdivision (Two (2) Lots) and Tree Removal (Nine (9) Trees), be refused for the following reasons.

1. Pursuant to Section 5A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, the applicant has failed to demonstrate the development will not have an adverse impact on threatened species.

2. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is inadequate to permit sufficient compensation for tree removal in accordance with Byron DCP 2014 Chapter B2 Preservation of Trees and Other Vegetation.

3. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is an over-development of a constrained site, resulting in loss of significant trees and adversely impacting on the visual and scenic amenity of the ridgeline.

4. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, the proposal not in the public interest and fails to satisfy Clause 49 of the EPA Regulation 2000 in terms of owner’s consent.

Attachments:

1 Letter and proposed plans - 10.2016.663.1 Malcolm Scott Granuaille Crescent Bangalow , E2017/45344 ⇨

2 Confidential - submissions received 10.2016.663.1 Granuaille Crescent Bangalow , E2017/45470

Assessment:

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. History/Background

The subject land was created by a subdivision of a larger parcel of land which extended from Hinterland Way (the former Pacific Highway) to Granuaille Road.

The subdivision created the subject allotment as a vacant parcel with a frontage to Granuaille Crescent, while the rest of the land the subject of that subdivision is accessed off Rankin Drive or Corlis Crescent.

1.2. Description of the proposed development

This application seeks approval for Dual Occupancy (Detached), Swimming Pool, Strata Subdivision (Two (2) Lots) and Tree Removal (Nine (9) Trees). The dual occupancy comprises one x two storey four bedroom dwelling and one x one storey two bedroom dwelling; each with modest living and dining areas and a lap pool is located to the east of proposed dwelling Unit A. Vegetation to be removed includes four (4) flooded gums, a silky oak, pink euodia and a blue quandong. The flooded gums in particular provide koala habitat and also a vegetated backdrop to the ridgeline.

1.3. Description of the site

Land is legally described as LOT: 105 DP: 1225545.

Property address is Granuaille Crescent BANGALOW

Land is Zoned: LEP 2014 - R2 Low Density Residential

Land area is: 1034m²

Property is constrained by:

· Adjoins heritage item

· Drinking water catchment

· Koalas

2. SUMMARY OF REFERRALS

Referral	Issue
Development Engineer	No objections subject to conditions. Refer to Docs #A2016/26348; #E2017/6544;
S64 / Systems Planning Officer	No objections subject to conditions. Refer to Doc #A2016/26356
S94 / Contributions Officer	No objections subject to conditions. Refer to Doc #A2016/26357
Ecologist	The proposal includes the removal of vegetation including 4 large flooded gum trees which are koala food trees. The application is not supported on ecological grounds. Refer to Doc #A2016/28969 and discussion below.

Ecology

Flooded Gums are regarded as Secondary Koala Food trees, regularly used in association with one or more primary browse species. Primary browse species within Byron Shire are known to be Tallowwood, Forest Red Gum, Swamp Mahogany and Small-fruited Grey Gum. Secondary browse trees can be preferentially selected by Koalas, but use is usually dependent on the presence nearby of a Primary browse species. In the case of Flooded Gums on the subject property, a number of primary browse trees (Tallowwoods) are present on the adjacent property, where Koala scats were found by Council’s Ecologist during the site inspection undertaken. An additional two Koala scats were found on the subject property near a large Flooded Gum at the eastern edge of the lot.

Photos supplied with submissions appear to show a Koala within the large Camphor Laurel occurring on the neighbouring boundary which overhangs the subject lot. This tree would require removal or significant pruning to facilitate the development and owner’s consent has not been provided with the application.

Council has recently completed the five year follow-up Koala habitat survey for the Byron Coast and west to Pacific Highway. Records from koalas taken into care by Friends of the Koala (FoK) were used to inform the survey. An extract from the re-survey report (below) indicates that many Koala deaths and injury have occurred since the nearby section of highway past Bangalow was completed.

Results

Historical records

The FoK database contained 782 records for the same time period, 248 of which related to koala mortalities. Excluding 41 of these records where the cause of death was unknown, factors contributing to koala mortalities across the Byron LGA were disease (136/207 = 65.7%), cars (53/207 = 25.6%) & dogs (11/207 = 5.3%). Black spots for koala road kill included the Pacific Highway (~ 50% of all known motor vehicle related mortalities), most notably in the vicinity of the (former) southbound Bangalow exit and the Lismore – Bangalow Road (23% of all known motor vehicle related mortalities), the remainder thereafter distributed on secondary roads the more important of which (in terms of numbers of koalas being killed) including the Broken Head, Coorabell and Granuille Roads.

Visual Amenity

· View impacts are likely from many areas of the town, including the showground, since the large trees are at the ridge line.

Photograph taken from the showgrounds demonstrate the visual prominence of the large Flooded Gums (centre of photo) proposed to be removed.

It was submitted in the arboricultural report that due to the zoning and the proposed development, it would be better to remove the requested trees than have them conflict with the development as submitted. Having regards to the size and scale of the development this is not agreed to. A single dwelling house would have a lessor impact on native vegetation on the property.

Relevant Environmental Legislation

Table 1 (below) considers the proposed development against those parts of the legislation that relate to ecological matters.

TABLE 1 RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Legislation	Section(s)/ Provisions	Assessment
Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999)	Cl 18, 18A & 19: Matters of NES – threatened species	Matters of National Environmental Significance (NES) on the site include the nationally threatened species Grey-headed Flying Fox and Koala. No assessment of impact has been undertaken.
Environmental Planning & Assessment Act (1979)	Section 5A: (significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats)	One threatened fauna species have been recorded from the site. Loss of habitat in this area and since the highway completion caused apparent isolation/barrier effects is likely to be significant.
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995	Section (94) & Schedules 1, 1A, 2 and 3:	Investigation into the presence of threatened species, populations and ecological communities (and key threatening processes) has not been undertaken. See above.
Native Vegetation Act 2003	Clause 12: Clearing requiring approval	Not applicable - The Act applies to rural land and generally requires dual consent where vegetation clearing is proposed. The land here is zoned R5 Large lot residential.
Fisheries Management Act 1994	Clause 201: Fisheries Permit	Not applicable – Fisheries permit not required.
Water Management Act 2000	Clause 91: Activity approvals	A controlled activity approval is not likely to be required for the proposal as no dewatering or stream bank work is proposed.
Rural Fires Act	S100B	The site is not mapped as bushfire-prone land.
SEPP 44	Clauses 7-11: Development control of Koala habitat	The subject site is now (since subdivision completed) less than 1 ha in size, however, no assessment under SEPP 44 was provided with the original application over the larger parcel >1ha. Recent Koala use of the site is demonstrated through scats and scratch marks.
SEPP 71 Coastal Protection	Clause 8: Matters for consideration	The site is outside the coastal zone; therefore this policy does not apply to the site.
Byron LEP 2014	Clause 1.2 Aims	These clauses provide for the protection of the environment, protection of biodiversity and for Ecologically Sustainable Development. Substantial reduction of proposed tree removal and site-specific compensation would enable the proposal to conform with ESD principles.
Byron LEP 2014	Clause 5.5 – Development within the coastal zone	The site lies outside the mapped coastal erosion zone, thus this clause is not applicable.
Byron LEP 2014	Clause 5.9: Preservation of trees	Aims to preserve habitat and requires development consent for clearing of native vegetation, which is sought in this application.
Byron LEP 2014	Clause 63: Acid Sulfate Soils	The site is not mapped as containing Acid Sulfate Soils.
Byron LEP 2014	Part 2 - Zones	The site is zoned R2 low density residential. Whilst dual occupancies are permitted in the zone
Byron LEP 2014	Drinking Water Catchment	The site is located within a Drinking Water Catchment. Drinking water catchment (DWC) and accordingly consideration must be made to the potential impact of the proposed development on the DWC. The application does not directly address the type chemicals that will be used and stored on the site.
Byron LEP1998	Clause 2A(2) – Byron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2004 (BCS)	Habitat removal is proposed. “No net loss” provisions have not been adequately addressed and insufficient room exists on site to compensate for proposed tree loss.
Byron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2004 (BCS)	Clause 2A(2) –	The BCS includes a No Net Loss Vegetation Policy that provides for compensatory plantings to offset loss of vegetation. “No net loss” provisions have not been adequately addressed and insufficient room exists on site to compensate for proposed tree loss.
Byron DCP 2014	Chapter B2: Tree preservation	Aims to encourage the retention of trees and the planting of species endemic to the local area. No trees on the significant tree register are proposed for removal as part of the DA, however, secondary browse trees indicating use by Koalas are proposed to be removed and the habitat value cannot be replaced by proposed landscaping.
Byron DCP 2014	Chapter B9 – Landscaping	A Landscape Plan complying with this chapter could be submitted with the application for a construction certificate, however, the current proposal retains exotic and non-local species and removes significant local native species without adequate compensation.

Conclusion

It is considered that the development cannot be supported for the following ecological reasons:

1 The applicant has failed to adequately assess the ecological impacts of the proposed development in accordance with Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Considering presence of Koala records on and in the vicinity of the subject site, presence of Koala scats on site and on neighbouring land as well as the barrier effect created by the new highway meaning that movement to additional habitat areas is restricted or unsafe; potential exists for a significant effect on threatened species.

2 The development is considered to represent over-development of a constrained site, resulting in loss of all significant trees from the site and significantly altering the ridgeline visual impact.

3 The subdivided lot size is inadequate to permit sufficient compensation for significant tree loss in accordance with Byron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Byron DCP Chapter B2.

4 The development would require removal or significant pruning of a tree on the adjoining lot, for which owner’s consent has not been provided.

3. SECTION 79BA – BUSH FIRE PRONE LAND

Under section 79BA of the Act, Council must be satisfied prior to making a determination for development on bush fire prone land, that the development complies with the document ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’. The site is not bush fire prone land.

4. 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.

4.1 State Environmental Planning Instruments

	Satisfactory	Unsatisfactory
State Environmental Planning Policy No 44—Koala Habitat Protection	☐	☒
Consideration: While this SEPP does not get triggered by the application, the applicant has failed to assess the ecological impacts of the proposed development in accordance with Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Considering presence of Koala records on and in the vicinity of the subject site, presence of Koala scats on site and on neighbouring land as well as the barrier effect created by the new highway meaning that movement to additional habitat areas is restricted or unsafe; potential exists for a significant effect on threatened species. The subject site is now (since subdivision completed) less than 1 ha in size, however, no assessment under SEPP 44 was provided with the original application over the larger parcel >1ha. Recent Koala use of the site is demonstrated through scats and scratch marks.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land	☒	☐
Consideration: The subdivision that created Lot 105 considered SEPP 55.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004	☒	☐
Consideration: This SEPP applies to the proposal as it is residential in nature. The application is accompanied by an assessment and certification using the Australian Building Sustainability Association ABSA certification N^o1010765756 dated 19/01/2017 and BASIX certificate N^o757010M_03 for Multi Dwelling, dated 19 January 2017. These certificates indicate that the proposed works meet the requirements for sustainability.

4.2A Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP 2014)

LEP 2014 is an applicable matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP&A Act because it applies to the subject land and the proposed development. The LEP 2014 clauses that are checked below are of relevance to the proposed development:

Part 1	☒1.1\| ☒1.1AA\| ☒1.2\| ☒1.3\| ☒1.4\| ☒Dictionary\| ☒1.5\| ☒1.6\| ☒1.7\| ☒1.8\| ☒1.8A\| ☒1.9\| ☒1.9A
Part 2	☒2.1\| ☒2.2 \| ☒2.3 \|☒Land Use Table \| ☐2.4 \| ☐2.5 \| ☒2.6 \| ☐2.7 \| ☐2.8
Part 3	☐3.1\| ☐3.2\| ☐3.3
Part 4	☒4.1\| ☐4.1A\| ☐4.1AA\| ☐4.1B \|☐4.1C\| ☐4.1D\| ☒4.1E\| ☐4.2\| ☐4.2A\| ☐4.2B\| ☐4.2C\| ☐4.2\|☒4.3\|☒4.4 \|☒4.5 \|☐4.6
Part 5	☐5.1\| ☐5.2\| ☐5.3\| ☐5.4\| ☐5.5\| ☒5.6\| ☐5.7\| ☐5.8\| ☒5.9\| ☐5.9AA\| ☒5.10\| ☐5.11\| ☐5.12\| ☐5.13
Part 6	☐6.1\| ☒6.2\| ☐6.3\| ☐6.4\| ☒6.5\| ☒6.6\| ☐ 6.7\| ☐6.8\| ☐6.9

In accordance with LEP 2014 clauses 1.4 and 2.1 – 2.3:

(a) The proposed development is defined in the LEP 2014 Dictionary as Dual Occupancy;

(b) The land is within the R2 Low Density Residential according to the Land Zoning Map;

(d) Regard is had for the Zone Objectives as follows:

Zone Objective	Consideration
To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.	A dual occupancy (detached) development is consistent with the provision of a variety of housing choice and an increase in the delivery of housing stock to the community – ie providing for the housing needs of the community – in a low density environment.

The remaining underlined clauses have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP&A Act. The proposed development needs to be assessed against all relevant clauses of LEP 2014 (in some cases subject to the satisfaction of other technical assessing officers).

Land Use Table

‘Dual Occupancies’ are permitted pursuant to consent within the R2 – Low Density Residential zone. The proposed development complies with the objectives of the R2 – Low Density Residential zone, providing housing that satisfies the housing needs of the community.

Clause 4.1E – Minimum lot sizes for dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings

Pursuant to clause 4.1E Dual occupancy (detached) within land zoned R2 Low Density Residential must be sited on allotments 800m² or greater. This site is above the minimum lot size required, being in excess of 1034m², thus a Dual occupancy (detached) is a permissible use on the subject site. The merits of the application need to be considered.

Clause 4.3 - Height of Buildings

The LEP Height of Buildings Map identifies the site as having a maximum height of 9 metres. The proposed double storey dwellings of the development have a height of 7.7 metres and thus comply with the clause.

Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio & Clause 4.5 – Calculation of Floor Space Ratio and Site Area

The LEP Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Map identifies the site as having a maximum FSR of 0.5.

The site has an area of 1,034m². The proposed development has a total gross floor area of 422.3m², thus the development has an FSR of 0.408 which complies with the maximum FSR established in the LEP.

Clause 5.9 – Preservation of trees or vegetation

The proposed development will necessitate the removal of nine (9) trees.

The Byron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and DCP 2014 Chapter B2 aim to achieve a “no net loss of native vegetation” outcome. Compensation for the flooded gums, regarded as “local indigenous trees with habitat value for local wildlife” should be undertaken at a ratio of ten trees planted for each tree lost. This is not achievable on the allotment. Consideration of the proposed landscaping shows that it consists of small species that do not replace the habitat lost, nor would they compensate for the “visual change” which will be permanent, not short-term.

Clause 5.10 - Heritage Conservation

The site adjoining (Lot 348 DP 755695) the subject land has a listed heritage item (IO26) in accordance with Schedule 5 - Map HER-003CBA of Byron LEP 2014. The application was not referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor as the item is:

· a separate (non heritage listed dwelling also exists on Lot 348) sits between proposed Unit B of this application and the heritage item. Refer Attachment 1 of this report – Plan AB02 – Site Plan - dated 15/2/17 showing adjoining house 348/755695;

· located some 15 metres from the site of the proposed development;

· Unit A is located approximately 17metres from the heritage item;

· The subject site is down slope from the heritage item. The item is on an elevated site with approximately 2 metres difference in elevation to the subject dual occupancy;

· The proposed development indicates a 1.8 metre high lattice screening fence along the northern boundary, screening the heritage item from the proposed development.

Whilst the proposal will change the character of the site, the proposal is not likely to create any significant adverse impacts on the assessed heritage values of Item IO26, however the application does not directly address this matter.

Clause 6.5 - Drinking water catchment

The site is identified in the Drinking water catchment (DWC) and accordingly consideration must be made to the potential impact of the proposed development on the DWC.

The following matters are considered:

· the proposal can potentially direct stormwater to Councils system. The application indicates that run off will be controlled during construction and operation phases of the dual occupancy. The application addresses the potential impacts on the quality and quantity of water entering the drinking water storage.

· The development is located some distance from a waterway that feeds into the drinking water storage.

· The application does not directly address the type chemicals that will be used and stored on the site. While it is unlikely that any disposal of chemicals will occur on the subject land, the use/storage /disposal of chemicals need to be better addressed in the application.

· With regard to the treatment, storage and disposal of waste water and solid waste generated or used by the development, the development should be designed, sited and managed to avoid any significant adverse impact on water quality and flows associated with the waste water generated or disposed.

4.2B Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988 (LEP 1988)

LEP 1988 is not an applicable matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application.

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

Draft SEPP (Coastal Management) 2016

The subject site is not mapped within the area that the draft SEPP applies. The subject site is not mapped within the ‘coastal use area’ and it does not fall within a ‘coastal vulnerability area;’ nor is it identified within the ‘Coastal Erosion Hazard Area’ on the Byron Bay Coastal Hazards Map (Byron DCP 2014), accordingly there is no need to consider or assess this draft SEPP any further.

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

DCP 2014 is an applicable matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP& A Act because it applies to the land to which LEP 2014 applies. The DCP 2014 Parts/Chapters that are checked below are of relevance to the proposed development:

Part A	In accordance with DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications the application was advertised under Level 1. The exhibition period was from 20/10/16 to 2/11/16. There were 13 Submissions received.
Part B Chapters:	☒B2\| ☒B3\| ☒B4\| ☒B5\| ☐B6\| ☐B7\| ☒B8\| ☒B9\| ☐B10\| ☐B11\| ☐B12\| ☐B13\| ☒B14
Part C Chapters:	☐C1\| ☐C2\| ☐C3\| ☒C4
Part D Chapters	☒D1\| ☐D2\| ☐D3\| ☐D4\| ☐D5\| ☐D6\| ☐D7\| ☐D8
Part E Chapters	☐ E1\| ☒E2\| ☐E3\| ☐E4\| ☐E5\| ☐E6\| ☐ E7

These underlined Parts/Chapters have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP&A Act. The proposed development is demonstrated to meet the relevant Objectives of all relevant Parts/Chapters (in some cases subject to conditions and/or to the satisfaction of other assessing officers).

B4 – Traffic Planning, Vehicle Parking, Circulation and Access,

The proposal is to have two car spaces per dwelling, with at least one space per dwelling being covered. The proposed dual occupancy detached development has a double car carport (ie covered space) for Unit A, and a two bay car parking bay for Unit B with a nominated visitor park adjoining the carport to Unit A. The proposal complies.

B14 - Excavation and Fill

Earthworks are proposed which are considered satisfactory having regard to the slope of the land.

C4 - Development in Drinking Water Catchment

Refer to previous comments in section 4.2A of this report relating to DWC.

D1 – Residential Accommodation in Urban, Village and Special Purposes Zones

The proposed detached dual occupancy accords with the provisions of Clause D1.5 relating to the development of Dual Occupancy and Semi-Detached Dwellings. The proposed dual occupancy detached provides:

· suitable on site car parking spaces – ie 2 car spaces per dwelling in the dual occupancy and a visitor car park is provided;

· An appropriate design that is compatible with the character of the locality and the prevailing low density residential zone, provides adequate private open space per dwelling and is responsive to slope and drainage issues of the site;

· Consistent development with the character and amenity of existing (and likely future development given this is a new residential subdivision with a high percentage of vacant residential allotments;

· An appropriate landscape plan with suitable plants and retaining walls etc.

E2 - Bangalow

The proposed detached dual occupancy accords with the provisions of Clause E2 of DCP 2014. The provisions of which have primarily been addressed in previous sections of this assessment report. The proposed development is located in urban release Area 2 of the Structure Plan in E2.2. This area is a new urban release that extends the village of Bangalow to the north off Rankin Drive. Residential development is appropriate in this release area.

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

DCP 2010 is not an applicable matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application.

4.5 Any Planning Agreement or Draft Planning Agreement?

	Yes	No
Is there any applicable planning agreement or draft planning agreement?	☐	☒
Consideration: Not applicable.

4.6 Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 Considerations

Clause	This control is applicable to the proposal:	I have considered this control as it relates to the proposal:	If this control is applicable, does the proposal comply?
92	No	N/A	N/A
93	No	N/A	N/A
94	No	N/A	N/A
94A	No	N/A	N/A

· * Non-compliances and any other significant issues discussed below

4.7 Any coastal zone management plan?

	Satisfactory	Unsatisfactory	Not applicable
Is there any applicable coastal zone management plan?	☐	☐	☒
Consideration: The subject site is not located in the coastal zone.

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

Impact on:	Likely significant impact/s?
Natural environment	Yes. The proposal will have a significant adverse impact on the natural environment of the locality with the removal of some nine mature trees that form habitat for a variety of fauna and are of visual significance impacts to many public vantage points throughout and adjacent to Bangalow village.
Built environment	Yes. The proposal will have a significantly adverse impact on the built environment of the locality – through the removal of vegetation and the building of two dwellings on a site that was specifically earmarked for a single dwelling at the time of the assessment of the subdivision.
Social Environment	No. The proposal will not have a significant social impact on the locality.
Economic impact	No. The proposal will not have a significant economic impact on the locality.

Are there any Council Policies that are applicable to the proposed development?

There are no relevant Council Policies that apply to the proposal that have not been considered elsewhere in this S79c assessment.

4.9 The suitability of the site for the development

The site while serviced is relatively constrained by the amount of existing vegetation on the property and it is unsuitable for the proposed development.

4.10 Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

The development application was publicly exhibited. There were 13 submissions objecting to the development. The following matters were raised in the submissions received:

Objection to Removal of Trees

Comment: the proposal indicates that it is necessary to remove nine (9) trees from the site. To enable consideration to the significant of theses trees the application was referred to Council’s Ecologist and consideration was given to heritage and visual perspective. The ecologist considers that the vegetation removal will have a significant adverse impact on local biodiversity conservation. The visual impact will also be significant in the visual catchment.

Trees are habitat for native Fauna

Several submissions make the observation that the trees on the subject site are habitat for native Fauna including:

· Koalas;

· Red Tailed Cockatoos;

· Mountain Brush Tailed Possum;

· Ring Tailed Possum;

Comment: To enable consideration of the ecological significant of the nine (9) trees to be removed from the site the application was referred to Council’s Ecologist and the ecologist considers that the vegetation removal will have a significant adverse impact on biodiversity conservation.

Tree Removal will Change the Landscape and Streetscape

Comment: The removal of the existing vegetation will modify the prevailing landscape and streetscape setting of the site and the locality.

The subject site, under Byron LEP 1988, was zoned 2 (a) Residential. In LEP 1988 prominent (scenic or escarpment) lands were zoned 7 (d) Scenic / Escarpment zone.

Urban investigation areas were identified in the Bangalow Settlement Strategy 2003, the subject land was identified as “physically unconstrained” land. Subsequently the E2.2 Structure Plan in Chapter E2 of the Byron DCP 2014 identified the subject land as an urban release area (Area 2 of the Structure Plan). This area is a new urban release that extends the village of Bangalow to the north off Rankin Drive. The structure plan identifies land that is to form a landscape buffer; the subject land is not included in the identified buffer.

Dual Occupancy and Strata Development – Out of Character with Locality

Comment: The subject land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential zone under Byron LEP 2014 and prior to that it was formally, under Byron LEP 1988, zoned 2 (a) Residential. The area was identified in the Council’s strategic processes (discussed above) as an extension (urban release area) to the village of Bangalow.

Given 1) the identification as an urban area; 2) the residential zoning of the land and 3) the subsequent recognition in the E2.2 Structure Plan in Chapter E2 of the Byron DCP 2014 it is expected that the land will be used for residential development. Such development will need to be in accordance with legislation, planning instruments and Council’s policies. The proposal needs to better address the objectives of these requirements.

Two Storey Development equates to High Density (in Bangalow).

Comment: The subject land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential zone under Byron LEP 2014 and the proposal meets the objective of the being “To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment”. The proposed dual occupancy (detached) development is consistent with the provision of a variety of housing choice and an increase in the delivery of housing stock to the community – i.e. providing for the housing needs of the community – in a low density environment. The density of the proposal equates to 1 dwelling per 517m². In the locality, along Rankin Drive the majority of the residential land is between 600m² and 700m² so the subject allotment size is only marginally smaller than that prevailing in the locality. The minimum lot size for Torrens title subdivision of the land is 600m², the allotments proposed by the development are 14% smaller than this provision applying to enable the creation of Torrens title lots. In general planning terms the proposal would not be considered high density; however it is out of character with the general development in the locality and with the prevailing streetscape of the locality.

Change to Visual attributes

Comment: The removal of the existing vegetation and the development will modify the prevailing visual setting of the site and the locality. The subject site is an iconic site in the locality from a visual perspective.

In response to requests made by Council based on issues raised in community feedback the application was amended in March 2017 to reduce the potential impacts from the proposal and the number of trees to be removed.

It is considered that the proposed removal of the nine trees in the amended plan is likely to have significant visual impacts on the locality.

Excessive Traffic Generation and Impact on Road Network and Safety.

Comment: Council’s engineers have determined the traffic rates using the RTA’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments and consider that the traffic generated by a single dwelling would be 9 vehicle movements but with the proposed development the traffic generated would be 18 vehicle movements. They deem the increase in traffic is minimal and will not have any significant impact on the surrounding road network.

Size of development

Comment: The site complies with the maximum Floor Space Ratio established in the LEP. The size and scale of the development is not dissimilar to the intensity of development on the adjoining properties. The land to the north with an area over 4300m²has two dwellings and a large garage/shed while the land to the south of the subject site has a dwelling and a large garage/shed (about 200m² in size).

Privacy and Shadowing

Building Height Plane

Comment: Unit A of the proposed dual occupancy will encroach on the Building Height Plane (BHP) on the adjacent northern boundary. Given the subject land is to the south of this, it will produce shadow predominantly within the subject site itself and not impact adjoining lands. This encroachment, which is about 450mm at the very apex of Unit A , can be permitted in accordance with the provisions of D1.2.2 2b) ii).

The Building height plane encroachment is shown on the following diagram:

Unit A

Privacy

Comment: While Unit B has kitchen and dining room windows facing the land to the north however this Unit will not be able to overview the rear yard or dwelling of No 3 Granuaille Crescent as the unit is

· setback 3 metres from the northern boundary and

· the prevailing slope of the land (No 3 Granuaille Crescent is on a higher elevation than the subject land) combined with;

· the Unit being recessed (cut) some 1.2 metres; and

· there is a proposed 1.8 metre high lattice screen fence on the property boundary; would assist in facilitating no overviewing or privacy impacts on the adjoining land to the north.

Unit A will not be able to overview No 3 Granuaille Crescent as the unit is

· is proposed to be about 3 metres lower than the floor level of No 3 Granuaille Crescent;

· setback 1.8 metres from the northern boundary;

· despite the Unit encroaching the BHP, which can be measured in millimetres, this encroachment can be permitted in accordance with the provisions of D1.2.2 2b) ii).

· the prevailing slope of the land (No 3 Granuaille Crescent is on a higher elevation than the subject land);

· the Unit being recessed (cut) some 2 metres below the natural ground level; and

· there is a proposed 1.8 metre high lattice screen fence on the property boundary;

No overviewing or privacy impacts on the adjoining land to the north.

The land to the south has a large metal shed close to the boundary and this existing shed effectively blocks any viewing opportunities from the subject lands. Furthermore a 1.6metre high lattice screen fence is proposed on the southern property boundary extending from the proposed carport to the eastern boundary.

Heritage

Comment: The site adjoining (Lot 348 DP 755695 - No 3 Granuaille Crescent) the subject land has a listed heritage item (IO26) in accordance with Schedule 5 - Map HER-003CBA of Byron LEP 2014. The application was not referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor as the item is:

· located some 15 metres from the site of the proposed development;

· a separate (non heritage listed dwelling also exists on Lot 348) sits between proposed Unit B of this application and the heritage item;

· Unit A is located approximately 17metres from the heritage item;

· The subject site is down slope from the heritage item. The item is on an elevated site with approximately 2 metres difference in elevation to the subject dual occupancy;

· The proposed development indicates a 1.8 metre high lattice screening fence along the northern boundary, screening the heritage item from the proposed development.

Whilst the proposal will change the character of the site, the proposal is not likely to create any adverse impacts on the assessed heritage values of Item IO26.

Status of Allotment/ Subject Site

Comment: The subject site is now a registered separate title - Lot 105 DP 1225545 and is not part of the larger original parcel that had an area of over 7 hectares and extended to Rankin Drive.

Noise

Comment: There will be a potential increase in noise from the construction and use of the proposed units and pool area. The noise generated in residential areas can be controlled under the POEO Act and with appropriate conditions of consent. Given the proposal is for a residential use it is expected that noise generation will be of a domestic nature and not dissimilar to the adjoining existing development.

Stormwater Disposal

Comment: On site detention (OSD) engineering calculations have been submitted demonstrating on site detention can be provided for the development. The proposed OSD for proposed Unit A will not work as shown but a reasonable solution can be resolved at Construction Certificate stage.

4.11 Public interest

The proposed development is not in the public interest and fails to satisfy Clause 49 of the EPA Regulation 2000 in terms of owner’s consent for removal lopping of a tree on an adjacent property.

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

Having regard to sections 5A, 5C and 5D of the EP&A Act, there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats as a result of the proposed development because of the nine trees to be removed, four are regarded as highly significant in the landscape and provide Koala habitat. The tree removal is considered to represent over-development of a constrained site.

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

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

5. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

Developer Contributions under Section 94 and Water and Sewer Charges would apply.

6. CONCLUSION

The proposed development is assessed as an overdevelopment of the site having regards to the ecological constraints affecting it. The application is recommended for refusal.

7. RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, development application 10.2016.663.1 for Dual Occupancy (Detached), Swimming Pool, Strata Subdivision (Two (2) Lots) and Tree Removal (Nine (9) Trees), be refused for the following reasons:

1. Pursuant to Section 5A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, the applicant has failed to demonstrate the development will not have an adverse impact on threatened species.

2. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is inadequate to permit sufficient compensation for tree removal in accordance with Byron DCP 2014 Chapter B2 Preservation of Trees and Other Vegetation.

3. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is an over-development of a constrained site, resulting in loss of significant trees and adversely impacting on the visual and scenic amenity of the ridgeline.

4. Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is not in the public interest and fails to satisfy Clause 49 of the EPA Regulation 2000 in terms of owner’s consent.

8. 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 - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.17

Report No. 13.17 Short Term Rental Accommodation - Enforcement Options

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Andrew Hill, Community Enforcement Officer

File No: I2017/661

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

The purpose of this report is to acquaint Council with the available enforcement options against Short Term Rental Accommodation (“STRA”).

Information/Background:

On 28 February 2013, Council resolved (13-114) that Council would defer authorisation of proceedings related to “holiday letting” pending the development of a strategy regarding options for regulation.

In February 2013, Council noted that action remained open against “holiday let” properties should the behaviour of tenants of such properties cause significant impact on neighbourhood amenity.

That approach has been reinforced in numerous contexts thereafter such that it has been made abundantly clear that whilst Council would not take action relating to the holiday letting of properties per se, it would take action in respect of fire safety and amenity issues on a case by case basis as and when they arise.

In relation to the regulation of STRA, on 23 March 2017 Council resolved:.

4. That should in the meantime a state environmental planning policy not be produced by the department of planning and environment for the purposes of short term rental accommodation by 1 July 2017, Council lift its current moratorium on legal action against unauthorised tourist and visitor accommodation (illegal holiday letting).

5. That Council write to the department informing them of part 4.

6. That Council be provided a discussion paper / report to the May Council meeting on the available enforcement options against unauthorised tourist and visitor accommodation (illegal holiday letting) and to councillors as early as possible. (Richardson/Spooner)

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council note this report.

Report

The following provides a context for and options available to Council to enforce unauthorised tourist and visitor accommodation.

BYRON SHIRE SHORT TERM RENTAL ACCOMMODATION (STRA) ACTION PLAN

Council adopted the STRA Action Plan at it’s Ordinary meeting on 30 April 2015 with amendments as per resolution 15-186.

http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/publications/short-term-rental-accommodation-action-plan

Action 3a of Council’s STRA Action Plan requires the Sustainable Environment and Economy Directorate, in part, to implement the following compliance investigation and action:

3. Develop a register

What

Investigate whether a nominal fee can be charged for registration and to cover the cost of establishing and maintaining the register in accordance with appropriate legislation.

A requirement for all exempt development and development approvals is that the dwelling be registered on Council’s register prior to the initial period used.

Who/When/Cost

Council’s Development Assessment and Compliance Section with IT.

Timeframe: May to September 2015.

Cost: development of the register may require additional funding. If required this will be reported to Council post the scoping analysis

Action 5a of Council’s STRA Action Plan requires the Sustainable Environment and Economy Division to implement the following compliance action.

5. Compliance

What

With adoption and implementation of Controls, Council will need to ensure compliance with planning provisions. Additional Council resources may be required during peak holiday periods to respond to after hour complaints and to collect evidence.

Who/When/Cost

Council’s Development Assessment and Compliance Section within the Sustainable Environment and Economic Directorate

Timeframe: Ongoing

Cost: funds may be required to provide additional resources

ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS

The nature and state of the evidence required

Part 4.14 of Council’s Enforcement Policy deals with "Taking Enforcement Action". Part 4.15 deals with "The Nature and Seriousness of the Unauthorised Activity." Those Parts encapsulate the principle that the decision to take enforcement action must be based on sound grounds and must include consideration of whether the available evidence establishes an initial ('prima facie') case for action.

Sufficiency of evidence is crucial. Council should not proceed if there is no reasonable prospect of securing a successful result.

That determination involves considering whether or not the admissible evidence available is capable of establishing each element of the offence.

This requires an exercise of judgment which will depend in part upon an evaluation of the weight of the available evidence and the persuasive strength of Council’s case (probative value). The probative value of the evidence must be considered and assessed. Probative value can be otherwise expressed as the extent to which the evidence could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue.

The key to the definition is the word “rationally”. Probative value is about the weight that the tribunal of fact, if acting rationally, could give to the evidence.

An assessment of probative value however takes into account both the credibility of the source of an item of evidence and the inferential force that evidence would have if the source was found to be credible.

Internet advertising may not produce accurate or reliable evidence. Internet advertising is circumstantial evidence and is not, of itself, capable of rising to the standard of evidence necessary to institute enforcement proceedings.

In the holiday letting context guidance is gained from Sutherland Shire Council v Foster [2003]

NSWLEC 2 as to the nature and level of the evidence required.

In that matter it was clear that, in addition to the advertising of the premises as holiday accommodation, there was evidence being:

a) extensive evidence through affidavits that showed the attempts by the Respondent to let out the unit for short term accommodation. That evidence included advertising organized by the Respondent.

b) contact details for the Respondent related to premises other than at the subject premises.

c) admissions from the Respondent and conversations with the Respondent’s family that the unit was available for short term accommodation.

d) a log kept by neighbour as to the movement of different people and different cars through the unit and in the carpark

In Sutherland the court found that there was overwhelming evidence that there were attempts made by the Respondent to use, and actual use of the premises for holiday and short-term accommodation and that the extent of the short-term use was considerable in terms of a large number of people using the premises for short-term accommodation.

Standard of Proof

In regards to any proposed enforcement action there are two standards of proof depending on whether Council takes civil action or criminal action (prosecution). In criminal proceedings the standard of proof is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. That standard is significantly more onerous than the standard of ‘on the balance of probabilities’ required in civil proceedings.

Civil Action

In order to succeed in a civil action it is only necessary for Council to prove the case ‘on the balance of probabilities’. This means that Council has to prove that the likelihood of a breach occurring is greater than the likelihood of that breach not occurring. This standard of proof is not as high as in a criminal trial.

When considering a civil matter the court has a wide discretion to consider ancillary issues. A successful civil action also provides a strong deterrent from further breaches.

A civil action is generally used to restrain or remedy a breach of the legislation. An example of taking civil action would be to commence Class 4 proceedings in the NSW Land and Environment Court seeking orders from the court for the person (which can include a company) to cease use of premises for an unlawful purpose. Civil actions are reasonably expensive.

Should a further breach take place after a civil action was successful it would then be necessary for Council to initiate contempt of court proceedings to enforce the court's ruling.

Criminal Action

In a criminal matter the prosecution must prove their case ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. The onus is on the prosecution to prove a prima facie case before the defendant even has to respond to the allegations.

Some criminal actions can be heard at Local Court level. This means that the offence can be dealt with within the Shire, in an expeditious manner and with reduced costs. The costs associated with taking Class 5 Action (prosecution) to the NSW Land and Environment Court can be significantly more expensive than similar action in the local court.

Taking Enforcement Action

The Ombudsman New South Wales ‘Enforcement Guidelines for Councils’, provide that councils should aim to take the quickest and most informal option to deal with wrongdoers. Council staff must use discretion to determine the most appropriate response to confirmed cases of unlawful activity.

Any enforcement action taken by Council will depend on the full circumstances and facts of each case.

At all times, Council’s key concerns are to prevent or minimise harm to health, welfare, safety, property or the environment and to influence behaviour change for the common good and on behalf of the community.

Regardless of any other enforcement action available to or contemplated by Council, there will be matters where consideration will need to be given to commencing proceedings against an individual. Court proceedings can be an important option, which aims to cease wrongdoers’ continuing action as well as acting as a deterrent to the individual and the community at large.

However, not all offences should automatically result in court action. The decision whether to proceed or not requires careful consideration of a number of factors including, but not limited to:

· What is the harm or potential harm to the environment or the community caused by the activity?

· What is the nature, extent and severity of the activity?

· How prevalent is the alleged activity and is there a need for deterrence in the community?

· Are there any effective alternatives to court action?

· Is the applicable law obsolete or obscure?

· Is there sufficient evidence to establish a case (sufficient evidence to satisfy a court that an actual breach has occurred on the balance of probabilities)?

· Is there a reasonable prospects of success in court (availability, competency and credibility of witnesses, admissibility of evidence, possible defences and any other factors)?

· How long and expensive would a trial be as opposed to informal action?

· What options are available to the court if successful?

· Are there any mitigating or aggravating circumstances?

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Notices and Orders

Council has at its disposal the option of giving an Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Order No. 1, which directs a person to cease using premises for a purpose that is either prohibited or the use/activity requires development consent and no such consent has been granted.

Section 121B provides that Council may give an Order to refrain from doing a thing specified in the following Table if the circumstances specified opposite it in Column 2 of the Table exist and the person comes within the description opposite it in Column 3 of the Table.

Column 1		Column 2	Column 3
To do what?		In what circumstances?	To whom?
1	To cease using premises for a purpose specified in the order	(a) Premises are being used in contravention of the conditions of a development consent	Owner of premises, or person by whom premises are being used for the purpose specified in the order

Under Section 121D of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, prior to giving an order Council must apply the principles of procedural fairness by serving a notice on the owner of the premises or the person who is unlawfully using the premises or conducting the unauthorised activity.

In undertaking an investigation an authorised officer of Council may issue a notice to provide information and records under Section 119J of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. However, before such a notice is issued the officer must take into consideration the evidentiary value of the notice.

The person subject to the notice may object to providing information or answering questions on the grounds that providing such information may incriminate the person. If such an objection is made, and the information is provided, Council cannot lawfully use that information as evidence against the person. This self incrimination protection is provided by Section 119S of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

If a person is protected from self incrimination under Section 119S of the Act, Council is not restricted from using the information against another person or using the information to pursue further avenues of investigation.

There is only limited value in Council issuing a notice to provide information and records to the alleged offender, because of the self incrimination protections. However there may be some value, in issuing such a notice upon the booking agent or a contactor that manages the premises. Evidence obtained in these circumstances may be used against the alleged offender.

Protection of the Environment Operations Act Notices and Directions

In addressing matters of noise and disturbance Council has at its discretion the capacity to issue a prevention notice or a noise abatement direction under the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act.

A noise abatement direction must be issued by no later than seven (7) days after Council receiving a complaint and the direction requires a person to cease causing offensive noise for 28 days. The maximum on the spot fine for failing to comply with a noise abatement direction is $300 for an individual or $600 for a corporation.

A Protection of the Environment Operations Act prevention notice may direct a person to do certain things including, but not limited to ceasing the carrying on or not commencing to carry on an activity. If Council has sufficient evidence of on going noise and disturbance it could issue a prevention notice requiring the alleged offender to do certain things to prevent the noise from continuing.

It is highly unlikely that circumstances would permit Council to issue a prevention notice to cease carrying out STRA. If challenged in court it is likely that such an attempt would be viewed as circumventing the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

Land and Environment Court Class 4 Proceedings

Council has the power to commence civil proceedings in the Land and Environment Court, also known as class 4 proceedings. Proceedings relating to STRA (Holiday Letting) have previously been brought before the Land and Environment Court under class 4 jurisdiction. The most recent case is the matter of Dobrohotoff v Bennic [2013] NSWLEC 61 (2 May 2013).

In Dobrohotoff v Bennic, neighbours in the city of Gosford were subject to ongoing noise, disturbance and antisocial behaviour on a significant scale. Evidence that the subject property was not being occupied in the same way that a family group in the ordinary way of life would occupy it was relevant, as was the fact that the identified occupancies created a significant, negative affect on the neighbours and the surrounding community.

Particularly, the following significant and ongoing negative behaviours were identified:

· Anti-social behaviour often continuing into the early hours of the morning, intruding upon the sleep of the neighbouring residents

· Shouting

· Screaming obscenities

· Loud music/parties into the early morning

· Flashing lights

· Drunken males

· Bucks and hens nights

· Use of strippers and/or escorts (who appeared topless in full view on the deck of the property)

· Shards of broken glass located on neighbouring properties

The case demonstrated something beyond the circumstances of a property-owner merely holiday letting their property on a short-term-basis.

It went further to identify ongoing significant anti-social and disturbing behaviour taking place as a result of the property being holiday let which negatively impacted on the surrounding properties. Neighbours reported their health and safety being compromised as a result of the behaviour at the subject property. A neighbour had even made arrangements to vacate their house during school holidays and weekends in order to avoid the ongoing behaviour.

The court further noted there may be instances where buildings will be considered ‘dwelling houses’ even though they are occupied infrequently. For example, a holiday-house used for a limited period of the year by a family (or even time shared between several families), or a house owned by a company that is rented out to executives and their families for short periods, in the absence of antisocial behaviour repeatedly disturbing the community.

Her Honour noted, “a tenancy granted to persons who are residing in a group situation for periods of a week or less for the purpose of bucks nights and hens nights, parties or for the use of escorts or strippers, is, in my opinion, not consistent with the use or occupation by family or household group in the ordinary way of life...”.

It is noted in passing that the report to the then Council on 28 February 2013, which was the precursor to Council’s resolution that day to develop a holiday letting strategy, recommended that Council take enforcement action against the owner of a property.

The property was located in a 2A Residential Zone and had been the subject of a number of complaints by neighbours to Council and to the police over a period of 12 months.

Complaints included allegations about holiday letting, noise, disturbance, loss of local amenity and intrusion on the privacy of neighbouring properties by the placement of flood lights and CCTV cameras.

Neighbour relationships and amenity were said to have diminished significantly.

This property was marketed and advertised on several internet booking sites under its the name and was described as ‘Holiday House Byron Bay’ or ‘Luxury Holiday Letting in Byron Bay’.

Rates & Bookings were advertised on one web site as ‘…seasonal dependant and range from approx. $381 to $1,197 per night (AUD$ inc GST). For more information please contact (name provided) or fill in the enquiry form below’.

Staff had prepared a full brief of evidence which included evidence going to each of a) to d) as was set out in Sutherland Shire Council v Foster.

Enforcement action (to cease the use as a tourist facility) by way of Land and Environment Court proceedings was proposed because:

a. Tourist facilities are prohibited in 2A Residential Zones.

b. Relevant witnesses were prepared to provide sworn statements and to appear in court for Council;

c. The witnesses were considered to be credible;

d. The issues surrounding the use of this property were current and contemporary and accorded with Council's adopted Compliance Priorities Program;

e. Council had already taken lesser enforcement action to attempt to engage the owner in addressing the issues but these actions did not appear to have resolved the situation.

The circumstances of that matter were markedly similar to those which existed in the later successful action in Dobrohotoff v Bennic.

Class 5 Proceedings or Local Court Prosecution (Criminal)

Council may commence prosecution proceedings in either the Local Court or the Land and Environment Court.

The maximum penalty that can be given in the Local Court is $110,000. The maximum penalty that can be given by the Land and Environment Court for a Tier 2 offence is as follows.

“A person who is guilty of an offence to which this section applies is liable to a tier 2 maximum penalty, being a penalty not exceeding:

(a) in the case of a corporation:

(i) $2 million, and

(ii) for a continuing offence—a further $20,000 for each day the offence continues, or

(b) in the case of an individual:

(i) $500,000, and

(ii) for a continuing offence—a further $5,000 for each day the offence continues.”

Penalty Infringement Notices

Council may issue penalty infringement notices for unauthorised STRA. The current penalty amount set by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation is $3,000 for an individual and $6,000 for a corporation.

In the case of issuing a penalty infringement notice the offence is likely to be either development without consent or prohibited development. Before issuing a penalty infringement notice Council must be satisfied that it could establish a prima-facie case, which means that all elements of the offence are present and are capable of proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. This is the same standard of evidence that is required to be satisfied in a prosecution.

Financial Implications

Commencing action/s against all unauthorised tourist and visitor accommodation operators within the Shire may have an affect upon tourism within the area.

In addition to the impact on tourism, the ongoing costs of investigating these matters, commencing civil or criminal action and the likely appeals that may be undertaken by operators is likely to result in a significant cost to Council.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

A fair and consistent approach to all operators must be taken by Council. Responding to the significant number of operators within the Shire may have a substantial impact on resourcing within Council’s compliance area.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.22

Report No. 13.22 Peer Review of Draft West Byron DCP

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Chris Larkin, Major Projects Planner

File No: I2017/778

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

The draft West Byron Development Control Plan was reported to Council for approval on the 17 November 2016. Council resolved:

‘that subject to peer reviews of frog, koala, traffic, and water and flood management reports,

Council approve the Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2014 - Chapter E8 West Byron Urban

Release Area and associated amendments to Part A and Part D of the Byron Shire Development

Control Plan 2014 in Attachments 1 and 2 at the first Ordinary Meeting after Council’s summer recess’. (Resolution 16-583)

Resolution 17-045 also pertained to the scope of the Peer Reviews sought of the DCP by Council. Council have engaged GHD Consulting to carry out the peer review and have recommended minor changes to the planning controls within the DCP for frogs, koalas, traffic and flood management.

Further advice was provided to Council regarding correspondence from the Minister for Planning The Hon Anthony Roberts at the 20 April 2016 Ordinary Meeting about the finalisation of the West Byron Development Control Plan.

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the recommendations contained within the Peer Review by GHD Consulting, and to enable the West Byron DCP to now be made subject to minor amendment.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1. Note the Peer Review prepared by GHD Consulting.

2. Approve the Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2014 – Chapter E8 West Byron Urban Release Area and associated amendments to Part A and Part D of the Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2014 in Attachments 1 and 2, and incorporating changes as detailed in this report for koalas, frogs, traffic management and water and flood and management.

3. Staff notify the decision in a local newspaper within 28 days of this decision being made.

4. Staff notify the Minister for Planning of the decision made in (1) and (2) above.

5. Staff liaise with the various Northern Rivers Councils that use Northern Rivers Local Government Development Design and Construction Manuals in relation to updating the manuals to reflect the Australian Rainfall and Runoff 2016 guidelines.

Attachments:

1 Draft amendments to Part A and Part D of Byron Shire DCP 2014 to Ordinary 20 April 2017, E2017/23011 ⇨

2 Draft Byron DCP 2014 Chapter E8 - West Byron Urban Release Area reported to Ordinary 20 April 2017, E2016/83304 ⇨

3 Letter from Minister for Planning dated 30 March 2017 reported to Ordinary 20 April, 2017, E2017/22828 ⇨

4 Peer Review GHD dated June 2017, E2017/61610 ⇨

Report

Council has prepared and publically exhibited a draft West Byron Urban Release Area DCP. The

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

Council considered a report on the submissions at the 17 November 2016 meeting and resolved ‘that subject to peer reviews of frog, koala, traffic, and water and flood management reports,

Council approve the Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2014 - Chapter E8 West Byron Urban

Release Area and associated amendments to Part A and Part D of the Byron Shire Development

Control Plan 2014 in Attachments 1 and 2 at the first Ordinary Meeting after Council’s summer recess’. (Resolution 16-583)

Resolution 17–045 adopted at the Ordinary Meeting on the 23 February 2017 also required staff to present a report on the findings of the peer review back to the Council with recommendations on how to take into account the findings in the finalisation of the Draft Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2014 – Chapter E8 – West Byron Urban Release Area.

Council subsequently engaged GHD Consulting to carry out the peer reviews as required. A copy of their report can be found at attachment 4. On review of the various background documents as requested by Council, GHD Consulting have recommended minor changes to elements of the DCP as follows:

Koalas and Frogs

The following changes are recommended in relation to the controls pertaining to koalas and wallum sedge frogs and wallum froglets.

Heading

Section number

Current DCP wording

Comment and suggested revision

E8.10.5.1

Biodiversity and Vegetation Management

Performance Criteria 3.

Protect core koala habitat areas from development that would compromise habitat quality and integrity and enhance koala habitat to provide connectivity links to facilitate the natural movement of koalas.

Many of the reports reviewed note that Core Koala Habitat is not present, as the site does not support breeding individuals. Rather the site contains potential Koala habitat and links.

Revise this point to include potential and core Koala habitat.

Prescriptive Measures

1 (h) (iii)

Core Koala Habitat on and surrounding the site.

Rehabilitation of habitat in the E Zones to focus on Koala Habitat restoration to address any compensation requirement and to provide or embellish linkages between Core Koala habitat areas.

Revise this point to include potential and core Koala habitat.

Heading	Section number	Current DCP wording	Comment and suggested revision
E8.10.5	Introductory paragraph	The subject site provides important habitat for a range of species and ecological communities including koalas, Wallum Froglet, blossom bat and remnant coastal cypress pine communities.	Only the Wallum Froglet is mentioned in the introductory paragraph. Include mention of the Wallum Sedge Frog as this species is also known to occur at the site.
E8.10.5	Performance criteria 7.	To identify, protect and maintain wallum frog habitat areas where appropriate and to provide additional wallum frog habitat areas within the West Byron Site, so that there is no net loss in habitat.	There is no mention in this section of the Wallum Sedge Frog. This performance criteria should also include the protection and enhancement of Wallum Sedge Frog habitat.
E8.10.8.3 Groundwater	Objective 2	To maintain existing groundwater level in the vicinity of wallum frog habitats and wetlands.	Amend to say Wallum Froglet and Wallum Sedge Frog habitats to avoid confusion over which species the DCP is referring to.
	Performance Criteria 2	Groundwater quality is to be maintained and levels are not lowered in the vicinity of wallum frog habitats or wetlands.	As above.
	Prescriptive Measure 3	The pH and water levels of groundwater near and or adjacent to wallum frog habitat and wetlands not to be altered such that it impacts on the health of that habit for the frogs.	As above. Change ‘habit’ to ‘habitat’.
E8.10.4 Stormwater Water Management	Performance Criteria 7	Stormwater is managed to maintain appropriate water quality and levels for wallum frog habitat	Change to Wallum Froglet and Wallum Sedge Frog
	Prescriptive measure 1(o)	Identification of all areas proposed for fill or other major earth works and an assessment of impacts on stormwater runoff, ground water levels, acid sulphate soils and wallum frog habitat and identification of effective mitigation measures where impacts can’t be avoided.	As above

Traffic Management

The draft DCP does not specify the detailed configuration of the two access intersections onto Ewingsdale Road, other than these being nominated as dual lane roundabouts. Due to the limitations of the strategic transport model used in the West Byron Transport Study (VLC 2011), it is recommended that a more detailed traffic study be undertaken to confirm the appropriate configuration of these intersections and their ongoing suitability for the future, as background traffic grows on Ewingsdale Road and the Urban Release Area is developed. Such a study should address the requirements of the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (RTA 2002), and any additional traffic studies and design plans prepared by Council and submitted with the initial development applications that trigger the round about construction to inform the final design. The study should preferably be done to address the requirements of the whole site.

Design investigations should include the two proposed roundabouts, but also pedestrian and cyclist access along and across Ewingsdale Road. If Ewingsdale Road will not be widened prior to the other works, then a staging plan for future widening is required.

If a more detailed traffic study is undertaken to investigate access from the Urban Release Area on to Ewingsdale Road with the initial development applications, individual traffic impact assessments for future development may not be required.

Development of the Urban Release Area should be limited to a maximum of 856 dwellings in total, unless an increased yield is supported by further detailed assessment of the impacts on Ewingsdale Road and the wider road network. The following amendments to the DCP are recommended:

The prescriptive measure 2 under E8.10.1 Staging Plan to be amended to include the following:

“A detailed traffic study be undertaken to confirm the appropriate configuration of the two round about intersections with Ewingsdale Rd. The study to address the requirements of the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (RTA 2002), and any additional traffic studies and design plans prepared by Council to inform the final design of the roundabouts. The study should be completed to address the requirements of the whole site based on a maximum dwelling yield of 856 dwellings.”

Prescriptive Measures under E8.10.3 be amended to include the following additional measure:

“Should housing numbers exceed 856 dwellings a further traffic impact assessment is required on impacts on Ewingsdale Rd and the wider road network for traffic exceeding this number. Such a study to be prepared in accordance with the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (RTA 2002)”

Water and Flood Management

Chapter E8 of the draft DCP references Chapter C2 – Areas Affected by Flooding for flood risk management. Chapter C2 applies flood related controls using a flood planning matrix and references Council’s Climate Change Strategic Planning Policy. Chapter C2 however precedes the adoption of the Belongil Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan (adopted 9 April 2015). It is therefore recommended that Chapter E8 refers to both Chapter C2 and the adopted Belongil Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan, requiring consistency with the both documents as appropriate. In addition, the DCP should require that development to be in accordance with the NSW Flood Plain Development Manual, 2005.

Chapter E8 of the draft DCP references Chapter D6 - Subdivision and the Northern Rivers Development and Design Manual for stormwater management. The Northern Rivers Development and Design Manual is based on Australian Rainfall and Runoff 1987. However, Australian Rainfall and Runoff 2016 has been released as current best industry practice. Council should consider updating Chapter D6 to be consistent with Australian Rainfall and Runoff 2016.

Staff Comment: In relation to the above comments from GHD Consulting, it is recommended that Prescriptive Measures under heading E8.10.8.1 be amended to include the following:

“Development to comply with the adopted Belongil Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan, and the NSW Flood Plain Development Manual, 2005.”

In relation to the Northern Rivers Local Government Development Design and Construction Manuals this has been developed as a resource sharing initiative between Ballina, Byron Shire, Lismore City, Kyogle, Richmond and Clarence Valley Councils. The document has been derived from the Auspec Development Specification series and modified to suit the specific needs of our region. The manuals provide uniform development standards for the region via a clear and comprehensive set of requirements for development infrastructure design and construction. As such it is recommended that the matter be raised by Byron Shire Council with the other Councils that use the Design Manual and for the manual to reflect the Australian Rainfall and Runoff 2016 guidelines. This will ensure there is no conflict between Byron DCP 2014 and the design manual which would apply to all of the shire not just West Byron, whilst maintaining a uniform approach across the region.

Conclusion

The peer review by GHD Consulting has recommended minor changes to the West Byron Development Control Plan in relation to frogs, koalas, traffic management and water and flood management. The changes required are not significant and will provide increased clarity in terms of the assessment of development in West Byron. This will benefit not only Council staff but also applicants and the general public. It is also noted that Council has recently received a development application for West Byron for 290 residential lots. The adoption of a Development Control Plan will assist Council in its assessment of this application. In accordance with Resolution 17-045 it is recommended that these amendments are incorporated into the development control plan and the plan be made.

Financial Implications

The cost of the peer review was $12,060 plus GST.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

A Development Control Plan is made under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

As advised in the Minister’s letter previously reported to Council (See attachment 3), a direction can be issued to Council under Section 74F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to make the DCP. It is recommended now that the peer review has been completed, that the West Byron DCP now be made subject to the amendments discussed above.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 13.23

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services

Report No. 13.23 Bangalow Parking Strategy

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Joshua Winter, Civil Engineer

File No: I2017/349

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Local Roads and Drainage

Summary:

Council resolved on 23 February 2017 under Resolution 17-055 to undertake investigation and community consultation regarding the possible implementation of a revised parking management strategy and/or a pay parking scheme in the Bangalow Town Centre.

The initial investigation prepared by Traffic and Parking Systems Group (TPS) considered the current demand and potential alternative arrangements including alternative time restrictions and the potential implications of introducing a pay parking system.

Council staff performed community consultation in combination with the movement and parking review intended to inform the village plan. The following key points have been extracted from the online parking review survey (187 responses), which generally aligns with the discussions throughout the consultation:

· 56% of respondents currently have a Byron Shire E-Permit Exemption (Q9)

· 61.5% of respondents would support the 1 Hour zones identified in the TPS Report (Q10)

· 69.5% of respondents would support the 2 Hour zones identified in the TPS Report (Q11)

· 62% of respondents would not support a pay parking system in Bangalow (Q12) however;

· 61.5% of respondents would support pay parking if funds were spent in Bangalow (Q13)

· Respondents ranked pedestrian/cycle paths as the highest priority for funding (Q14)

· Respondents ranked roads as the second highest priority for funding (Q14)

· 46% of respondents stated that the proposed changes would not affect the way they access Bangalow, however 17% of respondents stated that the proposed changes would cause them to no longer visit Bangalow (Q15)

Based on the survey and consultation feedback, it is proposed that the majority of the Bangalow community would be supportive of the parking time limits changing in line with the TPS report, however the majority would not be supportive of paid parking, unless if the generated funds were earmarked for projects in the Bangalow locality.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council endorse the implementation of the changes to the parking time limits in the Bangalow town centre, as depicted in the proposed parking times in Figure 1, being 1P throughout Byron Street and part of Station Street, with 2P in the remainder of Station Street.

2. That Council endorse the introduction of a Bangalow Town Centre Pay Parking Scheme, which is in line with the existing Byron Bay town centre parking scheme.

3. That the Bangalow Town Centre Pay Parking Scheme:-

· applies a unilateral parking charge of $4 per hour; and

· incorporates annual exemptions in accordance with Council’s approved fees and charges.

4. That a pay parking area be endorsed as depicted in Figure 2, which covers:

a) Byron Street, from the roundabout crossing Granuaille Road to Market Street; and

b) Station Street, excluding the all day car park to the south.

5. That Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) concurrence be sought prior to the implementation of the Bangalow Town Centre Pay Parking Scheme.

6. That Council approve a budget of $75,000 to implement the paid parking scheme and revised parking time limits, from the Pay Parking Reserve.

7. That Council receive a report after twelve (12) months of the Bangalow Pay Parking Scheme being in operation, to review:-

· operational costs;

· revenue;

· effect on the Bangalow Village and locality; and

· projects funded by the scheme.

Attachments:

1 Report 23/02/2017 Council Bangalow Parking Management Strategy, I2017/136 ⇨

2 Attachment 2 – Outcomes of Parking Survey Component of Bangalow Village Plan Movement and Parking Review, E2017/60982 ⇨

Report

Council Resolution 17-055 dated 28 February 2017 resolved as follows:-

17-055 Resolved

1. That Council support the Bangalow Town Centre Parking Management Strategy (E2016/80882) prepared by Traffic and Parking Systems Group (TPS) as a basis for community engagement.

2. That Council endorse investigation and community consultation with the Bangalow community regarding the possible implementation of a revised parking layout and pay parking scheme in the town centre in conjunction with traffic and movement issues identified in the master plan process.

3. That a budget of $15,000 is allocated from the Pay Parking Reserve to perform the investigation and community consultation with the Bangalow community regarding the possible implementation of a revised parking layout and pay parking scheme in the town centre.

4. That Council consider the results of the investigation and community consultation, along with the recommendation from the Local Traffic Committee at the 22 June 2017 meeting in determining its adoption of a possible revised parking management strategy/pay parking scheme.

As per resolution item number 1, the TPS Group report was used to develop a diagram detailing the proposed parking changes, which was then placed on a flyer that was sent to all residents of postcode 2479. This flyer directed the recipients to the community engagement activities as well as the online survey. A copy of this flyer is shown below;

Figure 1 – Bangalow Township Consultation Flyer

As per resolution item numbers 2 and 3, Council staff performed community consultation in combination with the movement and parking review intended to inform the village plan. The following community consultations were held:

· Community presentation & workshop at the Showground Moller Pavilion

§ Thursday 4 May 2017 from 5.30 - 7.30pm

· Trader's Breakfast at the Showground Moller Pavilion

§ Friday 5 May 2017 from 7.30 - 9.00am

· Bangalow CBD property owners' workshop at the Showground Moller Pavilion

§ Friday 5 May 2017 from 10.00am - 12.00pm

· Bangalow Community Groups' workshop at the Showground Moller Pavilion

§ Friday 5 May 2017 from 12.30 - 2.00pm

· A ‘pop up studio’ on Byron Street in front of the Post Office building

§ Thursday 4 May 2017 between 12.30 - 5.00pm

§ Friday 5 May 2017 between 9.30am - 4.30pm

§ Saturday 6 May 2017 between 9.00am - 12 noon

· Online Parking Review Survey

§ 25^th April – 19^th May 2017

Results of Consultation

As per resolution item number 4, staff have developed this report to inform Council of the results of the community engagement and online survey, in order to provide a recommendation to move forward.

(Summary of community engagement and online survey is provided below “Excerpt from MRCagney Issues and Needs Analysis for Bangalow and within Attachment 2 - Online Survey Results & Feedback ”.

Excerpt from MRCagney Issues and Needs Analysis for Bangalow

The following excerpt has been provided by MRCagney, who were engaged by Council to consult with the Bangalow community around Movement and Parking. MRCagney have provided their Issues and Needs Analysis Report for Bangalow in June 2017, excerpt of which is shown below.

“Car parking was not the dominant issue raised by the community during consultation, however some of the recent discussion surrounding paid parking that Council has been having with the community nonetheless spilled over into Immersion process, particularly at the parklet. This feedback is certainly welcome and informative, although the intent was always to unpack the community’s deeper preferences and aspirations for the community.

The overarching message from the Immersion process in terms of parking was that there is generally not a parking supply issue, and it is usually possible to find reasonably convenient parking in town. The community’s attitudes towards sacrificing some parking convenience in order to support better active travel outcomes, urban form and main street vibrancy are reasonably mature in comparison to our experience in some other similarly sized towns, and while there are some concerns amongst the community regarding parking on busy market days, the consensus seems to be that this is simply part of life in such a characterful, well visited small town. Any intrusive changes to cater for peak demand will not be supported by the community and will not be appropriate.

Priced parking was understandably an issue that caused some angst amongst some community members. Naturally, the most common responses were negative, however there was a not-insignificant contingent who supported paid parking as a means of raising some much-needed revenue to fund basic infrastructure improvement in town or to manage demand for parking from tourists.

Council’s approach to managing parking in Bangalow should in the first instance ensure that their adopted policies support a vibrant, prosperous, and active town. Purely from this parking management perspective it is not clear that paid parking is warranted in town, particularly in the absence of recent parking occupancy data. Our observation is that parking occupancy on the main street and adjacent streets would be unlikely to exceed 85% for a sufficient proportion of a typical day to make priced parking necessary to support accessibility, however further parking surveys will of course be required to confirm this.

Notwithstanding this, it is understood that Council may well wish to pursue priced parking in order to capture some revenue from the significant numbers of tourists who visit Bangalow from outside the LGA, putting significant pressure on road and other infrastructure maintenance. Such revenue would certainly be welcome, and could contribute to a better public realm for the people of Bangalow.

However, the absolutely crucial prerequisite should Council choose to pursue priced parking is that some more genuine, honest and transparent conversation is entered into with the community. Council will need to be upfront with the community about why priced parking is being proposed for Bangalow, and genuinely engage with the community to reach a consensus on what initiatives priced parking revenue will be used for in town. The community already has some misgivings about Council’s management and contribution to their town (which is not to say it is deserved), and Council cannot risk undermining the community’s trust and good will towards any further engagement in the future.

Council should also be wary of the elasticity of demand for parking where Council is proposing to charge for parking (which is understood to be simply the main street from Deacon Street to Station Street and some side streets). Other than on event and market days, it may very well be that even minimal rates will simply push demand for parking outside of priced streets. While encouraging peripheral parking is certainly a positive outcome, the impact on revenue projections should be carefully considered.

Ultimately, some further data and community engagement is required before priced parking can be unequivocally supported. There are however some actions that will be beneficial in the interim. For example, wayfinding signage for off-street parking areas supported by improved footpaths would support peripheral parking behaviour. Some improvements to the supply of quality, well located equal access parking spaces is also sorely needed.”

Staff Recommendation

It is noted that the Local Traffic Committee (LTC) do not need to provide a recommendation regarding the implementation of a revised parking layout and/or pay parking scheme however the LTC will be notified of Council’s resolution at their 18^th July 2017 meeting if required.

Based on the recommendations from the TPS Report (Attachment 1) and Council Resolution 17-055, staff performed community consultation in combination with the movement and parking review intended to inform the village plan. The following key points have been extracted from the online parking review survey (187 responses), which generally aligns with the discussions throughout the consultation:

· 56% of respondents currently have a Byron Shire E-Permit Exemption (Q9)

· 61.5% of respondents would support the 1 Hour zones identified in the TPS Report (Q10)

· 69.5% of respondents would support the 2 Hour zones identified in the TPS Report (Q11)

· 62% of respondents would not support a pay parking system in Bangalow (Q12) however;

· 61.5% of respondents would support pay parking if funds were spent in Bangalow (Q13)

· Respondents ranked pedestrian/cycle paths as the highest priority for funding (Q14)

· Respondents ranked roads as the second highest priority for funding (Q14)

On this basis the following is recommend:-

1. That Council endorse the implementation of the changes to the parking time limits as depicted in the proposed parking times Figure 1 being 1P throughout Byron Street and part of Station Street, with 2P in the remainder of Station Street.

2. That Council endorse the introduction of a Bangalow Town Centre Pay Parking Scheme, which is in line with the existing Byron Bay town centre parking scheme.

3. That Pay Parking Scheme:-

• applies a unilateral parking charge of $4 per hour; and

• incorporates an annual exemptions in accordance with Council’s approved fees and charges.

4. Incorporates a paid parking area as per Figure 1, which covers:

a) Byron Street, from the roundabout crossing Granuaille Road to Market Street; and

b) Station Street, excluding the all day car park to the south.

5. That Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) concurrence be sought prior to the implementation of the Bangalow Town Centre Pay Parking Scheme.

6. That Council approve a budget of $75,000 to implement the paid parking scheme and revised parking time limits, from the Pay Parking Reserve.

7. That Council receive a report after twelve (12) months of the Bangalow Pay Parking Scheme being in operation, to review:-

• operational costs;

• revenue;

• effect on the Bangalow Village and locality; and

• projects funded by the scheme.

Figure 2 – Bangalow Township Proposed Pay Parking Area

Subject to Council endorsement, the following actions will be required to move forward:

· If adopted, notify the Local Traffic Committee at meeting on 18th July 2017 regarding Council’s resolution.

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

· Advise the Bangalow Chamber and Bangalow Village Plan Guidance Group of the outcome of this report.

· Implement revised time zones (as per Figure 1)

· Implement paid parking scheme (as per Figure 2)

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

As was reported in Council report 13.16 (attached); the following information details the requirements for Council to implement a pay parking scheme.

RMS guidelines contain details where Council must either comply or consider them, and specifies where RMS concurrence or approval is needed. Both guidelines are available online:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial Implications Moving Forward

It is estimated that a budget of $20,000 will be required to implement the revised parking layout, consisting of new and revised signage to clearly identify revised parking time limits. This simply allows for modifying the existing signs designating the existing time zones.

Subject to a detailed investigation of the existing arrangement and to implement a paid parking scheme, it is estimated that an additional $120,000 will be required. This allows for parking signage to satisfy the RMS standard for a paid parking scheme, installation of parking meters, line marking and new signs.

$185,000 is estimated as the capital cost to implement the pay parking scheme if Council were to buy the meters. However, Council has entered into a contract for the lease of the parking meters and this contract allows for the number of pay parking meters to be increased if Council decides to introduce pay parking into other areas, such as Bangalow, and this spreads the cost of the meters over a 3-5 year period.

The operating costs of the system including operating and enforcement costs, is expected to be $220,000 per year. The estimated revenue outlined in the TPS report (based on $3/hr) from the meter system and enforcement is expected to be approximately $930,000 per year. Therefore the estimated return on implementing the scheme will be approximately $710,000/pa. This estimate does not include the revenue gained from the purchase of resident scheme annual permits or the increase in paid parking rates from $3/hour to $4/hour as per resolution 17-023 (2 February 2017).

Based on $4/hour, the expected approximate return will be $1,020,000 and it is expected the upfront capital costs will be recouped in the first full year the scheme operates.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 13.24

Report No. 13.24 Former South Byron STP - Options for Redevelopment

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Nikki Bourke, Project Officer

File No: I2017/230

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Projects and Commercial Opportunities

Summary:

The former South Byron Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) Decommissioning Project has been underway for a number of years, with the completion of infrastructure demolition being the most recent phase.

There has been significant community and commercial interest over many years in the future use of this property. The matter was considered at Council’s Strategic Planning Workshop on 11 May 2017.

This report aims to provide Council with sufficient information regarding completion of the remediation and nominating the preferred course of action for options on the future ownership and use of this land.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council retain ownership of the former South Byron STP site and proceed with the proposed Preliminary Expression of Interest process for the possible redevelopment of the site.

2. That Council complete remediation of the site as proposed in the Draft 2017/18 Budget.

Attachments:

1 Confidential - 24.2010.22.2 Sth Byron STP Decontamination - FINAL report Valuation of Lots 1, 2 & 7 Broken Head Rd Suffolk Park NSW 2481 (HTW, 2017). NNC105875 Report(2), E2017/15254

2 24.2010.22.2 Sth Byron STP Decommissioning - Draft Preliminary EOI - Redevelopment, E2017/48287 ⇨

Report

Strategic Planning Workshop Presentation:

The content in this report was summarised in a presentation at the Strategic Planning Workshop (SPW) on 11 May 2017. It is understood that the outcomes from the SPW were as follows:

· There was unanimous support not to sell the site as is and acknowledgement of the value and unique nature of the site.

· Consideration was given to the strategies in the Financial Strategic Plan and the fact that it is beneficial for Council to have a ongoing revenue source rather than just a one off sale return.

· There was a desire to preserve the public beach access and the existing shared path.

· Support was expressed for a parallel deployment of completing the remaining remediation of the site whilst progressing an EOI process for future use.

· It was noted there was a draft funding provision in the 2017/18 budget for completion of the remediation.

· Future use options for this site could involve a public private partnership (PPP).

· Councillors sought a draft EOI to be presented in a Council report for the 22 June meeting.

In accordance with the outcomes of the SPW, a Draft Preliminary EOI document is provided in Attachment 2 for Council’s consideration.

Background

South Byron STP Decommissioning Project

In 2005 the South Byron STP was decommissioned following the diversion of sewage to the newly constructed West Byron STP. A number of planning studies and environmental studies were completed to determine an appropriate end use for the site and the extent of contamination.

The most recent events and documents to note include:

Year	Event
2014	· Detailed Remediation Action Plan (DRAP) (GHD)
	· Site Audit Report (JBS&G – Contaminated Site Auditor)
	· Presentation to Strategic Planning Committee on DRAP and planned future use o Councillors requested financial assessment for Masterplan development options 1 and 4.
	· Feasibility Assessment Report (financial assessment of Masterplan options 1 and 4) (Herron Todd White)
2015	· Report to Council: I2015/88 South Byron Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) Decommissioning. Resolved 15-035: 1.That Council proceed with the demolition and remediation of the South Byron Sewage Treatment Plant ‘works infrastructure’ only; and 2. That Council engage a tourism development consultant, within a cost limit of $5500, to develop additional mixed tourism, eco-tourism and residential end use scenarios and undertake a financial analysis and viability assessment to supplement the existing South Byron Sewage Treatment Plant Master Plan (GHD 2010, E2014/78546). (Hunter/Cubis)
	· Contract 2015-0002 South Byron STP Stage1 Works – Demolition of Above and Below Ground Infrastructure awarded to Liberty Industrial Pty Ltd
2016	· Demand Scoping Narrative (Nine Creative) – demand-side assessment on possible development options for the site. Alternative study and approach to resolution 2 of 15-035 which had insufficient allocation for the original brief. The study consulted with the local commerce, tourism, indigenous and property sectors and proposed the following development opportunities (demand rating in italics): o Option 1 - High-end residential (strong) o Option 2 - Eco-residential studios (medium density) and education (strong) o Option 3 - High-end tourism (resort style) and education (mid-range) o Option 4 - Low-key tourism (affordable camping) and education (limited) o Conferencing facility (mid-range) o Living + active community (affordable housing and childcare) (mid-range) o Aged care (mid-range) o Commercial innovation hub (mid-range) o Pre-post film production facility (limited) o Education precinct (insufficient response) o Civic spare + education quarter (insufficient response) The report also ranked: community benefit; economic strategy; residential planning; and tourism development, for all of the above options. The majority of the site is zoned RU2 which offers the most flexible development opportunities. Undertaking a rezoning process is likely to take 9 to 12 months should RU2 not allow the preferred development option. Report recommendations: Part 1: For the redevelopment of this land, Council should clearly define: a) The end aim; and b) The return on investment expectation. Part 2: a) Identify the development option that is a match for Part 1; b) Assess the option with regard to site suitability; c) Complete current day financial assessments; and d) Seek community input through consultation processes.
2016	· Infrastructure demolition completed within the fenced compound. Stockpiles remain onsite for potential reuse. Some aesthetic wastes remain within the compound (e.g. crushed glass infill) and require removal during the remediation phase.
	· Draft Site Validation Report (Easterly Point Environmental)
	· 31 Aug Report to ET – South Byron STP Remediation. Presented Demand side study, Project Status Report (DPW) and preliminary options costing and recommended proceeding with least cost remediation of the whole site to the highest remediation level (NEHF A) to allow for all possible development opportunities. ET Resolution 2.1: ET resolved to proceed with remediation subject to: 1. receipt of revised cost estimate for least cost remediation; 2. no negative cash flow impacts; and 3. alignment with 10 year business plan for sewer fund
	· Letters to the Mayor regarding an offer to purchase or the lease site for the purposes of a green “Living School”. · Meeting with Brandon Saul in July 2016 regarding opportunities for innovative tourism on the property.
2017	· Valuation Report – South Byron STP Site (Herron Todd White (HTW)) See Attachment 1

Council is now in a position to consider clear options for the future use of this site. These options include:

· Disposal of the property following completion of remediation activities;

· Retention of the property, remediating, developing the property and leasing;

· Retention of the property, remediating and developing and/or leasing through a joint public-private arrangement, and

· Disposal of the property in its current contaminated state (not supported at the SPW)

Advice as to options for the site is provided under the ‘Financial Implications’ and ‘Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications’ sections below.

The Site

The South Byron STP site is 7.67 hectares in size and consists of 3 land parcels.

The site is described in detail in Attachment 3: Valuation Report – South Byron STP Site (HTW, 2017).

The site is considered to be Council’s largest, most southern, high profile and potentially high-value property due to it’s:

· size and proximity to Byron Bay;

· close proximity to the coast; and

· public visibility due to the public access way located along its northern border.

Fair and Transparent Disposal of Council Property

Should the lease, public-private development or ultimate sale of the land be desired by Council at any point, an Expression of Interest process is recommended for probity reasons to:

· recognise the significant and diverse community and commercial interest in the property;

· obtain best value for money;

· demonstrate accountability and transparency and withstand future scrutiny;

· deal with any potential conflicts of interest; and

· provide a fair chance for all interested parties to participate.

A Draft Preliminary EOI document has been prepared to assist Council in identifying what range of options would be considered for future use of this property (see Attachment 2).

On-selling and risks to Council

Presently, Council has a high degree of control over who they decide to sell the site to (if indeed that is the preferred option) and for what (development) purposes the site is utilised. However, once sold, a purchaser may decide to on-sell the site for a number of reasons including: the development no longer being financially viable; the purchaser becoming insolvent; or on-selling for profit. The risk then is that Council will no longer have the same degree of control over what developments are planned for the site by future purchasers.

Options to manage the aforementioned risk and to protect the neighbourhood character and guide the long term development of the site include:

· Apply a restrictive covenant to the land titles. This requires the shortest duration of all options, however Council would need to determine the details of such a covenant which may take some resolving;

· Change the zoning of the land to Special Purposes (SP) or other zone under the Byron LEP 2014 with enabling clauses to allow only the specified development desired. This option will likely take 9 to 12 months and may ultimately be rejected by the NSW Department of Planning; or

· Only offer the site to proponents for long-term lease and potentially develop as a joint public-private arrangement. The latter includes public-private partnership (PPP) models. This option could be included as a separable portion to the EOI process, however it does come with extenuating issues including:

- Council would be unlikely to be able to burden the lessee with the cost of the residual remediation of the land due to risk. Therefore the remediation cost would be incurred by Council and the recovery of this cost would be slow and over a long period of time;

- Developments may have to be restricted to temporary buildings and/or infrastructure to be removed at the termination of the lease; and/or

- Should permanent infrastructure and buildings be permitted, issues would likely arise with the disposal of such assets at the end of the lease (or alternatively if a PPP model with a Build Own Operate and Transfer (BOOT) ownership of built infrastructure transferred back to Council at the end of the lease period).

Financial Implications

A Valuation Report was completed on 30 February 2017 by Herron Todd White (See Confidential Attachment 1).

The report estimates the following market values for the site:

· Site ‘As If Complete’ (Fully Remediated/Clean Site)

· Site ‘As Is’ (Partially Remediated)

The “Site As Is” (partially remediated) market value was determined by subtracting the estimated cost of outstanding remediation as determined by the Department of Public Works. This estimate was based on a least cost (best case scenario) estimate to remediate to National Environmental Health Forum (Australia) Level A (NEHF A), i.e. the highest remediation level, and making the site suitable for the most sensitive receivers.

For the “Least Cost” remediation methodology, important qualifying considerations include:

· Estimate is based on currently known quantities of contaminated material (additional can be discovered during remediation).

· Estimate does not include clean fill for capping layer to effluent lagoon if enough clean fill can not be sourced from site.

· Estimate does not include removing sludge from lagoon if required.

· The methodology involves retaining as much fill on site by filling and capping the western effluent lagoon, reshaping the lagoons and retaining as environmental areas.

· The elevated areas of site will have a lowered profile.

The South Byron STP Decommissioning project and possible sale/utilisation of the land has been identified in the following strategic financial documents:

· BSC Financial Sustainability Plan 2016/17 –the “Old South Byron STP site” is noted as a “key land site” owned by the sewer fund and lists the “sale post rezoning and DCP” by 2020 as the assumed development option.

· BSC 2016-2017 Operational Plan – refers to the remediation project: “Progress the future use of the South Byron Sewage Treatment Plant site and the integrated remediation.” The plan lists the 2016/17 budget allocations for demolition and remediation.

· BSC Strategic Business Plan for Water Supply and Sewerage Services (October 2016) – Notes the site as an environmental and sustainable development project: “South Byron STP has been decommissioned and the sites require rehabilitation in accordance with the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 (CLM Act) and State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 55 - Remediation of Land and the Managing Land Contamination.”

In preparing its inaugural Financial Sustainability Plan in 2013/14 Council contemplated strategies that would retain ownership of valuable land with good development potential in order to enter development partnerships that would return a recurrent source of income to the Council rather than seek a windfall sale where once the proceeds are spent they are gone forever. The former South Byron STP site is ideally placed for a partnership model approach of this kind.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

(a) Council’s Legal Services branch has provided staff with statutory advice on the following:

· Sale of land ‘as is’ (partially remediated) and in particular the transfer of decontamination responsibility;

· Ensuring desirable development through planning controls and covenants; and

· Retaining the public access way in perpetuity.

(b) Private Partnerships

Council is currently developing a “Supporting Partnerships” Policy. The policy aims to assist internal and external project proponents in determining when Council will consider private sector partnerships with Council and will seek to ensure that Council is compliant with all relevant legislation and statutory requirements.

The Policy will address all forms of partnership with the private and non-government sector that includes but is not limited to Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) as defined by The Act and captures all other types of partnerships including lease and sale agreements, tendered services, Build Own Operate Transfer arrangements, Council in-kind and land donation, Philanthropic / Volunteering and others.

There are two pieces of relevant legislation regarding Public Private Partnerships in NSW:

1) The Local Government Amendment (Public Private Partnerships) Act 2004 (The Act) and;

2) The Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (the Regulation).

This framework is outlined in a Department of Local Government (DLG) document: Office of Local Government’s Guidelines on the Procedures and Processes to be followed by Local Government in Public-Private Partnerships (The Guidelines). These guidelines provide comprehensive and explicit information to assist Councils in meeting their legal requirements. The guidelines establish procedures to be followed for the various stages of a PPP project, including:

· the initial stage of establishing a need for the project in question;

· a preliminary assessment of the council's capacity to undertake the project;

· the establishment of a probity plan, a community relations plan, a preliminary risk assessment and a form of comparator similar to the Public Sector Comparator used in various State PPP guidelines;

· assessment to determine whether the project should proceed;

· approaching and evaluating potential private sector partners through an expressions of interest process;

· taking of detailed submissions from short-listed private sector proponents;

· selection of the preferred proponent;

· contract development;

· council approval;

· contract signing; and

· contract management and review of the project at key milestones.

As the type of project or development for this site is not yet defined, nor the form of private partnership, it is proposed that a Preliminary EOI process be undertaken in the first instance. This would allow Council to understand the market for various projects and the proposed partnership forms. Should the preferred Preliminary EOI submission propose a PPP as defined by The Act, the process outlined in The Guidelines can then commence.

A Draft Preliminary EOI document is provided in Attachment 2 for Council’s consideration and includes the request for quadruple bottom line (Environmental, Social, Cultural, Economic) information to ensure the proposals can be assessed to meet Council and community needs.

Should the above process proceed, it is proposed that the community and key stakeholders be informed as to the release of the Preliminary EOI and be given a contact point to register their comments. Such comments could then be used to inform the assessment of EOI submissions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, since the decommissioning of the South Byron STP in 2005, interest in the purchase or use of the property from various parties has remained strong and reflects the high value of the site. There are risks in the cost and duration of the residual remediation that is yet to be undertaken due to the possibility of undiscovered contamination and site constraints. While it is possible to offer the site for sale in its un-remediated state, there are good reasons and support for remediating and retaining the valuable site in accordance with Council’s strategic financial documents.

Retaining ownership of the site and partnering with the private sector for redevelopment (potentially via a PPP model) could enable a recurrent and substantial commercial revenue stream being paid to the Council that potentially includes a profit share arrangement. Should this be the desired redevelopment pathway, it is recommended that Council commence a Preliminary EOI process that requests quadruple bottom line information from proponents to ensure proposals can be assessed for sustainable community prosperity.

Resolution No.	Meeting Date	Report Title	Staff Comments and Recommendation
15-589	19/11/2015	Webcam Ewingsdale Road	Close – Google maps is constantly updated by GPS from mobile devices while waiting in traffic. No further action warranted.
16-202	24/04/2016	Changes to parking restrictions, Gilmore Crescent, Byron Bay	Close – NSW Roads and Maritime Service does not endorse the parking changes.
16-469	25/08/2016	Consistent Speed Limits on the Shire's Road Network	Close – Transport for NSW controls all speed zones in the Byron Shire. The warrants and guidelines are posted on the Safer Roads NSW website.

Resolution No.	Meeting Date	Report Title	Staff Comments and Recommendation
13-655	12/12/2013	Request for Parking Restrictions, Old Bangalow Road, Byron Bay	Funding required for design and initial works- estimated cost $10k
15-157	09/04/2015	Bus set down and pick up options at the Byron Bay Memorial Swimming Pool	Concept design and options should be incorporated into the Byron Bay Master Plan projects when appropriate.
15-193	30/04/2015	Cul-de-sac, St. Finbarr's Primary and Byron Bay High Schools	Part A completed. Part B requires a traffic count and a concept design. Estimated cost to investigate and report $6k.
15-196	30/04/2015	Proposed No Stopping, Village Greens grocer, Brunswick Heads	Funding required to complete lines and signs. Estimated cost $4k.
16-219	28/04/2016	Erect Signage on Ewingsdale Road	Funding required for consultant to complete action plan estimated cost $25k . Timing of works to be co-ordinated with Bayshore Drive intersection RAB upgrade.
16-432	04/08/2016	Speed bump needed in blackwood Crescent, Bangalow	Funding required for traffic count, design and installation. Estimated cost $12k
16-438	04/08/2016	Coorabell Public School Bus Route - Request for Upgrade and Maintenance at 3 Bus Stops at Federal, Ewingsdale, Mullumbimby	Funding required. Estimated cost $90k - $115k.
16-472	25/08/2016	Review of Outstanding Council Resolutions (median works in Station Street Mullumbimby at the entrance / exit to Woolworths)	Funding required. Estimated cost $20k.
16-643	15/12/2016	Signage - Installation of No Stopping zones at Shearwater, The Mullumbimby Steiner School - Left Bank Road, Mullumbimby	Funding required. Estimated cost $6k.
16-644	15/12/2016	Signage - Relocation of Bus Zone on Bayshore Drive, Byron Bay including Installation of No Stopping and 30-minute Parking zones	Funding required. Estimated cost $3k.
17-039	23/02/2017	Traffic - Tennyson Street (North of Marvel St) - Time Limited 4P Parking Scheme	Funding required complete stage 2 works required. Estimated cost $112k.