Agenda of Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

What is a “Conflict of Interests” - A conflict of interests can be of two types:

Pecuniary - an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or another person with whom the person is associated.

Non-pecuniary – a private or personal interest that a Council official has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Local Government Act (eg. A friendship, membership of an association, society or trade union or involvement or interest in an activity and may include an interest of a financial nature).

Remoteness – a person does not have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence any decision the person might make in relation to a matter or if the interest is of a kind specified in Section 448 of the Local Government Act.

Who has a Pecuniary Interest? - a person has a pecuniary interest in a matter if the pecuniary interest is the interest of the person, or another person with whom the person is associated (see below).

Relatives, Partners - a person is taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter if:

§ The person’s spouse or de facto partner or a relative of the person has a pecuniary interest in the matter, or

§ The person, or a nominee, partners or employer of the person, is a member of a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.

N.B. “Relative”, in relation to a person means any of the following:

(a) the parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descends or adopted child of the person or of the person’s spouse;

(b) the spouse or de facto partners of the person or of a person referred to in paragraph (a)

No Interest in the Matter - however, a person is not taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter:

§ If the person is unaware of the relevant pecuniary interest of the spouse, de facto partner, relative or company or other body, or

§ Just because the person is a member of, or is employed by, the Council.

§ Just because the person is a member of, or a delegate of the Council to, a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter provided that the person has no beneficial interest in any shares of the company or body.

Disclosure and participation in meetings

§ A Councillor or a member of a Council Committee who has a pecuniary interest in any matter with which the Council is concerned and who is present at a meeting of the Council or Committee at which the matter is being considered must disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting as soon as practicable.

§ The Councillor or member must not be present at, or in sight of, the meeting of the Council or Committee:

(a) at any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed by the Council or Committee, or

(b) at any time during which the Council or Committee is voting on any question in relation to the matter.

No Knowledge - a person does not breach this Clause if the person did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known that the matter under consideration at the meeting was a matter in which he or she had a pecuniary interest.

Participation in Meetings Despite Pecuniary Interest (S 452 Act)

A Councillor is not prevented from taking part in the consideration or discussion of, or from voting on, any of the matters/questions detailed in Section 452 of the Local Government Act.

Non-pecuniary Interests - Must be disclosed in meetings.

There are a broad range of options available for managing conflicts & the option chosen will depend on an assessment of the circumstances of the matter, the nature of the interest and the significance of the issue being dealt with. Non-pecuniary conflicts of interests must be dealt with in at least one of the following ways:

§ It may be appropriate that no action be taken where the potential for conflict is minimal. However, Councillors should consider providing an explanation of why they consider a conflict does not exist.

§ Limit involvement if practical (eg. Participate in discussion but not in decision making or vice-versa). Care needs to be taken when exercising this option.

§ Remove the source of the conflict (eg. Relinquishing or divesting the personal interest that creates the conflict)

§ Have no involvement by absenting yourself from and not taking part in any debate or voting on the issue as if the provisions in S451 of the Local Government Act apply (particularly if you have a significant non-pecuniary interest)

RECORDING OF VOTING ON PLANNING MATTERS

Clause 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 – Recording of voting on planning matters

(1) In this section, planning decision means a decision made in the exercise of a function of a council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

(a) including a decision relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan or a development contribution plan under that Act, but

(b) not including the making of an order under Division 2A of Part 6 of that Act.

(2) The general manager is required to keep a register containing, for each planning decision made at a meeting of the council or a council committee, the names of the councillors who supported the decision and the names of any councillors who opposed (or are taken to have opposed) the decision.

(3) For the purpose of maintaining the register, a division is required to be called whenever a motion for a planning decision is put at a meeting of the council or a council committee.

(4) Each decision recorded in the register is to be described in the register or identified in a manner that enables the description to be obtained from another publicly available document, and is to include the information required by the regulations.

(5) This section extends to a meeting that is closed to the public.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 4.1

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services

Report No. 4.1 Update on Council's Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) and Bike Strategy and Action Plan (Bike Plan)

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Shannon Manning, Traffic and Transport Administration Assistant

Dominic Cavanough , Contract Engineer

File No: I2017/1003

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Local Roads and Drainage

Summary:

To provide an update on the progress of Council’s Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) and Bike Strategy and Action Plan (Bike Plan).

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council note the report on the update on the progress of Council’s Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) and Bike Strategy and Action Plan (Bike Plan).

Report

In 2007 the Council prepared a draft Byron Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan and Bike Plan (Pedestrian and Bike Network Plan) to provide an important framework for a pedestrian and bike network and its future management to provide for safe comfortable and connected pedestrian and bike travel for all users within the Byron Shire.

In 2008 Council adopted the Byron Shire Bike Strategy and Action Plan (Bike Plan) to facilitate the expansion of the existing network of bicycle facilities in the Byron Shire.

A review of both the PAMP and Bike Plan is required to ensure that they are current and reflect changes to relevant legislation, design standards and guidelines. It is also noted that Council’s PAMP and Bike Plan are used when assessing funding applications for construction projects.

In 2016 Council submitted Active Transport funding applications to update both the PAMP and Bike Plan. Unfortunately, Council has been advised that both applications were unsuccessful, along with the four construction projects that were also submitted.

The four construction project grant applications were unsuccessful because the grant program only funds works from plans which are less than 5 years old. Our current plans are 9 and 10 years old, therefore, reviews of these documents are needed as a priority in order to attract grant funding in the future.

Financial Implications

In the Delivery Program 2017-2021 including Operational Plan 2017-2018, which was adopted on 22 June 2017 by Resolution 17-268, there is a budget of $15,000 each for both the PAMP and Bike Plan.

There are three clear stages to prepare a PAMP and/or Bike Plan.

STAGE 1 – Objectives

· Define objectives

· Form a team

· Define area

· Research & review

· Collect data

STAGE 2 – Preparation

· Develop routes

· Consultation

· Audit routes

· Develop Action Plan

STAGE 3 – Implementation

· Implementation

· Monitor

Council currently does not have the internal resources to begin the process of preparing the PAMP or Bike Plan; as such it is proposed that Council sources an external consultant to begin Stage 1 of both plans as funds permit.

Staff are also investigating an option to complete a simple review of both the PAMP and Bike Plan, sufficient to adopt a current version. This would be a smaller review within current budgets. If Council adopt new versions of the plans prior to the next grant period, a grant application would likely be successful in 2018/19 for on ground works. This is obviously a preference if feasible.

Application opening and closing dates are yet to be confirmed for the 2018/19 Walking and Cycling Programs. It is expected that the guidelines will be changed this year, which is causing the delay, and may impact on the success of future applications.

It is still proposed, however, to prepare funding applications for updating both the PAMP and Bike Plan in preparation of the opening of the 2018/19 Walking and Cycling Programs.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 4.2

Report No. 4.2 Bridge - Asset and Risk Management

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Craig Purdy, Asset Engineer

File No: I2017/1006

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Asset Management

Summary:

Bridges were identified in the 2015 Transport Asset Revaluation as high risk assets.

The recently adopted Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) funding scenarios are focused on the ‘capital renewal backlog’ for roads and bridges. The SAMP also states that without proper risk management of these structures, more bridge load reductions, closures and potential component failures will result.

Council currently has in place a robust annual bridge inspection regime that is undertaken by certified 3rd party contractors.

Council was lacking the ability too accurately produce capital works programs based on risk management principles, identify high risk assets, and record individual bridge component conditions into the asset register. These shortcomings have now been addressed and this report outlines the solutions that Council now applies to asset manage and risk manage our high value bridge assets.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the committee note the report and support the ongoing expenditure in the draft Long Term Financial Plan to address the high risk Bridge capital works program.

Attachments:

1 Bridge Inspection Report - 44835 - South Arm Bridge - Cat 4, E2017/16638 , page 14⇩

Report

The Shire currently has 35 Bridges (30 Road Bridges and 5 Footbridges) that are part of the annual inspection regime and as such are part of the risk management approach for renewals and repairs. It is worth noting that 8 smaller footbridges are not included in this as their physically size does not require them to be part of the inspection regime. It is also worth noting that we will soon be receiving 3 very large concrete bridges to manage and maintain as part of the Brunswick to Yelgun Handover (Old highway handover from RMS). This will considerably increase our bridge valuation totals.

Bridge Inspections using Reflect Technology

Council undertakes Level 1, 2 and 3 bridge inspections using certified 3^rd party contractors following the RTA Bridge inventory, inspection and condition rating policy. This year has been our first year of implementation using Reflect™ in the bridge inspection regime. Reflect™ is the Council’s mobile data capture software utilising Android Tablets. Past years of bridge inspections have shown that improvements could be made to both the data gathering, compilation and interpretation methods. Therefore, as a result of these deficiencies, Reflect™ has been chosen as the preferred solution.

Separate unique electronic forms (Figure 1) have been produced for each bridge to ensure the bridge inspector gathers all required information on each bridge asset down to individual component level. These electronic forms are pre-loaded with previous inspections to allow inspector to observe any follow up requirements. Data is then synchronised to the cloud in the field and is easily transferable to both our Asset Register and GIS with minimal human error risks. The Asset Register templates have been built around the electronic form layout to efficiently bulk load the data when required.

Advantages on using the Reflect™ solution for bridge inspections:-

· Repeatable and reliable data gathering in the field.

· Human error reduced considerably when data loading to Authority and GIS.

· Allows confidence to use multiple contractors.

· Forms are pre-filled with previous inspection information to allow inspector to observe any follow up requirements.

· Data is synchronised to the cloud server to ensure data integrity.

· Reflect is already in use by Council (no incurred costs).

· Inspections and reports generated in a faster time frame creating cost savings (see Attachment 1, Bridge Inspection Report – 44835 – South Arm Bridge – Cat 4)

Reflect Case Study

It is worth noting that Byron Shire Council “Reflect™ Bridge Inspection Project” was featured as a Case Study around Australia this year at the Asset Edge Annual User Group Conferences.

Reflect electronic form example

Figure 1

MyPredictor modelling software

Using the MyPredictor modelling software, a comprehensive model has been developed for all Byron Shire Bridges that are under the inspection regime. This model contains all the latest condition data (from 2017 bridge inspections) for each individual bridge component. It also contains benchmarked component treatment costs as well as a hierarchy model for each individual component.

This will output a fully detailed 10 year Capital Works program (Table 1) that will clearly state which bridge component should be repaired when, while taking into account financial budget constraints.

This creates a fully transparent Capital Works program and thus allowing Council to maintain its stance with a risk based asset management approach.

MyPredictor™ Capital Works Schedule Example

Table 1

Bridge Risk Matrix

A unique bridge risk matrix has been developed to enable Council to accurately determine the high risk bridge assets. This risk matrix not only takes into account asset condition, but also many other factors including technical (e.g. AADT, percentage of heavy traffic), community expectation (e.g. bus routes, number of properties serviced), environmental (e.g. flood zones, exposure classifications) and priority (e.g. road hierarchy, through roads).

This risk matrix automatically calculates a risk score and thus a priority, based on the individual information for that asset. The risk matrix also has a highly developed risk weighting Table (Table 2), that has been developed using the appropriate Council resources.

The output of this risk matrix enables Council to confidently prioritise maintenance and capital works projects, while being open and transparent to the community (Figure 2, E2016/85259).

Bridge Risk Matrix Example

Figure 2

Bridge Risk Matric Weight Table Example

Table 2 – Bridge Risk Matrix Weight Example

Indicator Variable

Rating

Integer Ranking

Bridge Condition

Road Bridge

(Not a footbridge)

Yes

Number of Accidents within 100m of Asset

1-2

N/A (footbridges)

Number of Properties Serviced

>20

10-20

<10

N/A (footbridges)

Bus Route

Yes

N/A (footbridges)

Through Road

(Is there alternative access if bridge is closed?)

Yes

N/A (footbridges)

Location: Road Hierarchy

Regional

Distributor

Collector

Local

Access

Rural Major

Rural Minor

Rural Access

N/A (footbridges)

AADT

>500

400-500

300-400

200-300

150-200

100-150

50-100

<50

N/A (footbridges)

% of Heavy Traffic

>8%

3-8%

<3%

N/A (footbridges)

100yr Flood Zone

Yes

Water Impacting Bridge in Flood Event. On Components not designed to take impact. Known from historical instances)

Yes

Reduced Load

(Load Limit applied on Bridge)

NOTE: Emergency Services and Full Size School Buses and Waste collection require minimum 15 Tonne bridge capacity

<15T

=15T

Exposure Classification

Relatively Benign – Interior of most structures and components above ground on structures located more than 50km from the coast.

Mildly Aggressive – Components above ground in structures located between 1km and 50km from the coast or where components are in contact with fresh water or soil.

Aggressive – Components above ground within 1km of the coast not subjected to direct salt spray (i.e. Components in very damp environments such as the wet tropics or rainforest areas), and all components within 3m of permanent standing water.

Most Aggressive – Components in tidal or splash zones or those subject to direct salt spray or that are in contact with aggressive, contaminated or salt rick soils.

Structure Life span

(From S. Pearce)

Concrete Bridges: Over 100yrs old

Concrete/Steel Bridges: Over 75yrs old

Timber Bridges: Over 60yrs old

Timber/Concrete Bridges: Over 75yrs old

Timber/Steel Bridges: Over 75yrs old

Steel Bridges: Over 75yrs old

RISK RATING

TOTAL

260

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 4.3

Report No. 4.3 Broken Head Road Cycleway - Browning Street to Clifford Street

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Joshua Winter, Civil Engineer

James Flockton, Drain and Flood Engineer

Christopher Soulsby, Development Planning Officer S94 & S64

Tony Nash, Manager Works

File No: I2017/1039

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Local Roads and Drainage

RECOMMENDATION:

That the committee considers the details of the report and provides a recommendation as follows:

That Council allocate the carried over 2016/17 budget for Broken Head Road Shared Cycleway to procure a report from a suitably qualified person to:

a) Review existing shared path and cycleways on Broken Head Road and Bangalow Road, between Clifford Street and Browning Street, Byron Bay.

b) Review existing infrastructure against current standards and advise where upgrades may be required as part of the project.

c) Provide options which meet RMS warrants and would likely receive RMS approval for filling the missing links along the shared path between Clifford Street and Browning Street, Byron Bay.

e) Identify which sections may be eligible for grant funding under the RMS Active Transport Grants Program.

f) Identify which sections may be eligible for Section 94 funding.

g) Critical analysis for any proposed works including swept path analysis and considerations for emergency services.

h) Develop a consultation/communication plan on the options developed in c).

Resolution to be Actioned

Council Resolution 17-201 dated 26 June 2017 resolved as follows:-

Notice of Motion No. 9.2 Byron Bay Cycleway Design and Implementation

File No: I2017/552

Resolved:

1. Contract the services of a cycleway expert in order to review the current design for on road cycleways along Bangalow road, from Clifford Street, Suffolk Park to Browning Street, Byron Bay; with a recommendation on the best and most cost effective option to come from the consideration of, but not limited to, a continuous single, on road cycleway on both sides of the road, a continuous dual lane on the Eastern side of the road or a continuous dual lane on the Western side of the road.

2. Provide costing and identify a funding source for this work and for its construction.

3. That a report on points 1 and 2 be provided to the Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee prior to being reported to Council for adoption at the 3 August 2017 Ordinary Meeting.

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.

(Richardson/Coorey)

The motion was put to the vote and declared carried.

As per items 1 and 2 in Resolution 17-201, Council staff were planning to engage a cycleway expert to provide a design for an on-road cycleway on Bangalow Road / Broken Head Road from Browning Street to Clifford Street, however due to staffing issues (the loss of one civil designer and a roads engineer) and capital works commitments, staff have not had capacity to finalise this project to date.

As per item 3 in Resolution 17-201, Council staff have prepared this report to the Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee providing an update on current actions and other relevant information for the Committee to resolve to implement further action.

As per item 4 in Resolution 17-201, Council has provided information within this report detailing the allowable projects this source of funding can provide for.

Report

Grant Funding

As part of the 2016/17 RMS Active Transport grants program, which can only be used for off road shared paths, Council staff applied for four grants:-

- Broken Head Road from Clifford Street to The Byron @ Byron (design and construct)

- Balemo Drive full length (design and construct)

- Lismore Road from Rifle Range Road to Leslie Street (design only)

- Ewingsdale Road from the Hospital to William Flick Lane (design and construct)

Council also had identified funds in the 2016/17 budget as follows:-

- $40,000 - Broken Head Road

- $12,000 - Balemo Drive

- $50,000 - Lismore Road

- $ 7,500 - Ewingsdale Road

Status of Projects

The funds outlined above have been used to source survey works only, no further work has been completed on any of these projects, as Council staff were awaiting confirmation on the outcome of the grant applications. These funds can now be used to complete designs on these projects.

Broken Head Road Cycleway

The only work that has been completed on the Broken Head Road off road shared cycleway is the survey work, which was engaged with the scope of constructing an off road shared cycleway. This survey was completed from the end of the existing off road shared cycleway opposite the Byron @ Byron resort to Clifford Street. The surveyor picked up data on the eastern side of the road only, from the edge line of the road to the fence / vegetation line.

Current issues that are known with regards to an off road shared path on Broken Head Road include a squeeze point due to property boundaries directly south of the Byron @ Byron resort on the western side of the road, hence why it was assumed an off road shared cycleway would be constructed on the eastern side of the road. The road reserve width south of this location has ample room for a shared path on the eastern side of the road and it made sense to cross the road once at this location and then maintain the same side of the road. This also means there are no road crossings at the two roundabouts, which was deemed a better solution and faster for cyclists.

The golf club driveway would also need to be reconstructed to meet equal access and would require correct signage. There are a number of kerb modifications that would be required at other pinch points along the route. There would also be a requirement to install a concrete separation device where no kerb exists to separate a shared path from the road in order to access grant funding from the RMS.

Financial Implications

The budget allocation of $292,600 was for an off-road shared path, being 50% funding for the total anticipated cost of the project under the RMS Active Transport grants program. Due to Council’s 50% funding component being funded from Section 94 funds, it is imperative to ensure that the project is an allowable funding project from the collected Section 94 funds. These Section 94 funds were collected in accordance with the 2008 bike plan, which identified Broken Head Road as an off road shared cycleway, and therefore the project must be in accordance with the 2008 bike plan. The majority of Bangalow Road already has a shared path and grants are not typically available for on road cycleways, therefore Council would need to fund an on road cycleway from general revenue.

External Advice

Various options for alterations to the shared path along Bangalow Road have been provided by Iain Cummings from Gold Coast City Council, however these will need to be verified to meet the NSW RMS warrants for this road and we would also require the external advice to be sourced from a Consultant with the relevant public indemnity insurances in place in order to act on the advice.

Recent advice from RMS regarding Tweed Street, Brunswick Heads indicates that the following could be assumed:

a. Marked pedestrian crossings must meet numerical warrants and be designed in accordance with current Austroads Guidelines and RMS Supplements. Where warrants are not met other appropriate treatments should be considered.

b. Broken Head Road and Bangalow road would be identified by RMS as a detour route for unplanned incidents and emergencies on the Pacific Highway. Consideration would need to be given to maintaining accessibility for this use. Swept path analysis would need to inform the design of any proposed road infrastructure.

c. Regulatory devices, including sign posting and pavement markings, must be endorsed by Local Traffic Committee prior to Council approval.

d. On road bicycle lanes should be designed in accordance with the NSW Bicycle Guidelines and Austroads requirements. They should not have a painted infill unless to define a path at a conflict point such as a roundabout.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Broken Head Road / Bangalow Road is a regional road (MR545) and therefore any on road cycleways will need to be in accordance with RMS standards and must be warranted for the road and be approved by RMS.

Iain Cummings advice can be provided to a suitably qualified consultant for consideration, however Council could not action this advice without it being reviewed and endorsed by the Local Traffic Committee and ensuring that it is in line with RMS regulations.

Recommended Way Forward

It is recommended that Council allocate the carried over 2016/17 budget for Broken Head Road Shared Cycleway to procure a report from a suitably qualified person to;

- Review existing shared path and cycleways on Broken Head Road and Bangalow Road, between Clifford Street and Browning Street, Byron Bay.

- Review existing infrastructure against current standards and advise where upgrades may be required as part of the project.

- Provide options which meet RMS warrants and would likely receive RMS approval for filling the missing links along the shared path between Clifford Street and Browning Street, Byron Bay.

- Identify which sections may be eligible for grant funding under the RMS Active Transport Grants Program

- Identify which sections may be eligible for Section 94 funding.

- Critical analysis for any proposed works including swept path analysis and considerations for emergency services.

- Develop a communications/engagement plan for options

Venue	Conference Room, Station Street, Mullumbimby
Date	Thursday, 17 August 2017
Time	9.00am