Cover page Agenda and Min Ordinary infocouncil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

 

Ordinary Meeting

 

 Thursday, 21 September 2017

 

held at Council Chambers, Station Street, Mullumbimby

commencing at 9.00am

 

 

 

 

Public Access relating to items on this Agenda can be made between 9.00am and 10.30am on the day of the Meeting.  Requests for public access should be made to the General Manager or Mayor no later than 12.00 midday on the day prior to the Meeting.

 

 

 

Ken Gainger

General Manager

 


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

Ordinary Meeting

 

 

BUSINESS OF Ordinary Meeting

 

1.    Public Access

2.    Apologies

3.    Requests for Leave of Absence

4.    Declarations of Interest – Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary

5.    Tabling of Pecuniary Interest Returns (s450A Local Government Act 1993)

6.    Adoption of Minutes from Previous Meetings

6.1       Ordinary Meeting held on 24 August 2017

7.    Reservation of Items for Debate and Order of Business

8.    Mayoral Minute

9.    Notices of Motion

9.1       Plastic Free Byron Shire................................................................................................... 6

9.2       Fly Neighborly Advice Agreement for Tyagarah Airfield................................................ 11

9.3       Roadworks in Protected Areas....................................................................................... 13

9.4       Review of Selected Policies............................................................................................ 18

9.5       Retraction of Planning Proposal regarding STRA.......................................................... 20

10.  Petitions

11.  Submissions and Grants

11.1     Byron Shire Council Submissions and Grants as at 30 August 2017............................. 26

12.  Delegates' Reports  

13.  Staff Reports

Corporate and Community Services

13.1     Establishment of the Mullumbimby Hospital Site Project Reference Group and Selection of Community Representatives........................................................................................... 29

13.2     Code of Conduct - Panel of Conduct Reviewers .......................................................... 35

13.3     Council Resolutions Quarterly Review - 1 April 2017 to 30 June 2017.......................... 38

13.4     Public Exhibition of Draft Policy - Byron Bay Urban Recylced Water Connection Policy 41

13.5     Safe Summer in the Bay, Schoolies and other large gatherings and counter-terrorism measures......................................................................................................................................... 46

13.6     Australia Indonesia Arts Alliance Event 28-30 September 2017.................................... 49

13.7     Council Investments August 2017................................................................................... 52

13.8     Review of Council delegations........................................................................................ 59


 

Sustainable Environment and Economy

13.9     PLANNING - 10.2016.444.1 Subdivision of Two (2) Existing Lots into Five (5) Lots at 5 Bulgoon Crescent Ocean Shores.................................................................................................. 62

13.10   PLANNING - Report update on Council resolution 16-662 - The Farm (DA 10.2016.698.1; PP 26.2016.6.1)..................................................................................................................... 77

13.11   PLANNING - 'Housekeeping' Amendment - Byron DCP 2014 ..................................... 82

13.12   Update on Res 17-299 Alternative trialled options for managing our threatened coastal zone     92

13.13   Amendments to Council's adopted Fees and Charges - 2017/18.................................. 95

13.14   PLANNING - S96 Application 10.2016.438.2 Minor changes to approved floor plan of dual occupancy dwelling, 2/4 Belongil Cres, Byron Bay........................................................ 98

13.15   PLANNING - DA 10.2017.258.1 - Temporary Use of Land for Wedding Venue, 46 Bay Vista Lane Ewingsdale.................................................................................................................... 105

13.16   Draft Road Airspace Policy........................................................................................... 123

13.17   Update on Resolution 17-184 - Brunswick Heads Holiday Parks.
....................................................................................................................................... 127

13.18   Byron Energy Action Tank ........................................................................................... 132

Infrastructure Services

13.19   Byron Bay Pay Parking Time Limits Review................................................................ 137

13.20   Land Acquisition for Bayshore Drive Roundabout........................................................ 145

13.21   Durrumbul Causeway................................................................................................... 149   

14.  Reports of Committees

Corporate and Community Services

14.1     Report of the Finance Advisory Committee Meeting held on 17 August 2017............ 154

14.2     Report of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 17 August 2017 157

Sustainable Environment and Economy

14.3     Report of the Biodiversity and Sustainability Panel Meeting held on 31 August 2017. 160

Infrastructure Services

14.4     Report of the Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting held on 17 August 2017....................................................................................................................................... 162   

15Questions With Notice

15.1     Helicopter Scenic Flights............................................................................................... 165

15.2     Substantial Dwelling Constructions without Council Consent....................................... 168

15.3     Draft Koala Plan of Management................................................................................. 171

15.4     Application of Planning Law.......................................................................................... 172

15.5     Waste Management...................................................................................................... 173   

 

 

Councillors are encouraged to ask questions regarding any item on the business paper to the appropriate Director prior to the meeting. Any suggested amendments to the recommendations should be provided to Councillor Support prior to the meeting to allow the changes to be typed and presented on the overhead projector at the meeting.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                    9.1

 

 

Notices of Motion

 

Notice of Motion No. 9.1     Plastic Free Byron Shire

File No:                                  I2017/1154

 

  

 

I move:

 

1.    That Council received a report in October 2017 on Council’s capacity to influence reductions in single use of plastic bags and packaging with the intent of implementing a voluntary ban of single use plastic bags and packaging in the Byron Shire by Plastic Free July 2018.

 

This could involve:

 

A)   creating a program of education and assistance for local businesses and the community to reduce the use of disposable plastic items including plastic bags, plastics drinking straws, bottled water, takeaway coffee cups and food containers.

 

B)   host a number of events to raise awareness and promote alternatives for local businesses and local business groups. 

 

C)   support and promote the positive steps being taken in the community to reduce the use of single use plastic items.

 

D)   report back the costs and benefits of phasing out single use plastics for Council if it was implemented across the shire. 

 

E)    the implementation of Council's existing Sustainable Events Management Policy, in particular as it relates to the use of disposable plastic items and packaging for takeaway items and single use plastic water bottles.

 

F)    Work in conjunction with local groups like Plastic Free Byron, Positive Change for Marine Life, Mullum Cares and Boomerang Bags and the Chambers across the Shire to find the best ways to help implement these changes. 

 

2.    Council look to identify potential funding streams to help support the process through grants or other means.

 

3.    Council investigate potential legal options for a ban or covenant to assist in this process. 

 

4.    Council creates and promotes more public water stations across the shire to reduce the need for single use water bottles.

 

5.    Council writes to the NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian, NSW Environment Minister Gabrielle Upton, NSW MLC for Ballina, Tamara Smith, NSW Member for the Northern Rivers, Benjamin Franklin and the Federal Member for Richmond, Justine Elliot, advocating for a ban on single use plastic bags and asking for any support they may be able to give.

 

 

Signed:   Cr Sarah Ndiaye

 

Councillor’s supporting information:

 

More than four billion single-use plastic bags are used in Australia each year; 10 million per day or 20,000 tonnes.  More than 75% are used only once.  Some of them end up in landfill but many end up in the environment where they can cause great harm to bird, animal and aquatic life. As well as being mistaken for food, plastic bags break up into smaller fragments that release toxins and absorb other chemicals in seawater, such as pesticides and detergents, creating highly toxic particles that can enter the food chain.  Single use plastic bags and packaging are a major source of litter and water pollution in our local waterways and ocean.

 

Given our large expanse of Marine Parks, National Parks, State Forests and riparian zones and our high number of visitors to the area (approx. 2 million per year), it is important that Council does its part to reduce plastic use and the environmental devastation caused by plastic pollution.  Plastic bags and packaging can become serial killers.  Once a bag and other plastic is ingested, it can kill marine life, releasing the bag back into the environment to kill again once the animal decomposes.

 

Around the world, about eight million tonnes of rubbish makes its way into the world’s oceans. An estimated 80% of this is plastic, with beverage litter, plastic bags and microplastics making up around 35% of this.  Plastic is responsible for the death of an estimated one million seabirds and over 100,000 sea mammals each year.  Turtles, whales and seabirds mistake plastic bags for food or become entangled in them, resulting in painful injuries or even death.

 

So why plastic bags?

 

It is estimated that it costs governments, businesses and community groups in Australia over $4 million per annum to clean up littered plastic shopping bags alone!  Tasmania, the Northern Territory, ACT and South Australia have already introduced a ban on single-use plastic bags, which has been very successful in reducing the use of plastic bags.  Many NSW towns, often known for their environmental and cultural tourism, have already banned the bag.  These towns include Mogo, Blackheath, Bundanoon, Tilba and the Kangaroo Valley.

 

There are two types of plastic bags:

 

1.  Light weight bags (<35 microns) which are predominantly used as check-out bags in supermarkets and for fresh produce, take-away food and other non-branded applications.  These are cheap to produce and are predominantly used only once before being discarded.

 

2.  Heavier, boutique style bags that are generally branded and used to carry higher value goods. These are often only used once, use more resources to produce and take longer to break down. They should not be considered a reasonable replacement for light-weight bags.  Neither should so called 'biodegradable bags', which simply break down into thousands of tiny, long-lived toxic particles more quickly.

 

Light-weight plastic bags are given out at no cost at checkouts.  They are, however, not free.  The cost of plastic bags adds $10-$15 per year per family.  Retailers build the cost into their sales price even though they may seem to be 'free' over the counter.  Disposal of plastic bags also costs Council – our landfill site is not infinite, and landfill and collection costs are expensive. 

 

What are the solutions?

 

The Federal and State Governments and the Australian Retailers Association (ARA) agreed to cut plastic check-out bag usage by 50 per cent by the end of 2005.  The targets for reduction in plastic bag use were almost achieved with a 41% reduction by supermarkets and an overall reduction of 34% - from 5.95 billion down to 3.92 billion bags per year.  The Code included education and commitments to make ‘green bags’ widely available in stores.  However, according to the NSW EPA, since the end of the Plastic Shopping Bag Code of Practice, it appears that the trend of reduction in plastic shopping bag usage has reversed.  In order to reduce plastic use further, leadership at local, State and Federal levels is needed. 

 

Community education programs can be highly successful.  Most town and village scale bans start at a community level. Council can assist through leading by example and through workshops run by our Waste Management Officer or community groups.  These have the added benefit of increasing community engagement.  Council can also help by disseminating clear information about recyclable options that suit our composting, recycling and waste disposal options.

 

Ultimately, the most simple and effective first-step to plastic pollution would be a ban on single use plastic bags.  This would create a level playing field where no retailer will be disadvantaged and all customers could be educated with a standard message.  Council is not in a position to enforce a regional ban on single use plastic bags on our own.  A Byron Shire-wide ban would only be possible with the voluntary participation of all the retail outlets in the region.  Experience has shown this can be achieved on a smaller scale in retail precincts or villages and Council should support this.  However, it would be very challenging to replicate this at a larger scale, particularly when national and international companies are involved.  National companies may not allow a local outlet to ban single use plastic bags.  Facilitating a voluntary ban amongst local businesses would also take considerable time and resources.  For these reasons a NSW or Australian wide ban on single use plastic bags is a far simpler and more practical solution, therefore it is important that we continue to advocate for a ban.  It is important to remember that plastic bags are just one aspect of this proposal so it is important we continue to work on reducing single use plastics wherever we can.

 

The NSW Government recognises the growing evidence on the impacts that plastic shopping bags have on the environment.  In 2015, the NSW Environment Protection Agency investigated options for addressing the impacts of plastic bags in NSW and nationally.  These options were presented at the Meeting of the Environment Ministers in December 2015.  The Ministers agreed that NSW and Queensland would convene this Ministerial Roundtable to inform a harmonised approach to reducing the environmental impacts of plastic shopping bags and review experiences of jurisdictions who have implemented plastic shopping bags bans.  While the QLD government has agreed to phase out all single-use bags by 2018, no further progress has been made since then from the NSW Government.  The Australian Government has been involved in these discussions with State Environment Ministers.  Woolworths and Coles have both now agreed to phase out single-use plastic bags in 2018.  Unfortunately, neither the NSW nor Australian Government has set a clear directive on this issue at this stage. 

 

Conclusion 

 

Single use plastic bags remain highly prolific in NSW and can cause significant damage to the environment. They are also an easy target to shift consumer attitudes and perspectives on the impacts that plastic have on the environment. Council should support efforts to reduce the use of disposable plastic bags in its own operations and throughout the broader community. A statewide or national ban on single use plastic bags would be the most effective way to address this issue and Council should advocate strongly for this, whilst addressing the issues raised in this document.  Single use packaging use is prolific in the Byron Shire with more education and understanding needed to help businesses, as well as consumers make the changes necessary to ensure a more sustainable future that’s single-use free.  

 


 

Staff comments by Lloyd Isaacson, Team Leader Resource Recovery and Quarry, Infrastructure Services:

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

 

NoM Part 1

 

Staff note that there is a lot of confusion with regard to the various forms of packaging and its subsequent end life or recovery options.  Staff are able to investigate implementation of options A-F to influence reductions in single use of plastic bags and packaging.

 

NoM Part 2

 

Staff are able to investigate options for funding this process

 

NoM Part 3

 

As Identified in the NoM, Local Government faces significant challenges in implementing a single-use plastic bag ban or voluntary covenant.  As Cr Ndiaye notes:

 

Council is not in a position to enforce a regional ban on single use plastic bags on our own.  A Byron Shire-wide ban would only be possible with the voluntary participation of all the retail outlets in the region.  Experience has shown this can be achieved on a smaller scale in retail precincts or villages and Council should support this.  However, it would be very challenging to replicate this at a larger scale, particularly when national and international companies are involved.  National companies may not allow a local outlet to ban single use plastic bags. Facilitating a voluntary ban amongst local businesses would also take considerable time and resources.  For these reasons a NSW or Australian wide ban on single use plastic bags is a far simpler and more practical solution, therefore it is important that we continue to advocate for a ban.

 

The comment below was provided by Council’s Legal Staff in response to a 2016 investigation exploring the legal options for a Council led covenant or ban;-

 

·   Council cannot lawfully ban the use of plastic bags in Byron Shire;

·   As a creation of Parliament, Council does not have general law-making powers.  What power Council does have is limited by the Local Government Act 1993(LGA);

·   The LGA doesn’t allow Council to lawfully stop plastic bags being used by businesses and their customers;

·   Only the State or Commonwealth Government could (potentially) impose a ban on plastic bags; and,

·   A voluntary ban or covenant faces very similar limitations as it is not compellable or legally binding.

 

NoM Part 4

 

Staff will need to investigate and consider potential funding sources for this project.

 

It is noted that the water refill installed outside Santos Mullumbimby in late 2016 cost $6,200 to purchase the unit (crowd funded by the community) and an additional $7,480 for installation (funded by BSC).  Obviously efficiencies could be realised with bulk procurement for supply and install, however funding sources would have to be investigated.

 

Ongoing operational and maintenance costs would also have to be quantified and funding sourced.


 

NoM Part 5

 

Staff concur with Cr Ndiaye’s assessment that a “NSW or Australian wide ban on single use plastic bags is a far simpler and more practical solution” and support the movement that Council writes to the relevant members of parliament advocating a State/National ban.  

 

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

 

It would be challenging for staff to develop a comprehensive report for the October 2017 Council meeting as requested.  A more realistic timeframe to adequately investigate the proposed motions would result in a report to the 14 December 2017 meeting.

 

High level financial and legal implications have been identified in the above comments.

 

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

 

Yes – whilst not specifically identified as a 2017/18 operational activity, it is consistent with the objectives of Action CI1.6.1, Strategy CI1.6 in Council 2017-2021 Delivery Program.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                    9.2

 

 

Notice of Motion No. 9.2     Fly Neighborly Advice Agreement for Tyagarah Airfield

File No:                                  I2017/1271

 

  

 

I move:

 

1.    That funds allocated in this years budget for the preparation of a Tyagarah Airfield Masterplan also be used to incorporate a Fly Neighborly Advice (FNA) agreement into all leases and license at Tyagarah Airfield.

2.    That Air Services Australia (ASA), the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman(ANO), non-profit tenants at Tyagarah Airfield, commercial tenants at Tyagarah airfield, Tyagarah Progress Association and land owners within 3km of Tyagarah airfield be invited to participate in the development of the FNA agreement.

 

 

Signed:      Cr Cate Coorey

 

Councillor’s supporting information:

 

Almost every airstrip or air facility in Australia – particularly those close to population centres – have an agreement of this kind. There is currently no regulation of air activity out of Byron airstrip.

From Civil Aviation Safety Australia:
A Fly Neighbourly Advice (FNA) is a voluntary code of practice established between aircraft operators and communities or authorities that have an interest in reducing the disturbance caused by aircraft within a particular area. FNAs were introduced in Australia in 1994 as a tool to reduce the effects of aviation on environmentally sensitive areas within uncontrolled airspace. The development of an FNA is facilitated by the OAR.

An FNA might include recommended limitations on operating heights, the frequency of operations and areas of operation. The nature, scope and terms of the advice are matters for the stakeholders to determine.  Arrangements for the monitoring, and adherence with, an FNA are also matters that may be addressed.

An FNA must be consistent with Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and any air traffic management procedures applicable to the area. Mandatory aviation operating and safety procedures (as well as any aviation requirements relevant to the area) have precedence over an FNA in all circumstances.

An FNA should also acknowledge the necessity for police, fire, search and rescue, other emergency services and infrastructure-monitoring organisations to have access to low level airspace when the need arises.

Staff comments by Michael Matthews, Manager Open Space & Resource Recovery, Infrastructure Services:

 

Assessment of current usage of the Tyagarah Airfield outlines that Skydiving operations equate for more than 95% of the airfield usage.  Skydiving operations that operate out of Tyagarah have an Airservices Letter of Agreement which includes Noise Minimisation Requirements.  This skydiving operation is required to adhere to the Airservices Letter of Agreement where operationally possible.  Their standard operating procedures see that the aircraft departs to the East and conducts climb overwater before returning overhead the Tyagarah airfield to conduct the parachute drop and then commences descent back to Tyagarah.  Their operations are at the mercy of prevailing winds, weather conditions, local traffic and Coolangatta Air Traffic Control.  The Airservices Letter of Agreement is to be adhered to operationally wherever possible whilst ensuring the safety of aircraft, its passengers and operations in accordance with the Aircraft Flight Manual, Air Services Australia and CASA regulations.  There are many other factors to consider regarding noise and flight paths that a FNA would fall outside of, class G airspace, aircraft noise regulations for CASA registered aircraft within Australia, aircraft from other local aerodromes or Gold Coast Airport, safety first and operations due to wind direction, air temperature, weather conditions, air traffic control instructions and other traffic.  Operations from Tyagarah aeroplane landing area are permitted aviation activities governed by Federal rules and regulations.

 

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

 

Current usage of the Tyagarah Airfield outlines the Skydiving operations equate for over 95% of the airfield usage.  A FNA is a voluntary practice and normally developed for airfields that are registered and certified - Tyagarah is neither certified nor registered.  A FNA is voluntary and primarily developed where noise and community complaints are significant.  Council staff have received a total of four community complaints between June and July of this year.  Airservices Australia has also responded directly to these noise complaints and advised “Many aerodromes have established “Fly Neighbourly” policies for aircraft utilising their facilities, however they only apply to the area immediately surrounding the aerodrome, and are purely voluntary agreements which have no legal standing.  There are rules regarding heights flown over populous areas but it would be impractical to suggest that aircraft “stay away from residential areas” completely”. 

 

Airservices also suggested in dealing with complaints of this nature they have found that often the skydive operators are willing to work where possible with the local residents.  Council has no actual or projected budget or resource to commit for a FNA which would require substantial time, consultation, expert knowledge and project management.  Legal advice would be required for any voluntary practices to be included in legal documents such as leases and licenses and the ability to monitor such inclusions in an uncertified and unregistered airplane landing area at Tyagarah.   

 

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

 

No

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                    9.3

 

 

Notice of Motion No. 9.3     Roadworks in Protected Areas

File No:                                  I2017/1272

 

  

 

I move:

 

1.    That Council update resolution 12-560 to reflect the revised SEPP (infrastructure);

 

12-560 Resolved:

 

1.    That where Council proposes to utilise the provisions of the State Government Infrastructure SEPP for works located in environmental protection zones, Council require a report for these matters to Council prior to any approval with consideration and assessment of Council's geographical information system High Conservation Value data layers and consultation with Natural Resource Management staff.

 

2.    That Council develop a policy/procedure that clearly defines the appropriate measures for the disposal of vegetation in relation to the works and the awarding of contracts and that this be reported to Council and to consider:

 

a)    contracts for tree removal not including ownership of logs; and

b)    trees/logs or other infrastructure eg timber bridges, removed for infrastructure works on public land be assessed for appropriate use to determine the value of leaving on site for habitat or to be used for the provision of public purposes eg outdoor furniture, public art, fencing or for sale with proceeds returned to Council.

 

3. That the PRG consideration of road management be deemed a priority.

 

New notice of motion:

 

1.    That where Council proposes to utilise the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) for works located in Environmental Zones or areas mapped as High Environmental Value (HEV) vegetation data layers using Councils geographic information system, council require a review of Environmental Factors (REF) and a report summarising these matters be presented to Council prior to any approval with consultation with Natural Resource Management staff.

 

2.    That prior to the REF and a report being presented to Council under clause 1 that any REF be publicly exhibited for a minimum of 14 days.

 

3.    That clauses 2 and 3 of motion 12-560 continue to be implemented.

 

4.    That Council develop a policy/procedure that clearly defines the appropriate measures for the disposal of vegetation in relation to the works and the awarding of contracts and that this be reported to Council and to consider:

 

a) contracts for tree removal not including ownership of logs; and

b) trees/logs or other infrastructure eg timber bridges, removed for infrastructure works on public land be assessed for appropriate use to determine the value of leaving on site for habitat or to be used for the provision of public purposes eg outdoor furniture, public art, fencing or for sale with proceeds returned to Council.

 

5.    That the PRG consideration of road management be deemed a priority.

 

 

 

 

Signed:   Cr Cate Coorey

 

Councillor’s supporting information:

 

The State Government Infrastructure SEPP has increased in scope and reach after amendments by the NSW government.  It is now appropriate for Council to update Council resolution 12-560 to better reflect community expectations relating to the protection of environmental values and public consultation.

 

Staff comments by Christopher Soulsby, Developer Contributions Officer, Infrastructure Services:

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

 

Staff do not have an option to utilise or not utilise the provisions of the SEPP Infrastructure as it applies to works under the SEPP.  The SEPP applies to all types of development listed in the SEPP and the SEPP will prevail over the provisions of the LEP.  The differentiation between Part 4 and Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment 1979 and the approval paths used in the SEPP and the LEP were considered by Justice Robson in Butler Street Community Network Incorporated v Northern Region Joint Regional Planning Panel [2017] NSWLEC 51.  This judgement makes it clear that the SEPP prevails and is not optional.  The provisions of the Infrastructure SEPP must be applied to all road works unless an alternate environmental planning instrument (SEPP 14 for example) prevails. 

 

The wording of this NOM is very broad and will have wide ranging consequences on the day to day operations of the Infrastructure Services Directorate.  Given the short timeframe to respond to this NOM staff have not had sufficient time to fully assess the impact of the NOM in terms of cost and loss of productivity.

 

The SEPP Infrastructure has three categories of development.  Development is defined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as follows:

 

development means:

(a)     the use of land, and

(b)     the subdivision of land, and

(c)     the erection of a building, and

(d)     the carrying out of a work, and

(e)     the demolition of a building or work, and

(f)      any other act, matter or thing referred to in section 26 that is controlled by an environmental planning instrument,

 

This means that all works are development including road work. 

 

The three categories of development in the SEPP are:

 

1  Exempt development does not require a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) or a Development Application (DA);

2  Development without consent ( requires a REF);

3  Development with consent ( requires a DA);

 

The relevant text of the SEPP is provided in the attachments.  The effect of this NOM as it relates to Clause 97 of the SEPP is that works such as, pothole patching, resheets, linemarking, replacement of signs and emergency works that previously did not need a REF will now need an REF, two weeks of advertising and a report to Council.  The broad reach of this NOM would in fact prevent the Works Section of Council from undertaking any of the activities listed in clause 97 without investigation of Council’s GIS to determine if the HEV layer or and E Zone applied. 

 

The following are two example of how this NOM would restrict the operations of the Works Section of Infrastructure Services:

1 Council’s Works Section would not be able to patch potholes in this section of Broken Head Reserve Road that is mapped as HEV without an REF, exhibition and report to Council. 

 

 

2 Council’s Works Section would not be able grade the unsealed section of Grays Lane without an REF, exhibition and report to Council. 

 

Both of these activities are currently exempt development under the SEPP and do not require an REF.  

 

Clause 94 of the SEPP relates to road infrastructure facilities that are permissible without consent.  Development without consent requires a REF.  An REF is required by Section 111 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.  Section 111 required an authority (Council) proposing to carry out an activity to examine and take into account to the fullest extent possible all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment by reason of that activity.  Road work and work is considered to be an activity under the terms of the Act.  Clause 94 relates to activities that may have an impact on the environment. 

 

This NOM would require staff to apply section 111, as it applies to REFs for development without consent, to exempt development.  For example: in order to patch a pothole within an area mapped as HEV an REF that takes into consideration the fullest extent possible all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment would be required.  This would also be required to be reported to council after 2 weeks of public exhibition. 

 

REFs are already required for development without consent.  The section 111A of the act and clause 228 of the regulations set out the factors to be taken into account concerning the impact of an activity on the environment.  These factors, where relevant, must be incorporated into the REF.  The additional process of exhibiting REFs and reporting to Council for all works in these areas regardless of the level of impact will add significant costs and delays to carrying out works. 

 

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

 

All works regardless of their environmental impact that fall within an E-zone or an area mapped as HEV will require an REF and this will require consultation will Natural Recourses Management Staff.  This will place a significant workload on the Sustainable Environment and Economy Directorate that has not been budgeted for or adequately resourced. 

 

The impacts on the efficient delivery of new capital works and routine maintenance works by the Infrastructure Services Directorate has yet to be quantified.  It is probably that there would be cost impacts due to: preparation of additional REFs, advertising, council reporting, and delays in project delivery. 

 

Staff would require additional time to estimate the quantum of costs and reduction in service provision resulting from this NOM as it pertains to delivering maintenance and capital works programs. 

 

Given the short time frame to review this NOM the full implications with respect to the types work that are captured have not been fully assessed.  There may be other types of work not addressed above that are caught by this NOM.  Further consultation between Infrastructure Services staff and Strategic Planning will be required.  Some of the areas impacted will be, stormwater works and maintenance, water and sewer works, parks and reserves works and maintenance. 

 

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

 

The NOM is not inconsistent with the Delivery Program task in that it doesn’t prevent with tasks occurring.  It would result in significant costs and delays in the provisions of many routine tasks.   


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                    9.4

 

 

Notice of Motion No. 9.4     Review of Selected Policies

File No:                                  I2017/1276

 

  

 

I move:

 

1.    That Staff provide Councillors with a report on the following Council Policies with feedback on:

i.        Affordable Housing on Council Owned Land Policy 2009

ii.       Community Economic Development Policy 2010

iii.      Planning Agreement Policy 2009

iv.      Positive Ageing Policy 2010

v.       Social Impact Assessment Policy 2009

 

2.    That the report provide the following information:

 

a) the implementation of the policy;

b) if and where it has been applied, and

c) the capacity of Council to implement the policy and any impediments or challenges to its implementation.

3.    That the report come to Council by … (TBA)

 

 

Signed:      Cr Cate Coorey

 

Councillor’s supporting information:

 

See attached policies:

·    Affordable Housing on Council Owned Land Policy 2009

·    Community Economic Development Policy 2010

·    Planning Agreement Policy 2009

·    Positive Ageing Policy 2010

·    Social Impact Assessment Policy 2009

Affordable Housing on Council Owned Land Policy 2009
"When considering the best use of lands owned by Council, as a first option, consideration is given to affordable housing", \.Between 2009 and the present has council consistently applied the policy statement to the use and disposal of all Council owned land?

 

Has an affordable housing feasibility analysis been carried out in relation to the disposal of Council owned land from 2009 to the present in accordance with this policy?

 

Can staff provide feedback on the success or failure of this policy?

 

Social Impact Assessment Policy.


Part 4 of the SIA Policy 2009

 “This policy applies to the following proposals and Council activities that may have significant social impacts where a development application is not required:

a) A new strategic plan;

b) A major review of an existing strategic plan;

c) An amendment to Council’s Local Environmental Plan (including rezoning proposals);

d) An ‘affordable housing’ project;

e) A ‘manufactured home estate’ or caravan park;

f) A proposal for the use of ‘community land’;

g) A proposal for the re-classification of Council land from operational land to community land or visa versa; or

h) An infrastructure proposal.

 

Staff comments by Anna Vinfield, Manager Governance Services, Corporate and Community Services:

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

 

Staff are conducting a major review of all of Council’s policies in partnership with Council’s internal auditors.  This review will look at the effectiveness of each policy, current practice, duplication with legislation, best practice and contemporary approaches. 

 

The policies included in this Notice of Motion will be included in the review of Policies currently being undertaken.

 

It is intended that Councillors will be briefed during the review process and priority policies identified.  A briefing can occur at the next available Strategic Planning Workshop and a report prepared in accordance with the proposed Notice of Motion. 

 

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

 

The review will be included in the internal auditors work program. This expenditure is included in Council’s adopted budget.

 

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

 

Yes.  The delivery program includes action (1.2.4) to monitor decision making to ensure alignment with corporate documents as adopted or endorsed by Council and the activity to continue to review policies.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                    9.5

 

 

Notice of Motion No. 9.5     Retraction of Planning Proposal regarding STRA

File No:                                  I2017/1282

 

  

 

I move that Council write to the Minister for Planning as per S.58 (4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and request that Amendment No.11 Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014, not proceed to enable Council time to reconsider and resubmit a more detailed and well-thought-through planning proposal following the outcome of the State Government’s consideration of the Short Term Holiday Letting in NSW Options Paper.

Attachments:

 

1        Letter from Department of Planning , E2017/87496  

 

 

Signed:   Cr Michael Lyon

 

Councillor’s supporting information:

 

Byron Shire Council has been pushing towards an amendment to the Byron LEP 2014 to regulate short term rental accommodation (STRA) since mid-2015. Byron Shire Council's planning proposal has gone through multiple iterations and a multitude of consultation with the community and government agencies. The proposed amendment first contained exempt provisions, for example, which were then removed in October 2016 after receiving advice from the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO), and then again reinstated at the March 2017 meeting after receiving advice from the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) that Council could only proceed with a planning proposal that did so due to inconsistencies with the recommendations of the NSW Legislative Committee on Environment and Planning. Finally, after again submitting our planning proposal in April 2017 to the DPE reinstating exempt provisions, as requested, the amendment was deferred by the DPE until the NSW Government finalises its approach to STRA, following the release of their options paper.

 

As our experience thus far in attempting to regulate STRA through our planning instrument shows, this is a landscape that is constantly shifting.  With the NSW Government’s release of their options paper and therefore imminent decision on a potentially statewide approach to regulating STRA, it does not make sense to continue with our planning proposal in its current form when we do not know how it may interact with the NSW Government’s finalised approach. The goalposts keep moving. There is no question that STRA has had a serious impact on our community and in order to get an outcome that best serves our community we best wait until the State Government has concluded its consultation and finalised its desired approach.

 

Of course, this does not mean we should not or cannot act in the interim. Council will be making a submission to the options paper to advocate for an approach that will allow us to most effectively regulate STRA. It is noted that an option to continue with the current situation, that is with the power for individual Councils to choose how to best regulate STRA in their local government areas, including the ability to amend their own LEPs as they see fit with the support of the Minister for Planning, is absent from the options paper. While not addressed in this Notice of Motion, advocacy for this approach, if successful, would allow Council to proceed successfully and with certainty with a planning proposal to amend the Byron LEP 2014 to regulate STRA and protect neighbourhood amenity and housing supply and affordability for residents.


 

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

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

 

Background

 

The issue of short term rental accommodation (holiday let) has a recent planning history with Council.

 

The Byron Shire Short Term Rental Accommodation Action Plan: http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/publications/short-term-rental-accommodation-action-plan

 

is the culmination of a process to develop structure and planning controls around the long practiced use of holiday letting dwellings in Byron Shire.  The process commenced in 2013 with key stakeholder workshops that continued into 2014.  From these workshops a Discussion Paper was prepared for key stakeholder’s consideration.  Comments on the Discussion Paper then led to the development of a Draft Short Term Holiday Accommodation Strategy that was publicly exhibited from 11 November to 22 December 2014.  Over 150 submissions were received including two from state government agencies (DPE and RFS).  Council considered a report on the submissions at the 30 April 2015 meeting.  The decision to amend LEP 2014 was made at that meeting.

 

A Proposal was subsequently prepared and submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) who issued a Gateway Determination on 31 August 2015.

 

On 28 September 2015, Council submitted an amended Planning Proposal to the DPE and an amended Gateway was issued on 2 October 2015. At this time the DPE issued delegated authority to Council to make the plan.

 

The Planning Proposal was publicly exhibited for a period of 6 weeks (from 22 October to 4 December 2015), in accordance with the gateway determination. 58 public submissions were received raising various issues.

 

Council considered a report on the outcomes of the public exhibition and the consultation with government and other agencies (Tourism NSW, NSW Rural Fire Service, Holiday Rental Industry Association) at its Ordinary Meeting of 7 April 2016 and resolved as follows:

 

 16-165       Resolved:

 

1.       That Council modify the planning proposal in relation to the exempt provisions as proposed in the NSW Rural Fire Service submission to state:

 

6.       Prior to commencement, where the dwelling is located on mapped bushfire prone land, a bushfire safety authority under Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 shall be obtained and all conditions of the Bushfire Safety Authority must be complied with.

 

2.       That Council forward the modified planning proposal to amend Byron LEP 2014, as included in Attachment 1 of this report, to NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office requesting that a draft LEP instrument be prepared, under section 59(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 with the following additional changes:

 

a)      Incorporate item 18 and 19 (amend item 19 from “10pm” to “12 midnight”) contained on page 514 of Attachment 1 of Report 13.4 being “controls relating to exempt provisions for use of outdoor areas and visitor number and hours”

 

3.       That Council liaise with Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO) as necessary to finalise the content of the draft LEP and to enable PCO to issue an Opinion that the plan can be made.

 

4.       That Council make the draft LEP under delegated authority and forward the plan to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for notification on the NSW Government legislation website.

 

5.       That a security bond be required of no less than $250 per adult per letting and that a provision be added to the exempt clause.   

 

PCO Recommendation

 

Following Resolution 16-165, the Planning Proposal was sent to the Department of Planning and Environment and the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO) for an opinion as to whether the plan can be made. The PCO have recommended the plan be made with some changes to the exempt provisions.  PCO provided Council with legal advice on how the clauses were to be drafted. The provisions state:

 

[1]     Clause 6.10 (insert after Clause 6.9)

6.10 Short-term rental accommodation

 

(1)     The objective of this clause is to require development consent for the

temporary use of a dwelling as short-term rental accommodation.

(2)     Despite any other provision of this Plan, development consent is required for

the use of a dwelling as short-term rental accommodation if the dwelling is

available for rent for more than 90 days per calendar year.

(3)     Development consent must not be granted for the use of a dwelling as

short-term rental accommodation unless:

(a)     the dwelling is located in a zone where dwellings are permitted with

development consent, and

(b)     the dwelling contains no more than 5 bedrooms, and

(c)     the use does not interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood by

reason of the activities taking place on or near the dwelling, the

emission of noise or traffic generation.

 

[2]     Schedule 2 Exempt development (Insert in appropriate order)

 

Short-term rental accommodation

Note. If the subject dwelling is located on bush fire prone land, a bush fire safety

authority must be obtained before the dwelling is used as short-term rental

accommodation (see section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997).

 

(1)  Must be located in a zone where dwellings are permitted with development

consent.

(2)  Must not contain more than 3 bedrooms.

(3)  If part of a community or strata scheme, must have the prior written approval

of the owners corporation for that scheme.

(4)  Must be serviced by a general waste garbage bin and a recycling garbage bin.

(5)  Must have a fire blanket and fire extinguisher in the kitchen and evacuation

lighting.

(6)  Any smoke alarm that is required to be installed under the Act must be

powered from the mains electricity supply.

(7)  Car parking must be provided on the land as follows:

(a)  for 2 bedrooms or less—1 car parking space,

(b)  for 3 bedrooms—2 car parking spaces.

Note. A driveway that can accommodate 2 vehicles complies with the car parking

requirement for 2 car parking spaces.

(8)  Council must be notified that the dwelling house is short-term rental accommodation.

(9)  Must not involve any moveable dwellings.

(10) Signage (being at least A3 size) must be clearly displayed on the land to which the sign relates and contain the following:

(a)    the name and telephone number (including an after hours telephone number) of the owner or property manager using a minimum 40mm high font,

(b)     wording to the effect that the dwelling house is short-term rental accommodation.

 

[3] Dictionary

Insert in alphabetical order:

 

short-term rental accommodation means a dwelling house, or part of a

dwelling house, used for the purpose of tourist and visitor accommodation

(other than bed and breakfast accommodation or farm stay accommodation)

that is available for rent on a temporary basis.

 

Council Resolution 16-545

 

A report was presented to Council on 27 October 2016 to provide Council with an update on the Planning Proposal to amend Byron LEP 2014 to facilitate Short Term Rental Accommodation (STRA) in accordance with Council Resolution 16-165. 

 

The report noted that the PCO have recommended that the plan be made with some changes to the exempt provisions.  The report noted that the recommended clauses detailed above, although similar to what was drafted by Council, were not identical.   Council considered the report and resolved as follows:

 

16-545        Resolved that Council:

 

1.   Note the amendments to the draft planning provisions by Parliamentary Counsel;

 

2.   Amend the planning proposal to remove exempt provisions noting Council’s intention to review the applicability of exempt provisions within 12 months;

 

3.   Include appropriate provisions within the draft DCP for short term rental accommodation concerning dealing with substantiated complaints similar to other provisions contained in other Local government planning controls relating to more than two substantiated complaints; 

 

4.   Not take enforcement action against existing land owners for 6 months following the LEP amendment being made for using a dwelling for short term rental accommodation not in accordance with Byron LEP 2014, provided that use does not generate substantiated complaints relating to noise, amenity or public and occupant health and safety issues;

 

5.   Receive a report, before years end, on the legal and planning avenues to ensure ‘granny flats/secondary dwellings’ built without paying Council fees and or contributions are not being used and will not be used for short term rental accommodation purposes; and

 

6.   Receive a report, before years end, on the restrictions on Council to set fees on DA applications for short term rental accommodation or registrations of short term rental accommodation.      

 

The Planning Proposal was subsequently amended to remove exempt provisions in accordance with item (2) of the above resolution.  Council then resubmitted the planning proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment requesting approval to finalise the plan. 

 

By letter dated 6 February 2017, the DPE advised that Council’s revised planning proposal is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Legislative Committee on Environment and Planning.  The DPE advised that Council could still proceed with the planning proposal as it stood prior to removal of the exempt provisions (Planning Proposal Version 4), or review the proposed exempt provisions and await the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations to ensure consistency.

 

Consequently, the written authorisation of delegation to Council issued to allow the exercise of plan making functions was revoked and an amended Gateway determination issued.

 

Council Resolution 17-084

 

A report was presented to Council on 23 March 2017 to advise Council that an amended Gateway Determination had been issued by the Department of Planning and Environment. 

 

The report noted that Council’s revised planning proposal is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Legislative Committee on Environment and Planning and provided details of the Committee’s recommendations.  The report also noted that the DPE advised that Council could still proceed with the original planning proposal.  Should Council not wish to proceed with the original planning proposal, the DPE suggested that Council wait for the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations to ensure consistency i.e. inclusion of exempt development provisions for short term rental accommodation in LEPs.

 

17-084        Resolved:

 

1.   That Council note the comments made by Department of Planning and Environment about the submitted planning proposal.

 

2.   That Council proceed with an amended planning proposal that reinstates exempt development provisions for short term rental accommodation into the Local Environmental Plan.

 

3.   That Council refer the amended planning proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for finalisation in accordance with the amended Gateway Determination.

 

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.       

 

In accordance with Resolution 17-084, the planning proposal was amended to reinstate exempt development provisions for short term rental accommodation into the Local Environmental Plan and referred to the Department of Planning and Environment for finalisation in accordance with the amended Gateway determination. 

 

Current position

 

In a letter received from the Department of Planning 16 May 2017 (Attached), Council was advised that a decision on whether to proceed with the submitted planning proposal had been deferred until a State wide approach has been finalised, following consideration of the outcomes of consultation on the Options Paper.

 

To this aim, Council staff are now preparing a submission to the State Government on the Options Paper, the deadline for this being 31 October 2017. Council staff are not of the opinion that a standard State wide approach to this issue will be acceptable or appropriate to Byron Shire, given our circumstances to that of other local government areas in NSW in relation to short term rental accommodation (holiday let).

 

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

 

N/A

 

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

 

N/A

 

 

  


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Submissions and Grants                                                                                                     11.1

 

 

Submissions and Grants

 

Report No. 11.1           Byron Shire Council Submissions and Grants as at 30 August 2017

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           Jodi Frawley, Grants Co-ordinator

File No:                        I2017/1161

Theme:                         Corporate Management

                                      Governance Services

 

 

Summary:

 

Council have submitted applications for a number of grant programs which, if successful, would provide significant funding to enable the delivery of identified projects.  This report provides an update on these grant submissions.

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council note the report.

Attachments:

 

1        Byron Shire Council Current Submissions and Grants as at 30 August 2017(2), E2017/88044  

 

 


 

Report

 

This report provides an update on grant submissions including funding applications submitted, potential funding opportunities and those awaiting notification.

 

Funding Applications – Successful

 

·   Northern Rivers Community Recovery fund, Commonwealth-NSW National Disaster Relief and Recovery Funds (shared with Ballina, Kyogle, Richmond Valley and Tweed) - $2,115,164

·   Coolamon Scenic Drive Safety Treatments, Safer Roads, NSW Roads and Maritime Services - $362,000

·   L-Bin Collection and drop off systems, Resource Recovery Facility Expansion and Enhancement Program - $119,000

 

Funding opportunities identified for consideration by staff

 

·   Byron Shire Bike Plan, Active Transport (Roads and Maritime Services, NSW Government)

·   Cycle/walking paths, Broken Head road (Suffolk Park to Byron Bay), Active Transport (Roads and Maritime Services, NSW Government)

·   Cycle/walking paths, Lismore Road, Active Transport (Roads and Maritime Services, NSW Government)

·   Cycle/walking paths, Ewingsdale Road, Active Transport (Roads and Maritime Services, NSW Government)

·   Cycle/walking paths, Balemo Road, Active Transport (Roads and Maritime Services, NSW Government)

·   Shared Zones for Lateen and Bay Lanes, Byron Bay Active Transport (Roads and Maritime Services, NSW Government)

·   Bridges for the Bangalow Agricultural Area, Fixing Country Roads (Restart NSW, NSW Government)

·   Clarks Beach Amenities, Stronger Country Communities Fund (Regional Growth Fund, NSW Government)

·   Ocean Shore Community Centre upgrade, Stronger Country Communities Fund (Regional Growth Fund, NSW Government)

·   Active Recreation Waterlily Park, Ocean Shores, Stronger Country Communities Fund (Regional Growth Fund, NSW Government)

·   Refurbishment of Sandhills Childcare Centre, Stronger Country Communities Fund (Regional Growth Fund, NSW Government)

·   Brunswick Library renovation and extension, Regional Cultural Fund (Regional Growth Fund, NSW Government)

·   Byron Trails, Northern Rivers Business Recovery Program (Commonwealth-NSW National Disaster Relief and Recovery)

·   Emergency Relief Information, Northern Rivers Business Recovery Program (Commonwealth-NSW National Disaster Relief and Recovery)

·   Billi’s Back, Northern Rivers Business Recovery Program (Commonwealth-NSW National Disaster Relief and Recovery)

·   Northern Rivers Resilience Masterclasses, Northern Rivers Business Recovery Program (Commonwealth-NSW National Disaster Relief and Recovery)

 

Funding submissions submitted and awaiting notification

 

·   Building capacity in Byron’s Community Halls, Building Better Regions Fund Community Investments, (Australian Government)

·   Fishing Platform Brunswick River ,Recreational Fishing Trust, (NSW Government)

·   Blindmouth Creek Crossing replacement Bridges Renewal Programme, (Australian Government)

·   Bridges for the Bangalow Agricultural Area,  Bridges Renewal Programme, (Australian Government)

·   3D Mapping Tool, Smart Cities and Suburbs, (Australian Government)

·   North Byron Coastline Management Plan, Coastal and Estuary Grants Program (NSW Government)

·   Byron Bay Bypass, Regional Jobs and Investment Package for North Coast NSW (Australian Government)

·   Shark Smart Alert and Advice System, Shark Management Strategy Program (NSW Government)

·   622 Bangalow Road Safety Treatments, Safer Roads including Black Spot Funding (Roads and Maritime Services, NSW Government)

·   Brunswick Harbour Boat Ramp, NSW Boating Now (RMS, NSW Government)

 

Additional information on the grant submissions made and or pending is provided in Attachment 1 – Grants report as at 30 August 2017

 

Financial Implications

 

If Council is successful in obtaining the identified grants more than $12 million would be achieved which would provide significant funding for Council projects.  Some of the grants require a contribution from Council (either cash or in-kind) and others do not. Council’s contribution is funded. The potential funding and allocation is noted below:

 

Requested funds from funding bodies                                                                        $12,291,141

Council cash contribution                                                                                              $7,514,905

Council in-kind contribution                                                                                              $128,218

Funding applications submitted and awaiting notification (total project value)  $19,934,264

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Council is required under Section 409 3(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 to ensure that ‘money that has been received from the Government or from a public authority by way of a specific purpose advance or grant, may not, except with the consent of the Government or public authority, be used otherwise than for that specific purpose’. This legislative requirement governs Council’s administration of grants.

   


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                          13.1

 

 

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services

 

Report No. 13.1           Establishment of the Mullumbimby Hospital Site Project Reference Group and Selection of Community Representatives

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           David Royston-Jennings, Corporate Governance and Strategic Planning Officer

Sarah Ford, Manager Community Development

File No:                        I2017/927

Theme:                         Corporate Management

                                      Governance Services

 

 

Summary:

As per Council resolution 17-269 (in part), a call for expression of interest and other activities have been conducted to present to Council nominees for the proposed Mullumbimby Hospital Site Project Reference Group. The report also presents a draft Constitution for the Project Reference Group.

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.       That Council increase the number of representatives the Mullumbimby Hospital Site           Project reference Group from 15 to 16 as a result of strong applications and interest in           the Project Reference Group as outlined below

a)      That Council select 12 representatives for appointment to the Mullumbimby Hospital           Site Project Reference Group from the Community Organisation nominees, noting the           Project Guidance Group have recommended the appointment of representatives of the           following groups:

·   Mullumbimby Hospital Action Group

·   North Coast Community Housing

·   Third Sector Australia (formerly On Track Community Programs)

·   Mullumbimby & District Neighbourhood Centre

·   Mullumbimby Chamber of Commerce

·   Byron Youth Service

·   Mullumbimby Residents Association

·   Brunswick Heads Progress Association

·   Ocean Shores Community Association

·   Arts Northern Rivers

·   Creative Mullumbimby

·   Aboriginal Services Coalition

 

b)      That Council nominate 4 individual community representatives for appointment to the Mullumbimby Hospital Site Project Reference Group from the individual community nominees;

 

3.       That Council thank all other nominees for their interest and time in submitting an Expression of Interest and invite them to participate in future broader consultation activities;

 

4.       That Council adopt the Draft Constitution for the Mullumbimby Hospital Site Project Reference Group including the purpose, objectives, membership and timeframe for the group to operate.

 

Attachments:

 

1        Draft Constitution Mullumbimby Hospital Site Project Reference Group, E2017/86725  

2        Attachment for Council Report re establishment of Mullumbimby Hospital PRG - Community Group nominations, E2017/86726  

3        Confidential - Mullumbimby Hospital Site PRG Community Member Nominations Table Complete, E2017/87153  

4        Confidential - Mullumbimby Hospital Site Project Reference Group Nominations, E2017/87168  

 

 


 

Report

 

At its Ordinary Meeting 22 June 2017, Council resolved (17-269), in part, the following:

 

4. That a Project Reference Group (PRG) be established with a sunset period of 12 months comprising up to 15 representatives from critical Mullumbimby stakeholder groups that includes at least two with commercial experience and skills. The PRG to propose and consider potential uses for the former Mullumbimby Hospital site. The PRG constitution to reference the following policy and objectives:

 

A) Gain the best outcome from the future use of the Hospital Hill site for BSC, the Brunswick Valley community and its other stakeholders. The best outcome is defined by a participatory planning process.

 

B) Execute a world’s best practice participatory planning process for the future use of the Hospital Hill Site that gives the community and all stakeholders a genuine and meaningful voice in shaping the use of the site and that aligns with the “The community Charter – Planning for the people – a community charter for good planning in NSW”.

 

5. That the General Manager and staff work with the PRG to develop a proposed community engagement strategy.

 

6. That the expressions of interest for membership to the PRG be published at the next available opportunity with the submissions provided at the next Ordinary Meeting for determination.

 

Staff has had 5 meetings with a Project Guidance Group, comprised of representatives from Mullumbimby Hospital Action Group and Councillors, to provide advice and recommendations on the purpose, objectives and membership of the proposed Project Reference Group (PRG).

 

The Project Guidance Group developed the Draft Constitution for the Project Reference Group as well as assisted in contacting over 40 community groups from across the Brunswick Valley community and helped raise awareness for the call for individual nominations for the PRG.

 

Over 40 community groups from across the Brunswick Valley have been contacted to ascertaining their interest in being involved on the PRG, or alternatively, interest in the broader consultation that will occur during the next twelve months.

 

A call for expressions of interest was advertised from 27 July in Council Notices, with submissions closing on 24th August 2017. The advertisement was also posted on social media sites and a media release published in local papers.

 

Draft PRG Constitution

 

A copy of the draft Mullumbimby Ex-Hospital Site Project Reference Group is provided as Attachment 1, with the key features included below.

 

The Project Guidance Group have worked with staff to refine the purpose, objectives and proposed membership of the group as follows:

 

Purpose of PRG

 

Gain the best outcome from the future use of the Hospital Hill site for Byron Shire Council, the Brunswick Valley community and its other stakeholders.

 

Principles underpinning the PRG are based on ‘The Community Charter – Planning for the people – a community charter for good planning in NSW”:

 

·     The wellbeing of the whole community, the environment and future generations is considered;

·     Effective and genuine public participation is fundamental;

·     Open, inclusive, transparent and accountable processes are undertaken;

·     Objective and evidence-based advice is utilised.

 

Objectives

 

1.    Propose and consider potential uses for the former Mullumbimby Hospital site.

 

2.    Utilise a best practice participatory planning process for the future use of the Hospital Hill site that gives the community and all stakeholders a genuine and meaningful voice.

 

3.    Work with Council staff to develop an inclusive community engagement strategy for implementation by Council.

 

4.    Consider potential constraints arising from the site contamination and the various options for remediating/ removing that contamination.

 

5.    Develop a set of clear criteria for assessment of recommendations and options to Council.

 

6.    Provide advice and recommendations to Council on the best outcome for the Hospital Hill site taking into consideration community and stakeholder input, data and zoning and regulatory requirements.

 

Membership and Assessment Criteria

 

The Project Guidance Group has worked with staff to refine the membership and selection criteria for the group as follows:

 

The PRG Membership (max 18) will include:

 

·     3 Councillors

·     3-5 independent community representatives as per selection criteria

·     A representative from [community stakeholder group from above list, as selected by Council x 10-12]

·     General Manager (or staff member delegate)

 

Note:  Staff members participating on the PRG do not have any voting entitlements.

 

Community members will be selected based on:

 

1.       Having a direct interest and connection to the Brunswick Valley community, and either:

a.   involvement in the Mullumbimby Hospital acquisition process or

b.   experience in community services or groups

c.   direct commercial business experience and skills.

 

2.       Demonstrate the following:

a.   strong communication and interpersonal skills

b.   ability to work in a group environment for shared decision making supporting the principles and objectives of the PRG for the benefit of the whole community

c.   capacity or willingness to access and utilize web based communications

d.   available and committed for the full duration of the process

Stakeholder groups will be selected based on:

a.   an balanced mix of interest groups with minimal overlap

b.   a demonstrated link to the Brunswick Valley community

c.   based on long term future benefits for the community

 

Community Groups

 

Community groups from a range of sectors were contacted by letter in the week of 24th July. The sectors include: medical/ health; aged care; housing; business; environment/sustainability; agriculture; community associations (such as progress/ residents associations); community services; education; arts; youth; Aboriginal; and church groups. Each group was contacted at least three times – by initial letter, by phone follow up and by a reminder email.

 

Of the 40 community groups contacted, 14 replied they would be interested in having a seat on the PRG and able to commit to attend meetings over a twelve month period. Attachment 2 provides information about each of these groups including the sector/s they represent, the nominated person for the PRG and any other information they have provided relevant to the process.

 

The Project Guidance Group has worked with staff and recommend the following 12 community groups be appointed by Council. These recommendations are made considering the selection criteria listed above under ‘stakeholder groups’.

 

·   Mullumbimby Hospital Action Group

·   North Coast Community Housing

·   Third Sector Australia (formerly On Track Community Programs)

·   Mullumbimby & District Neighbourhood Centre

·   Mullumbimby Chamber of Commerce

·   Byron Youth Service

·   Mullumbimby Residents Association

·   Brunswick Heads Progress Association

·   Ocean Shores Community Association

·   Arts Northern Rivers

·   Creative Mullumbimby

·   Aboriginal Services Coalition

 

Other groups that have expressed interest in the broader consultation that will occur over the next twelve months include:

·    COREM

·    TOOT

·    CWA

·    Rural Fire

·    Police

·    Brunswick Valley & District Volunteer Rescue Organisation

·    SES

·    Red Cross

·    Anglicare

·    Salvation Army

·    Tweed Byron Land Council

·    Primary Healthcare Network

·    Libraries

·    Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal)

·    Drill Hall Theatre Company

·    Rainforest Rescue

·    Natural Death Centre

·    Local schools

·    Local church groups

·    U3A

·    Luminous Youth

·    Main Arm Rural Residents Association

·    Brunswick Valley Historical Society

·    The Family Centre

·    Byron Hospice Service

·    Brunswick Heads Chamber of Commerce

·    Social Futures

·    Other resident and progress associations

 

Individual Community Nominations

 

Individual community members were called for in advertising as stated above. In addition, letters were written to the neighbours surrounding the ex-hospital site.

 

14 submissions were received and the details of each nominee are provided in the confidential attachment 3 to this report. Nomination forms in full are contained in attachment 4. Due to the strength of applications, four nominations have been identified by the Project Guidance Group as meeting the criteria for participation in the Project Reference Group.

 

The Project Guidance Group has worked with staff and have made recommendations for appointment in the confidential attachment. These recommendations are made considering the selection criteria listed above under ‘community members’.

 

The unsuccessful individual community members could be invited to participate in the broader consultation, devised by the PRG.

 

Final Membership of the PRG

 

The recommendations included in this report have considered a balance of skills, interest and the selection criteria by the Project Guidance Group and staff. The recommendations presented provide a holistic and well considered group which the PGG believe will provide the best outcome for the community.

 

The recommendations are for 4 individual community members and 12 representatives of groups. These candidates, along with the three Councillors, it is recommended will make up the final Project Reference Group.

 

Financial Implications

 

A small budget will be required to cater for up to 12 meetings, room hire and other associated costs for operating the PRG. A small budget allocation for future community engagement activities would also be required.

 

It is recommended that a budget of $10,000 be allocated to the activities of this PRG in the next quarterly review process.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Guide to Operations – Advisory Committees and Panels

 

  


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                          13.2

 

 

Report No. 13.2           Code of Conduct - Panel of Conduct Reviewers

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           Ralph James, Legal Services Coordinator

File No:                        I2017/987

Theme:                         Corporate Management

                                      Governance Services

 

 

Summary:

 

Council is required to review its Panel of Conduct Reviewers by 30 September 2017.

 

Council agreed to collaborate with NOROC member Councils to convene a shared panel of Conduct Reviewers.

 

The Panel of Conduct Reviewers endorsed by NOROC is recommended to Council.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.       That That Council enter into an arrangement with other NOROC member councils to share a Code of Conduct Review Panel consisting of following Reviewers:

 

 

 

Nominee

 

Organisation (if applicable)

 

Nicolas A P Harrison

Self

Michael Symons

Self

Graham Evans

O'Connell Workplace Relations

Kathy Thane

Train Reaction PTY LTD

Peta Tupney

Tress Cox Lawyers

Monica Kelly

Prevention Partners

Chris Gallagher

Chris Gallagher Consulting

Alison Cripps

Cripps Consulting

Kath Roach

Sincsolutions

Phil O'Toole

Centium

Emma Broomfield

Locale Consulting

 

Attachments:

 

1        Confidential - List of Applicants - Code of Conduct Review Panel, E2017/88047  

 

 


 

Report

 

The Code of Conduct Procedures – refer to http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/publications/code-of-conduct-procedures-for-administering (Procedures) - include:

 

3.1       Council must by resolution establish a panel of conduct reviewers.

3.2       Council may by resolution enter into an arrangement with one or more other councils to share a panel of conduct reviewers.

3.3       The panel of conduct reviewers is to be established following a public expression of interest process."

 

Council is required to appoint a panel of Conduct Reviewers by 30 September 2017.

 

The role of the panel of Conduct Reviewers is set out in the Procedures.

 

The NOROC General Manager’s group appointed Ralph James (Byron), Neil Baldwin (Tweed), Peter Jeuken (Lismore) and Marcus Schintler (Kyogle) to the Panel of Conduct Reviewers Assessment Group.

 

Council agreed to collaborate with NOROC member Councils to convene a shared panel of Conduct Reviewers.

 

an Expression of Interest process was coordinated through NOROC and followed the requirements established within the Procedures.

 

The following advertising for expressions of interest occurred:

·    Northern Star, Grafton Examiner, Coffs Advocate, Tweed News (26 & 29 April)

·    Courier Mail, Gold Coast Bulletin (29 April)

·    SMH (2 May)

A total of 71 submissions were received and these submissions were evaluated by the Assessment Group. The Assessment Group reported to NOROC a preferred list of panel of Conduct Reviewers.

 

The Assessment Group applied the following selection criteria to justify how they selected their recommended appointees. The selection/eligibility criteria used were the criteria prescribed by the NSW Government which is set out below.

 

“To be eligible to be a member of a panel of conduct reviewers, a person must, at a minimum, meet the following requirements:

 

a)   An understanding of local government and

b)   Knowledge of investigative processes including but not limited to procedural fairness requirements and the requirements of the Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994 and

c)   Knowledge and experience of one or more of the following:

I.    Investigations, or

II.   Law, or

III.  Public administration, or

IV.  Public sector ethics, or

V.   Alternative dispute resolution”

 

Price and knowledge of applicants were also considered.

 

On 4 September 2017 the NOROC Mayors endorsed the Code of Conduct Review Panel as per the following: 

 

That NOROC endorses a Code of Conduct Review Panel for immediate distribution to member councils for recommended adoption via resolution to share that panel with other member Councils.    

 

The list in the NOROC report and in the recommendation in this report set outs in no particular order the panel of Conduct Reviewers adopted by NOROC for recommendation to member councils.

 

Council is now required to determine its panel of Conduct Reviewers. It can adopt the panel as recommended by NOROC or it could adopt a changed panel (but all members of the Panel must have been applicants to the NOROC Expression of Interest process and they must satisfy the prescribed eligibility criteria). A confidential list of all applicants is attached.

 

Financial Implications

 

By collaborating through NOROC, Council saved the time and money associated with having to run an individual expression of interest process.

 

Each Code of Conduct matter referred for review incurs costs, which can vary depending on the nature of the matter being investigated.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

The process followed by NOROC and the recommendation in this report satisfy the requirements of the Code of Conduct Procedures.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                          13.3

 

 

Report No. 13.3           Council Resolutions Quarterly Review - 1 April 2017 to 30 June 2017

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           David Royston-Jennings, Corporate Governance and Strategic Planning Officer

File No:                        I2017/1080

Theme:                         Corporate Management

                                      Governance Services

 

 

Summary:

 

This report provides an update on the status of Council resolutions and any proposed actions for consideration by Council. 

 

It should be noted that 98 resolutions have been completed during the period 1 April to 30 June 2017, compared with 52 resolutions completed in the period 1 January to 31 March 2017,  and there are 58 outstanding resolutions, compared with 73 outstanding as at 31 March 2017. Resolutions could be outstanding due to budget constraints, staff resourcing, and extended negotiations with stakeholders.  There are a number that require no further action and should be closed.

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.       That Council receive and note the information provided in this report on outstanding Council Resolutions in Attachment 1 (#E2017/84730).

 

2.       That Council note the completed Resolutions in Attachment 2 (#E2017/84729).

 

3.       That Council resolve that no further action be taken in respect of the following resolutions and that they be closed:

         

          Resolution 14-146

 

Attachments:

 

1        Outstanding Resolutions as at 30 June 2017, E2017/84730  

2        Completed Resolutions 1 April to 30 June 2017, E2017/84729  

 

 


 

Report

 

This report provides a quarterly update on the status of Council Resolutions to 30 June 2017.

Resolutions completed include the exhibition of the rural land use strategy, appointment of new members to some of Council’s Section 355 Committees, approval of a traffic management plan for Splendour in the Grass 2017, authorisation for Cr Ndiaye to attend the ALGA National General Assembly, granting of a sub-lease to Byron Youth Service Inc., designation of senior staff within the organisation, adoption of the Commercial Activities on Coastal and Riparian Crown Reserves policy, report on all abilities beach access and the adoption of the Community Strategic Plan 2027, Delivery Program 2017-2021 and Operational Plan 2017-2017 (including Statement of Revenue Policy, Budget and Fees and Charges).

 

During this period:

 

·     98  resolutions were completed during period 1 April to 30 June 2017

·     58 resolutions remain outstanding as at 30 June 2017

 

The outstanding Council resolutions per Council terms are provided below:

 

·     40 Outstanding Council Resolutions from current Council (2016-2020)

·     15 Outstanding Council Resolutions from previous Council (2012-2016)

·     3  Outstanding Council Resolutions from prior Council (2008-2012)

·     58  Outstanding Resolutions as at 30 June 2017

 

Resolutions could be outstanding due to budget constraints, staff resourcing, and extended negotiations with stakeholders. 

 

Details of completed resolutions for the period are provided at Attachment 2. 

 

It should be noted that staff are reviewing the how Council (and community) are informed about the status of resolutions to ensure that this is provided in a more timely, transparent and easily understood format. Council at its August meeting (decision 17-362) resolved that at the next available Strategic Planning Workshop, Council discuss ways to keep Councillors and the community informed of the current status of resolutions and that following this discussion a report be brought outlining possible layouts and methods of reporting the status of resolutions.

 

In 2014, Council (14-417) sought a review of outstanding resolutions to determine which ones currently fit within other resolutions, which ones cannot be resourced and which Council resolutions are able to be closed.  The below tables outline these resolutions.

 

Table 1: Council Resolutions that are no longer relevant or that have been superseded by other Resolutions

 

Resolution No.

Meeting Date

Report Title

Staff Comments and Recommendation

14 -146

10/04/2014

Meeting to investigate the provision of free wireless internet

Wi fi roundtable discussion and that of the adequacy of NBN services in the Shire being progressed through business chamber, industry and business roundtable meetings hosted by council.

 

Financial Implications

 

A number of resolutions note that resource constraints limit completion of action required.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

·     Council requires a quarterly report be prepared to allow it to consider the six monthly Operational Plan and Quarterly Budget reviews along with a review of Council Resolutions.

·     Implementation of Council Resolutions in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

·     This report has been prepared in accordance with Part 3c) of Resolution 14-417.

 

Council at its Ordinary meeting held on 24 August 2017 adopted Resolution 17-362, which reads as follows:-

 

Resolved:-

 

1. That at the next possible Strategic Planning Workshop Council discuss ways to keep Councillors and the community informed of the current status of resolutions.

 

2. That following this discussion a report be brought outlining possible layouts and methods of reporting the status of resolutions.

 

The proposed discussion in Part 1.is scheduled for the Strategic Planning Workshop to be held on 7 September 2017.

 

The attachments to this report have been prepared in the old format pending the Workshop and the further report to Council.


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                          13.4

 

 

Report No. 13.4           Public Exhibition of Draft Policy - Byron Bay Urban Recylced Water Connection Policy

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           Peter Rees, Manager Utilities

File No:                        I2017/1122

Theme:                         Corporate Management

                                      Financial Services

 

 

Summary:

 

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 22 June 2017 considered Report 13.30 – Byron Bay Urban Recycled Water Connection Policy.

 

Council resolved (Resolution: 17-266) to place the draft policy on public exhibition without amendment.  This report is provided to Council to consider the submissions received in relation to the Byron Bay Urban Recycled Water Connection Policy before adopting this policy.

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council adopt the Byron Bay Urban Recycled Water Connections Policy as detailed in Attachment 1 (#E2017/62524).

 

Attachments:

 

1        Draft Policy Urban Recycled Water Connections (E2017/60557), E2017/62524  

2        Confidential - Urban Reuse Connection Policy Public Submission, E2017/86810  

 

 


 

Report

 

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 22 June 2017 considered Report 13.30 – Byron Bay Urban Recycled Water Connection Policy.

 

Council resolved (Resolution: 17-266):

 

1.    That the Draft Urban Recycled Water Connections Policy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.

 

2.    That if no submissions are received, the Policy be adopted.

 

3.    That any submissions received be reported back to Council

 

Council placed the draft policy on public exhibition for a period of 28 days, which closed on 10 August 2017.  During the public exhibition period, there one submission received, which is contained at Confidential Attachment 2. 

 

The responses to the questions and statements in the submission are as detailed below.

 

1. Why now and not before when Byron Council had given commitment to treated effluent reuse as part of the Brunswick Valley STP development commissioned in 2011 and West Byron STP augmented in 2005 and commissioned in 2006? 

 

Council undertook an extension to the recycled water main in 2016 that has allowed the recycled water to be extended to the large water users in and around the Byron Bay CBD. Up until this time Council has pursued connections to all the sites identified in the 2006 Effluent Management Strategy with over 70% of the sites being connected.

 

2. Why is treated effluent reuse already existing in adjoining Shires and not in Byron?

 

 Treated effluent reuse has existed in Byron since 2003 at Main Arm, Byron Bay and Bangalow.

 

3. Why has the reuse of treated effluent in the Shire failed at West Byron STP and Brunswick Valley STP?.

In public access at a Special Meeting of Council, 6.7.17, Tony Flick from Ewingsdale reported that for 12 years he has been engaging with Council about the flooding of part of his property with now between 2ML - 3ML/day. 

 

The reuse of treated effluent has not failed at West Byron STP or the Brunswick Valley STP.

 

4. Why is the proposed transfer of raw sewage from Ocean Shores STP, a proposal that in all probability will make treated effluent reuse in the northern area of the Shire more expensive because it will require a return pipeline.

 

The proposed transfer of sewage from the Ocean Shores STP is a proposal still under consideration by Council. A return pipeline was a part of the originally approved project to transfer treated effluent from Ocean Shores to Brunswick Valley. Effluent reuse in the northern part of the Shire was not pursued due to a lack of support from the community at the time. It is however an option that can be revisited should there be community support for the project.

 

The Ocean Shores sewage transfer is being investigated as it has been identified this will save Council of the order of $13 million over the life of the scheme. There is no technical reason why this scheme would make treated effluent reuse more expensive in the northern area of the Shire.

 

5. Why is this exhibited draft policy so narrow in its focus?

 

The Policy applies to the entire Byron Bay Urban Recycled Water Scheme.

 

6. Misleading and deceptive information about reuse to

  

(a)  The EPA.  Until contacted in April, the EPA has been led to believe that Byron Shire had a reuse system in place and cited the Main Arm farmers and the Byron Golf Club.  The Main Arm farmers have not taken treated effluent for years.  The Byron Gold Club is unable to say how much treated effluent is been used and Water and Recycling has omitted to date to give any information on how much treated effluent is been supplied to the golf course.  At worse, BSC may be 'dumping' treated effluent indirectly into the Belongil.

 

 (b)  (i)    Byron Council's promotion of  Water Week advertised  treated effluent reuse that didn't exist

       (ii)   Council's report to a public meeting held in the late nineties, following the augmentation of Ocean Shores STP in 1995, was very badly worded and presented to neighbours adjoining the Ocean Shores Golf Course.  It led to them refusing to accept the use of treated effluent on the golf course.

 

(c)  the proposed irrigation of bamboo from Bangalow STP has been a failure because the bamboo has never been harvested let alone for fibre production.  This completely contradicts Council's advertisement 12 April 2017 page 16 wherein it is stated that,."….onsite irrigation system currently used for a bamboo plantation with the purpose of harvesting for fibre production" exists.  The bamboo is at an advanced stage of growth as opposed to been regularly harvested to promote the uptake of effluent.

 

Council’s EPA licences have the following EPA specified test points for Council’s recycled water schemes.

 

Byron Bay EPA Licence 3404

Point 3 – Effluent Reuse - Volume and Quality monitoring

Point 5 – Discharge to Urban Reuse Pipeline – Volume and Quality monitoring

 

Brunswick Valley EPA Licence 13266

Point 6 – Volume Monitoring (Effluent Reuse)

Point 8 – Effluent Quality Monitoring (Tap of effluent reuse pipeline at corner of Main Arm Rd and Johnstones ln Main Arm)

 

Bangalow STP EPA Licence 2522

Point 4 – Volume Monitoring (Effluent Reuse)

 

The government department responsible for the overview of recycled water schemes in NSW is the Department of Primary Industries (Water).

 

Council’s promotion of Water Week was a well received community event. It showcased Council’s use of recycled water in wetlands, plantations and the urban reuse scheme.

 

The bamboo plantation continues to use recycled water and Council is now developing a project to establish a bio energy plant that will use crops such as bamboo as a coppice crop to produce energy and biochar.

 

7.  Narrowness of the Exhibited Policy, Opportunities Foregone and Emerging Opportunities: 

 

a.       If  Byron Shire Council was committed to an effluent reuse policy and strategy, then all DAs, such as Bayside Brunswick and the Mills Estate in Brunswick alone, should have had effluent reuse connections as infrastructure.

 

b.       Effect of privatisation of surface and groundwater reserves:  Introduction of water licenses in rural areas opens up opportunity for treated effluent to be used.   Identifying potential effluent reuse areas in rural settings needs to be considered as part of  the Rural Residential Strategy.  As expressed by one rural property owner.

 

"Water is a concern and unfortunately the Brunswick Valley Water Sharing Plan was passed on the 1st of July 2016 which basically privatised all the surface water in the Brunswick Valley.  All of the various groundwater sources were also privatised under water sharing plans on the 1st of July 2016 as well.  The ground water sources included.  North Coast Coastal Sands, North Coast Volcanic s, New England Fold Belt Coastal and the Clarence Moreton Basin.  This happened and it seems almost no one knew about it.  The water sharing plans were put on public exhibition. In the case of the Brunswick Valley Water source there was not a single public submission received by the Department.  The Brunswick Valley water source includes all the water flowing in the Creeks and Rivers in Byron Shire and the groundwater under the non coastal flood plains.  It includes all the water in Rural Dams over a properties "Harvestable Right".  For example a 20 Hectare property  can have Dams up to a capacity of 3.2ML.  Anything over than requires a water license.  It looks like no more water licenses will be issued for the Brunswick Valley Water Source. If anyone wants a water license they have to buy the water off the people that already owned them prior to the water sharing plan coming into effect on 1st July 2016."


I will have to pay a minimum of $500 per ML but everyone who rushed to get their water licenses just a year ago got them for free. 
It seems the public exhibition of all these water sharing plans was done quite secretly and no advertisements were run in local papers for example.

If you read the groundwater sharing plans for the North Coast it seems to indicate a massive quantity of groundwater available which has a very high annual recharge rate.  I am skeptical of the numbers however.  It really seems like a lot of water. 
In relation to Brunswick Valley surface water flows.  The valley is broken up into various sub catchments.  Some have no water allocated at all.  and some have very little.  The subcatchment that accounts for the vast majority of water allocated in Byron Shire is from the Tyagarah Creek sub catchment.

So basically for any new Horticulture, Nursery, Aquaculture, Intensive Agriculture, Industry, Quarry etc that requires water to operate (including dairies, rural tourism accommodation, caravan parks etc) if they cannot get their water from Rous Water and they do not have enough water in their Harvetable Rights dams then they will need to buy water on the new water trading market.  All those existing rural based businesses that currently use water from a bore but the bore is only licensed for domestic and stock purposes are doing so illegally and the Department will begin cracking down on them in the next few years.


I hate the fact that the water has been privatised but I also know that many nurseries, horticulture business and rural industries are using a lot of water out of bores and are doing so illegally.

That provides a bit of peace of mind that huge water intensive industries are not likely to be set up in Byron Shire.  The recent example of the Middle Pocket Micro Distillery is an example of someone who knew what was happening and got in before the 1st July 206 and got their water allocations of (53ML/year) for free."

 

Obviously, in rural environments  water licenses are morphing into gold mines.  The potential for treated effluent reuse is blatant and exposes the shortcomings of the exhibited policy document.

 

This is general comment rather than comment about the merits of the exhibited policy.

 

8. Proposed Charges: Whilst  the concept of charges has been stated, it is impossible to comment on what it translates to at this stage.  What is of concern is that charges for drinking water are to apply to treated effluent in context of

 

"Council will pay for all upfront costs for the design and installation of the recycled water infrastructure inside the property boundary.  These costs will be recovered by the levying of the applicable drinking water rate for the recycled water consumption."

 

 Unless there is an attractive difference that the market will embrace between drinking water charges and use of recycled water, then the policy will not take up.  Even if the incentive for these to be lowered after the initial connection costs are recouped, there still remains the upfront cost . 

 

Council believes there will be greater take up of recycled water use with this policy than without.

 

9.  Environmental impacts of discharge into the Belongil, and  Brunswick River must cease.  A total catchment management policy for each STP and an implemented strategy is at least 12 years overdue.

 

Council has prepared a draft Byron Shire Effluent Management Strategy which will be taken to the next Water Waste and Sewer Advisory Committee for discussion.

 

10  Economic  Implications

 

"Increasing recycled water usage reduces Council’s costs through less water importation from Rous Water; decreases the business’s costs through less drinking water costs and increases Council’s asset utilisation with the existing Urban Recycled Water infrastructure."   In principle, this statement is agreed.  However, its presumptive base of take - up rate to connect to any reuse water is in question.

 

Council believes there will be greater take up of recycled water use with this policy than without.

 

Overall Comment.

The exhibited document is poor.  It reads as 'damage control' to increasing criticism of a lack/collapse of Council's position on recycling of treated effluent from STPs to date.  A comprehensive policy and strategy for each of the catchment areas for the STPs is urgently required.  Consequently, this policy needs to be put aside.

 

Without wetland reuse, Council reuses 11% of the effluent produced against a NSW average of 17%. If wetlands are included this this reuse volume is approximately 20% - well above the state average.

 

A draft Byron Shire Effluent Management Strategy that includes all the catchment areas has been prepared which will be taken to the next Water Waste and Sewer Advisory Committee for discussion.

 

Financial Implications

 

There are no financial implications as a consequence of this policy.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Compliance with the Local Government Act and Council’s 2006 Byron Bay Effluent Management Strategy.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                          13.5

 

 

Report No. 13.5           Safe Summer in the Bay, Schoolies and other large gatherings and counter-terrorism measures

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           Joanne McMurtry, Community Project Officer

Sarah Ford, Manager Community Development

Peter Rees, Manager Utilities

File No:                        I2017/1149

Theme:                         Society and Culture

                                      Community Development

 

 

Summary:

 

Following another successful Safe Summer in the Bay 2016/17, with increased crowds and reduced impacts on the community, planning has commenced for Safe Summer in the Bay 2017/18.

 

As part of this planning process, the NSW Police have advised of the new counter-terrorism measures, required for crowds of approximately 3,000 or more people.

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.       That Council note the requirement for counter-terrorism measures for community           events for crowds of more than 3,000 people

 

2.       That Council work with NSW Police to implement interim arrangements to safeguard the community against counter-terrorism threats for Safe Summer in the Bay 2017/18 and Schoolies

 

2.       That Council work with NSW Police to identify permanent infrastructure arrangements to ensure the community is safeguarded against the threat of counter-terrorism for future events.

 

 

 


 

Report

 

“Safe Summer in the Bay” 2016/2017 produced a successful New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day (NYD) in Byron Bay.  Estimated crowd numbers were up (more than 10,000 estimated in Soul Street NYE), Police reported a very small number of arrests and there were no major incidents reported by emergency services.

 

First Sun NYD was successful with estimated crowd numbers approximately 1,000 people attending the 5.30am event.  The newly implemented traffic management plan and street closures up to the Lighthouse precinct ensured pedestrian safety and improved access for the shuttle buses taking people to the event.

 

A Safe Summer in the Bay Working Group managed operational aspects in the delivery of key strategies with Council’s partnership with the Byron Community Centre (BCC) continued.  Council streamlined support by appointing a Project Manager to assist with a whole of Council coordination.  This planning element will be built upon in future years to streamline Council’s delivery even further.

 

The first meeting of stakeholders for the 2017/18 event was held on the 2 August 2017. The significant outcome from this meeting was advice from NSW Police that this year’s event would need to include counter-terrorist measures.  These measures are now required for all public events where more than 3,000 people are expected. Schoolies will also be impacted by these changes.

 

Counter-Terrorism

 

The Commonwealth Government recently released a report titled Australia’s Strategy for Protecting Crowded Places from Terrorism. Following is an extract from the report:

 

Crowded places such as stadiums, shopping centres, pedestrian malls, and major events will continue to be attractive targets for terrorists. The current National Terrorism Threat Level in Australia is PROBABLE, as outlined on www.nationalsecurity.gov.au This reflects the advice of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) that individuals and groups continue to possess the intent and capability to conduct a terrorist attack in Australia.

 

Owners and operators of crowded places have the primary responsibility for protecting their sites, including a duty of care to take steps to protect people that work, use or visit their site from a range of foreseeable threats, including terrorism….. The approach taken to protect crowded places should be nationally consistent, proportionate and, to every extent possible, preserve the public’s use and enjoyment of these places.

 

The strategy has a number of supplementary materials including a self-assessment tool, a security audit tool, hostile vehicle mitigation guidelines, chemical weapon guidelines, active armed offender guidelines and improvised explosive device guidelines.

 

Tweed – Byron Local Area Command have indicated they are required to put into place a Counter-Terrorism Plan for any large gatherings occurring within the Shire, which includes Soul St NYE and Schoolies. Further, NSW Police have requested notification for all events that involve alcohol.

 

Road Barriers

 

Protection against vehicle borne attack is a key focus area from NSW Police. Road barriers are required to be of sufficient capacity to prevent unauthorised access by a speeding truck. 

 

Given the lead time to 2017/18 Safe Summer in the Bay events, NSW Police have agreed to work with Council to put in place interim protective measures to safe guard the community. At other events around the state this has been achieved by parking a bus or other large vehicle, across all access points.  In the event of an emergency, key vehicle operators should be on standby during the event to move the trucks should police and emergency services require access.

 

The problem is more difficult and cumbersome to solve for the “Schoolies” programme as it spans nearly 2 weeks with the critical time from 7pm to 1am each night. This will require somehow to “ring fence” the Apex Park area during this period. A short term measure would be to park mini buses and vehicles around the site however this maybe considered to be both unsightly and most likely unsatisfactory to the broader community.

 

Permanent infrastructure to safe guard the community may include reinforced bollards and other approved barrier systems.   A further report to Council regarding permanent counter-terrorism measures will be reported to Council after Safe Sumer in the Bay 2017/18. 

 

Financial Implications

 

Interim counter–terrorism arrangements for Safe Summer in the Bay 2017/18 are expected to cost a minimum of $30,000.  For the “Schoolies” programme this cost will likely be exceeded due to the complexity of the venue and the time span. The advent of such stringent and costly counter terrorism measures should be cause for the Council to review the cost-effectiveness of events such as “schoolies” and to question their sustainability.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Plan for New Year in Byron Bay 2017 and the 2017 “Schoolies” programme.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                          13.6

 

 

Report No. 13.6           Australia Indonesia Arts Alliance Event 28-30 September 2017

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           David Royston-Jennings, Corporate Governance and Strategic Planning Officer

Mark Arnold, Director Corporate and Community Services

Sarah Ford, Manager Community Development

File No:                        I2017/1158

Theme:                         Corporate Management

                                      Governance Services

 

 

Summary:

 

Council is asked to consider a budget submission from the Australia Indonesia Arts Alliance, endorse the co-hosting of an Indonesian Forum and associated events in collaboration with the AIAA, and request the development of an international relations policy to provide a framework which governs how Byron Shire Council interacts, coordinates and liaises with foreign government bodies and delegations.

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

 

1.       Endorse the co-hosting of an Indonesian Forum and associated events with the Australia Indonesia Arts Alliance, to be held in Byron Shire from 28-30 September 2017;

 

2.       Allocate $3,000 of Council’s Community Development Program’s unallocated s356 donations in the 2017/18 budget to support international relations;

 

3.       Reimburse the Australia Indonesia Arts Alliance for agreed expenses incurred as a co-host of the Indonesian Forum and associated events in Byron Shire between 28-30 September 2017 to the limit of the budget allocated in part 2 of this Resolution;

 

4.       Consider the inclusion of an item in the 2018/19 Operational Plan budget to continue to support international relations which contribute to community aspirations as outlined in the Community Strategic Plan 2027; and,

 

5.       Request staff to develop an international relations policy to provide a framework which governs how Byron Shire Council interacts, coordinates and liaises with foreign government bodies and delegations.

 

Attachments:

 

1        Confidential - Australia Indonesia Arts Alliance Forum Submission to Council, E2017/84889  

 

 


 

Report

 

Following the successful visit of an Indonesian delegation to Byron Shire  between March and April 2017, facilitated in collaboration with the Australia Indonesia Arts Alliance (AIAA), the AIAA have continued to work with Bpk Yayan Mulyana, Consul General of the Republic of Indonesia, to stage an Indonesian Forum in Byron Shire between 28 and 30 September 2017.  

 

At its Ordinary meeting held 22 June 2017, Council received a report on the adoption of its Integrated Planning and Reporting documents, including the 2017/18 Statement of Revenue Policy, Budget, and Fees and Charges. A submission provided by the Australia Indonesia Arts Alliance (Confidential Attachment 1) requested funds to facilitate such a Forum, covering catering and administrative costs, which would allow Byron Shire Council and representatives of various Indonesian government bodies to collaborate on issues such as the economy, education and coastal management. Council’s resolution (17-268) did not incorporate the Australia Indonesia Arts Alliance request for funding.

 

In collaboration with the Mayor’s Office, the AIAA have proceeded with the organisation of the Indonesia Forum and have invited 9 Indonesian delegates to speak at the Forum. The speakers are as follows:

 

1. Mr Lenis Kogoya (Special Staff of President)

2. Mr Teuku Sama Indra (Regent of South Aceh)

3. Mr Yossi Irianto (Regional Secretary of Bandung City)

4. Mr Mohamad Salman Fauzi (Head of Environment and Hygiene office of Banding City).

5. Mrs Ade Indriani Zuchri (Chairperson of Indonesia Green Union)

6. Mr Deni Jasmara (Indonesia Green Union)

7. Mr Riyan Sumindar (Staff of Special Staff of President office)

8. Mr Dadan Ramdhan (Chairman of Indonesia Environment Forum West Java Province)

9. Mr Teguh Iman Maulana (Staff of South Aceh Regent)

 

The proposed schedule of events for the delegation include field trips facilitated by the AIAA on 28 and 30 September, with visits to Council’s Byron Resource Recovery Centre and the West Byron Integrated Water Management Reserve. The Forum is scheduled for 29 September. Council have agreed to provide the following to assist with the running of the Forum, however there is currently no budget allocation:

 

·   Use of the Council Chambers as the venue for the Forum with IT support for 15 mins and the beginning of the Forum for setting up and 15 mins at the end of the Forum for finalising the day.

·   Conference Room as location for attendees to eat lunch.

·   Morning tea (max 60 persons) – organised and paid for by Byron Shire Council.

·   Lunch (max 60 persons) – organised by AIAA (Indonesian meal @10$pp) and paid for by Byron Shire Council.

 

Councillors are encouraged to attend the Forum on 29 September and join the fields trips on 28 and 30 September as hosts to the delegation.

 

Council does not at present have a policy, procedure or member of staff responsible for or which provides guidance to projects, events or collaboration with foreign government bodies or delegations. This event and associated requests from the AIAA has demonstrated Councils’ need to:

 

·   Allocate resources to international diplomacy, with a focus on using international relations and establishing diplomatic ties to advance the interests and causes of the Shire. This relates to community strategy CM3.1, to ‘implement collaborative partnerships that support efficient use of resources’, as documented in the Community Strategic Plan 2027.

·   Develop a policy framework which governs how Byron Shire Council interacts, coordinates and liaises with foreign government bodies and delegations.

 

Financial Implications

 

Council’s Community Development Program currently has an unallocated s356 donations budget of $36,200. This recommendation is that $3,000 of this budget is used to support international relations which would assist Council in achieving its goals, as outlined in the Community Strategic Plan 2027.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

While the Australian Government has no direct control of local government, it does have primary responsibility for international relations and diplomacy. Local governments should align their international arrangements with government policies.


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                          13.7

 

 

Report No. 13.7           Council Investments August 2017

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No:                        I2017/1243

Theme:                         Corporate Management

                                      Financial Services

 

 

Summary:

 

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

 

This report is prepared to comply with Regulation 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That the report listing Council’s investments and overall cash position as at 31 August 2017 be noted.

 

 

 

 


 

Report

 

In relation to the investment portfolio for the month of August 2017, Council has continued to maintain a diversified portfolio of investments.  At 31 August 2017, the average 90 day bank bill rate (BBSW) for the month was 1.69%.  Council’s performance to 31 August 2017 is 2.59%.  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 31 August 2017:

 

Schedule of Investments held as at 31 August 2017

 

Purch Date

Principal ($)

Description

CP*

Rating

Maturity Date

Ethical ADI

Type

Interest Rate Per Annum

Current Value

24/03/17

1,000,000

NAB Social Bond (Gender Equality)

N

AA-

24/03/22

N

B

3.44%

1,011,100.17

28/10/16

650,000

Teachers Mutual Bank

P

BBB+

28/10/19

Y

FRN

3.17%

653,642.89

31/03/17

1,000,000

CBA Climate Bond

N

AA-

31/3/22

N

FRN

3.25%

1,000,000.00

23/08/17

2,000,000

NAB

P

AA-

23/11/17

N

TD

2.47%

2,000,000.00

08/08/17

2,000,000

NAB

N

AA-

06/11/17

N

TD

2.45%

2,000,000.00

03/07/17

1,000,000

NAB

N

AA-

09/10/17

N

TD

2.44%

1,000,000.00

30/08/17

2,000,000

NAB

N

AA-

30/11/17

N

TD

2.23%

2,000,000.00

08/08/17

2,000,000

Bank of Queensland

P

BBB+

05/02/18

Y

TD

2.60%

2,000,000.00

02/08/17

2,000,000

Police Credit Union

P

NR

02/11/17

U

TD

2.55%

2,000,000.00

15/08/17

2,000,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

15/11/17

Y

TD

2.45%

2,000,000.00

01/06/17

2,000,000

Beyond Bank

P

BBB

03/10/17

Y

TD

2.65%

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

07/07/17

2,000,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

07/10/17

Y

TD

2.55%

2,000,000.00

08/08/17

2,000,000

ME Bank

P

BBB

08/11/17

Y

TD

2.45%

2,000,000.00

04/07/17

1,000,000

Bananacoast Credit Union

P

NR

04/01/18

Y

TD

2.70%

1,000,000.00

16/03/17

2,000,000

AMP Bank

P

A

18/09/17

N

TD

2.75%

2,000,000.00

09/06/17

2,000,000

NAB

N

AA-

08/09/17

N

TD

2.50%

2,000,000.00

30/08/17

2,000,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

30/11/17

Y

TD

2.45%

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

04/07/17

2,000,000

Beyond Bank

N

BBB

04/10/17

Y

TD

2.65%

2,000,000.00

13/06/17

1,000,000

Auswide Bank Ltd

N

BBB-

13/10/17

Y

TD

2.60%

1,000,000.00

05/07/17

1,000,000

Police Credit Union

N

NR

05/10/17

U

TD

2.60%

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

15/08/17

1,000,000

Bank of Queensland

N

BBB+

12/01/18

Y

TD

2.55%

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

23/08/17

1,000,000

The Capricornian Credit Union

P

NR

23/11/17

Y

TD

2.50%

1,000,000.00

19/07/17

2,000,000

Beyond Bank

N

BBB

30/10/17

Y

TD

2.65%

2,000,000.00

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

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

03/05/17

1,500,000

Auswide Bank Ltd

P

BBB-

08/11/17

Y

TD

2.68%

1,500,000.00

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

P

NR

27/09/17

Y

TD

2.60%

1,000,000.00

02/06/17

1,500,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

04/12/17

Y

TD

2.67%

1,500,000.00

05/06/17

1,000,000

Intech Bank Ltd

P

NR

05/12/17

Y

TD

2.80%

1,000,000.00

08/06/17

2,000,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

08/12/17

Y

TD

2.65%

2,000,000.00

13/06/17

1,000,000

Bananacoast Credit Union

N

NR

13/10/17

Y

TD

2.60%

1,000,000.00

29/06/17

2,000,000

Community Alliance Credit Union

P

NR

29/09/17

U

TD

2.65%

2,000,000.00

05/07/17

1,500,000

Hunter United Employees Credit Union

P

NR

06/11/17

U

TD

2.85%

1,500,000.00

05/07/17

1,000,000

Police Credit Union

N

NR

17/10/17

U

TD

2.60%

1,000,000.00

10/07/17

1,000,000

Hunter United Employees Credit Union

N

NR

10/10/17

U

TD

2.65%

1,000,000.00

17/07/17

1,000,000

Police Credit Union

N

NR

17/11/17

U

TD

2.65%

1,000,000.00

28/07/17

2,000,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

30/10/17

Y

TD

2.45%

2,000,000.00

03/08/17

1,000,000

Maitland Mutual Building Society

N

NR

03/11/17

Y

TD

2.50%

1,000,000.00

15/08/17

1,000,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

15/11/17

Y

TD

2.45%

1,000,000.00

17/08/17

1,000,000

AMP Bank

N

A

17/11/17

N

TD

2.45%

1,000,000.00

17/08/17

1,000,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

17/11/17

Y

TD

2.45%

1,000,000.00

17/08/17

1,000,000

Bank of Queensland

N

BBB+

19/02/18

Y

TD

2.55%

1,000,000.00

23/08/17

1,000,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

23/11/17

Y

TD

2.45%

1,000,000.00

24/08/17

1,000,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

24/11/17

Y

TD

2.45%

1,000,000.00

30/08/17

1,000,000

Me Bank

N

BBB

28/11/17

Y

TD

2.45%

1,000,000.00

31/08/17

2,000,000

NAB

N

AA-

12/12/17

N

TD

2.50%

2,000,000.00

31/08/17

2,000,000

NAB

N

AA-

18/12/17

N

TD

2.50%

2,000,000.00

N/A

2,062,923

CBA Business Online Saver

N

A

N/A

N

CALL

1.40%

2,062,923.08

Total

79,212,923

 

 

 

 

 

AVG

2.59%

79,227,666.14

 

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 month of August 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 31 August 2017

 

Principal Value ($)

Investment Linked to:-

Current Market Value ($)

Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)

74,500,000.00

Term Deposits

74,500,000.00

0.00

1,650,000.00

Floating Rate Note

1,653,642.89

3,642.89

2,062,923.08

Business On-Line Saver (At Call)

2,062,923.08

0.00

1,000,000.00

Bonds

1,011,100.17

11,100.17

79,212,923.08

 

79,227,666.14

14,743.06

 

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 month of August 2017 on a current market value basis. 

 

Movement in Investment Portfolio – 1 to 31 August 2017

 

Item

Current Market  Value (at end of month) $

Opening Balance at 31 July 2017

74,725,216.16

Add: New Investments Purchased

30,000,000.00

Add: Call Account Additions

0.00

Add: Interest from Call Account

2,449.98

Less: Investments Matured

25,500,000.00

Less: Call Account Redemption

0.00

Less: Fair Value Movement for period

0.00

 

Closing Balance at 31 August 2017

79,227,666.14

 

Investments Maturities and Returns – 1 to 31 August 2017

 

Principal Value ($)

Description

Type

Maturity Date

Number of Days Invested

Interest Rate Per Annum

Interest Paid on Maturity $

2,000,000.00

Police Credit Union

TD

02/08/17

182

2.70%

26,926.03

2,000,000.00

NAB

TD

08/08/17

123

2.55%

17,186.31

2,000,000.00

Bank of Queensland

TD

08/08/17

124

2.50%

16,986.30

2,000,000.00

ME Bank

TD

08/08/17

153

2.55%

21,378.08

1,000,000.00

My State Bank

TD

09/08/17

187

2.75%

14,089.04

2,000,000.00

ME Bank

TD

15/08/17

132

2.50%

18,082.19

1,000,000.00

Bank of Queensland

TD

15/08/17

180

2.70%

13,315.07

1,500,000.00

Beyond Bank Australia

TD

16/08/17

106

2.65%

11,543.83

2,000,000.00

Beyond Bank Australia

TD

16/08/17

103

2.65%

14,956.16

2,000,000.00

NAB

TD

23/08/17

127

2.53%

17,606.03

1,000,000.00

The Capricornian

TD

23/08/17

170

2.70%

12,808.22

1,000,000.00

Beyond Bank Australia

TD

24/08/17

92

2.65%

6,679.45

2,000,000.00

NAB

TD

30/08/17

177

2.58%

25,022.47

2,000,000.00

ME Bank

TD

30/08/17

125

2.55%

17,465.75

2,000,000.00

Beyond Bank Australia

TD

31/08/17

92

2.65%

13,358.90

25,500,000.00

 

 

 

 

 

247,403.83

         

The overall ‘cash position’ of Council is not only measured by what funds Council has invested but also by what funds Council has retained in its consolidated fund or bank account as well for operational purposes. In this regard, for the month of August 2017 the table below identifies the overall cash position of Council as follows:

 

Dissection of Council Cash Position as at 31 August 2017

 

Item

Principal Value ($)

Current Market Value ($)

Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)

Investments Portfolio

 

 

 

Term Deposits

74,500,000.00

74,500,000.00

0.00

Floating Rate Note

1,650,000.00

1,653,642.89

3,642.89

Business On-Line Saver (At Call)

2,062,923.08

2,062,923.08

0.00

Bonds

1,000,000.00

1,011,100.17

11,100.17

Total Investment Portfolio

79,212,923.08

79,227,666.14

14,743.06

 

 

 

 

Cash at Bank

 

 

 

Consolidated Fund

3,599,450.54

3,599,450.54

          0.00

Total Cash at Bank

3,599,450.54

3,599,450.54

          0.00

 

 

 

 

Total Cash Position

82,812,373.62

82,827,116.68

14,743.06

 

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                                          13.8

 

 

Report No. 13.8           Review of Council delegations

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           Anna Vinfield, Manager Governance Services

Ralph James, Legal Services Coordinator

File No:                        I2017/1266

Theme:                         Corporate Management

                                      Governance Services

 

 

Summary:

 

Council is required to review its delegations within the first 12 months of an election.  Council may, by resolution, delegate to the General Manager any Council function other than the matters specifically set out in section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Officers have reviewed the delegations and are recommending minor changes to the General Manager’s delegations in line with recent amendments to the Local Government Act 1993.

 

No changes are recommended to the Mayor’s delegation.

  

RECOMMENDATION:

That with regard to the review of delegations, Council:

 

1.       Revoke its previous delegations and adopt:

a)    Instrument of Delegation to the Mayor as per attachment 1 (E2017/87215); and

b)    Instrument of Delegation to the General Manager as per attachment 2 (E2017/86811)

 

2.       Reconfirm its delegation of its functions for noxious weeds under the Noxious Weeds Act, 1993 to Rous County Council until such time as the delegation is revoked or re-delegated.

 

3.       Reconfirm its delegations to Council’s Special Purposes Committees (noted below) as set out in Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (schedule B, E2016/78355):

a)    Byron Shire Reserve Trust Committee

b)    Planning review Committee

 

4.       Note that Delegations of Authority were adopted and confirmed for all its Section 355 Committees on the 29 September 2016 (Res 16-485).

 

5.       That Council reconfirm its acceptance of delegation of functions from other agencies as set out at appendix 3 (E2013/31451).

 

Attachments:

 

1        Draft Delegation - Mayor, E2017/88052  

2        Draft Delegation - General Manager, E2017/88059  

3        Code of Meeting Practice, E2017/88063  

4        Council s Delegated Functions - List of Acceptances of Delegation of Functions pursuant to s381 of the Local Government Act, E2017/88065  

 


 

Report

 

Council is required to review its delegations within the first 12 months of an election.  Council may, by resolution, delegate to the General Manager any Council function other than the matters specifically set out in section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993.  These matters are included in the Statutory and Policy Implications section of this report.

 

Under changes brought about by the Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning) Act 2016 the authority to accept a tender can be delegated to General Managers, other than for services currently provided by Council staff members.

 

During its ratification, the Minister noted during the second reading speech that “more routine tendering functions will be delegated to General Managers, while ensuring that any major decision on outsourcing that might affect current Council staff remains a decision for the Councillors”.


The intention of the amended clause is to remove the prohibition on delegation by a council of the acceptance of any tender but, at the same time prohibit delegation of the function of accepting tenders to provide services currently provided by council staff.

 

All accepted tenders would still be required to be publically reported on Council’s notice board and website.

 

Additionally under the 2016 amendment, the General Manager can provide financial assistance under certain circumstances as per below:

 

(a)   the financial assistance is part of a specified program, and

(b)   the program is included in the council’s draft operational plan for the year in which the financial assistance is proposed to be given, and

(c)   the program’s proposed budget for that year does not exceed 5 per cent of the council’s proposed income from the ordinary rates levied for that year, and

(d)   the program applies uniformly to all persons within the council’s area or to a significant proportion of all the persons within the council’s area.

 

A number of limitations have been previously noted on the General Manager’s delegations.  Minor modifications are recommended to these – tender acceptance provisions (following the changes to the Act) and increase of financial limit on bad debt write offs to improve processing efficiency.

 

The recommended instrument of delegation to the Mayor is at attachment 1 and for the General Manager (with tracked changes) is at attachment 2.

 

Financial Implications

 

Nil

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Section 377 (General Power of the Council to Delegation), Local Government Act 1993 notes that:

(1) A council may, by resolution, delegate to the general manager or any other person or body (not including another employee of the council) any of the functions of the council under this or any other Act, other than the following:

 

a)    the appointment of a general manager,

b)    the making of a rate,

c)    a determination under section 549 as to the levying of a rate,

d)    the making of a charge,

e)    the fixing of a fee,

f)     the borrowing of money,

g)    the voting of money for expenditure on its works, services or operations,

h)    the compulsory acquisition, purchase, sale, exchange or surrender of any land or other property (but not including the sale of items of plant or equipment),

i)     the acceptance of tenders to provide services currently provided by members of staff of the council,

j)     the adoption of an operational plan under section 405,

k)    the adoption of a financial statement included in an annual financial report,

l)     a decision to classify or reclassify public land under Division 1 of Part 2 of Chapter 6,

m)   the fixing of an amount or rate for the carrying out by the council of work on private land,

n)    the decision to carry out work on private land for an amount that is less than the amount or rate fixed by the council for the carrying out of any such work,

o)    the review of a determination made by the council, and not by a delegate of the council, of an application for approval or an application that may be reviewed under section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ,

p)    the power of the council to authorise the use of reasonable force for the purpose of gaining entry to premises under section 194,

q)    a decision under section 356 to contribute money or otherwise grant financial assistance to persons,

r)     a decision under section 234 to grant leave of absence to the holder of a civic office,

s)    the making of an application, or the giving of a notice, to the Governor or Minister,

t)     this power of delegation,

u)    any function under this or any other Act that is expressly required to be exercised by resolution of the council.

 

(1A) Despite subsection (1), a council may delegate its functions relating to the granting of financial assistance if:

 

(a)   the financial assistance is part of a specified program, and

(b)   the program is included in the council’s draft operational plan for the year in which the financial assistance is proposed to be given, and

(c)   the program’s proposed budget for that year does not exceed 5 per cent of the council’s proposed income from the ordinary rates levied for that year, and

(d)   the program applies uniformly to all persons within the council’s area or to a significant proportion of all the persons within the council’s area.

 

  


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                   13.9

 

 

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy

 

Report No. 13.9           PLANNING - 10.2016.444.1 Subdivision of Two (2) Existing Lots into Five (5) Lots at 5 Bulgoon Crescent Ocean Shores

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Paul Mills, Senior Planner

File No:                        I2017/944

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Development and Approvals

 

 

Proposal:

Subdivision of two (2) existing lots into five (5) lots

Property description:

LOT: 450 DP: 238451, LOT: 448 DP: 238451

5 Bulgoon Crescent OCEAN SHORES, 91 Orana Road OCEAN SHORES

Parcel No/s:

5890, 62120

Applicant:

Joe Davidson Town Planning

Owner:

Ventry Developments Pty Ltd

Zoning:

R2 Low Density Residential Zone

Date received:

12 July 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: 28/07/16 to 10/08/16

-    Submissions: Seven (7)

Other approvals (S68/138):

Roads Act (51); Stormwater (55); Water & Sewer (60)

Planning Review Committee:

18 August 2016

Delegation to determination:

Council

Issues:

·    Noise and amenity impacts for adjoining property at No.89 Orana Road in view of proposed new driveway extension providing access to four (4) of the proposed lots.

·    Earthworks associated with proposed internal driveway involves fill with a typical maximum retaining wall height 1.55m with acoustic fencing above. Proposed retaining wall is to be setback 900mm from the boundary with No.89 Orana Road.

·    Topography, the subject site includes steeply sloping land, conditions included to require a Geotechnical Report and Geotechnical Certification.

·    Ecological impacts associated with proposed removal of ten (10) trees.

 

 

Summary:

The application seeks development consent for the subdivision of two (2) existing lots into five (5) new lots. The two existing lots are at No.91 Orana Road and 5 Bulgoon Crescent. Access to proposed Lot’s 1, 2, 3 and 4, is via a 5.5m wide driveway extension and upgrade to the existing access to No.91 Orana Road. Access to proposed Lot 5 is via a 3.3m wide driveway to Bulgoon Crescent.

 

The proposal is considered to satisfy the provisions of Byron LEP 2014 and other relevant Environmental Planning Instruments. The proposal is also considered to satisfy the provisions of Byron DCP 2014 apart from a numeric non-compliance with the 1.0m maximum height of fill control. The proposed fill/retaining wall associated with the construction of the new driveway to Orana Road reaches a maximum height of 1.55 metres (typically). The proposed earthworks are considered to achieve the objective of control to maintain the character of the area subject to conditions.

 

A total of seven (7) submissions were received in response to the community consultation process. The matters raised in the submissions include concerns regarding the proposed driveway access to Orana Road (vehicle noise, earthworks, retaining wall, removal of trees, visual impact and loss of amenity for the adjoining property at No.89 Orana Road), the suitability of the land for subdivision (topography), and the safety of the access point on Orana Road. The matters raised in the submissions have been addressed in this report. Following the exhibition of the application, the applicant submitted amended plans repositioning the driveway 900mm from the boundary with the property at No.89 Orana Road. Conditions have been included to require acoustic fencing and  screen plantings adjacent to the driveway.   

 

The application is considered to have sufficient merit to warrant approval subject to conditions.

 

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 no. 10.2016.161.1 for Subdivision to create five (5) residential lots, associated infrastructure works and removal of ten (10) trees, be granted consent subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 3.

Attachments:

 

1        Proposed Plans 10.2016.444.1 - 5 Bulgoon Crescent Ocean Shores, E2017/86693  

2        Confidential - Submisisons 10.2016.444.1 5 Bulgoon Cresent Ocean Shores, E2017/70860  

3        Proposed Conditions 10.2016.444.1 - 91 Orana Road & 5 Bulgoon Crescent, Ocean Shores, E2017/88068  

 

 


Assessment:

1.       INTRODUCTION

 

1.1     History/Background

 

Lot 450 DP 238451

 

No electronic records found for a past development application over this allotment. This allotment was registered in 1969.

 

Lot   448 DP 238451

 

81/2127      Building Application for a dwelling approved on 24 April 1981.

 

10.2005.84.1   Development Application for Subdivision to create two (2) lots, refused consent on 12 September 2005.

 

1.2     Description of the site

 

The subject site comprises two adjoining lots that were registered in 1969 as part of the early stages of Ocean Shores. The subject lots are Lot 450 DP 238451, street address 5 Bulgoon Crescent, and Lot 448 DP 238451, street address 91 Orana Road. The two properties have a combined area of 6158m2.

 

Lot 450 DP 238451 (No.5 Bulgoon Crescent)

Lot 450 is a hatchet shaped allotment with narrow 4.57m wide access handle to the western side of Bulgoon Cresent with an area of 4388m2. The land falls away from Bulgoon Crecent is currently vacant and contains scattered trees.  

 

Lot   448 DP 238451 (No.91 Orana Road)

Lot 448 is located on the northern side of Orana Road and has a curved boundary of 38.1 metres in length fronting the roadway and an 1770m2. The property contains an existing two-storey dwelling house of brick and tile construction. The land slopes down from the Orana Road frontage with the existing dwelling located on the higher levels of the site towards the road frontage. Vehicle access to the dwelling is available via an existing concrete driveway from Orana Road.

 

1.3     Description of the proposed development

 

The application seeks development consent for the subdivision of two (2) existing lots into five (5) new lots. The two existing lots are Lot 450 and Lot 448 in DP 238451. Lot 448 is proposed to be subdivided into two (2) lots, with the existing dwelling house maintained within proposed Lot 1 and a vacant proposed Lot 2 located to the rear. Lot 450 is proposed to be subdivided into three (3) lots, being proposed Lot 3, Lot 4 and Lot 5.

 

Access to proposed Lot’s 1, 2, 3 and 4, is via a proposed 5.5m wide driveway extension and upgrade to the existing access to Orana Road. Access to proposed Lot 5 is via a proposed 3.3m wide driveway to Bulgoon Cresent within the existing 4.57m wide access handle. Table 1 contains a summary of the proposed subdivision. It is also proposed to construct an acoustic wall adjacent to the property boundary between No.91 and No.89 Orana Road. The proposed acoustic wall system is a “slim wall” form, modular wall system. The applicant has not submitted details of the height of the proposed wall.

 

Following exhibition of the proposal the applicant submitted revised plans which relocate the proposed access driveway for Lots 1-4 a minimum of 900mm from the boundary of the property at No.89 Orana Road.

 

Table 1 – Proposed subdivision summary

Existing Lot & Address

Proposed Lots

Proposed access arrangements

Lot 448 DP 238451 – 91 Orana Road

Lot 1 – 710m2

Off Orana Road, via proposed new 6.0m wide right -of-carriageway

Lot 2 – 1065m2

Off Orana Road, via proposed new 6.0m wide right -of-carriageway

Lot 450 DP 238451 - 5 Bulgoon Crescent

Lot 3 – 1461m2

Off Orana Road, via proposed new 6.0m wide right -of-carriageway

Lot 4 – 1402m2

Off Orana Road, via proposed new 6.0m wide right -of-carriageway

Lot 5 – 1531m2

Off Bulgoon Crescent, via existing 4.57m wide access handle

 

It is noted the lots are generously proportioned and sized with four parcels in excess of 1000m2. Trees proposed for removal include:

Tree No. 10 – Swamp Mahogany - local native species

Tree No. 14 – Durroby - local native threatened species

Tree No. 16 – Silky Oak - local native species

Tree No. 21 – Umbrella Tree - non-local native, undesirable species

Tree No. 22 – Landscape Tree - unnamed

Tree No. 23 – Bottlebrush - cultivated variety, non-local native

Tree No. 24 – African Tulip Tree - exotic - undesirable species

Tree No. 25 – Tibochina  - exotic species

Tree No. 26 – Frangipani  - exotic species

Tree No. 28 – African Tulip Tree - exotic - undesirable species

 

The applicant has submitted a proposed compensatory tree planting plan proposing to plant a total of 12 native trees on the site.

 

 

Figure 1 – Proposed plan of subdivision

 

Figure 2 – Proposed revised driveway setback 900mm from boundary from No.89 Orana Road

 

2.       SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENT/EXTERNAL REFERRALS

 

 

Summary of Issues

Development Engineer

Stormwater management, internal and external access and slope stability. No objection to the proposal subject to conditions.

Environmental Officer

Noise impacts and SEPP No.55 (Remediation of Land). No objection to the proposal subject to conditions.

Building Surveyor

No objection to the proposal subject to fire hydrant coverage.

S94 Officer

This proposal will generate demand for additional public facilities. Section 94 Contributions applicable.

Ecologist

Proposed removal of 10 existing trees including a Durroby tree (Threatened Species). No objection to the proposal subject to conditions.

ET Engineer

The proposal generates on Council’s Water, Bulk Water and sewerage system. No objection to the proposal subject to conditions. Headworks charges to apply.

 

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

 

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

 

3.1.    STATE/REGIONAL PLANNING POLICIES AND INSTRUMENTS

 

 

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

Consideration: The subject site is located within 100m of a cattle dip site. Council’s Environmental Officer has advised that the subject site is suitable for the proposed development.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 71—Coastal Protection

Consideration: Stormwater and waste water from the subject site will be disposed via Council’s infrastructure network. The proposal will not detract from public access to beach.   

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Consideration: No issues identified.

 

* Non-complying issues discussed below

 

3.2.    BYRON LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2014

 

Zone: R2 Low Density Residential Zone

Definition: Subdivision (with ancillary roads and infrastructure works)

LEP Summary of Requirement

Proposed

Zone R2   Low Density Residential

Objectives of zone

•  To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

•  To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

 

The proposed subdivision is considered to be consistent with the Objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone.

Each of the proposed Lots have a suitable area to construct a dwelling house.

Clause 4.1  Minimum subdivision lot size

(1)  The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a)  to ensure that lot sizes are compatible with local environmental values and constraints,

(b)  to facilitate efficient use of land resources for residential and other human purposes.

 

(2)  This clause applies to a subdivision of any land shown on the Lot Size Map that requires development consent and that is carried out after the commencement of this Plan.

 

(3)  The size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

 

The subject site is identified as having a minimum lot size of 600m2. Each of the proposed lots significantly exceeds the area specified on the minimum Lot Size Map.

 

 

 

 

5.5 Development within the coastal zone

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a)  to provide for the protection of the coastal environment of the State for the benefit of both present and future generations through promoting the principles of ecologically sustainable development,

(b)  to implement the principles in the NSW Coastal Policy,

 

Whilst within the coastal zone, the development raises no issues regarding foreshore access, effluent disposal and stormwater are to be connected to existing infrastructure.

 

5.9: Preservation of trees or vegetation

Summary of standard. Must not remove or otherwise injure any vegetation prescribed by Chapter B2 of DCP 2014, without development consent.

 

The application seeks development consent for the removal of trees for the provision of infrastructure. An assessment of the vegetation impacts has been completed in accordance with Council’s DCP Chapter B2.

 

6.2 Earthworks

(3)  In deciding whether to grant development consent for earthworks (or for development involving ancillary earthworks), the consent authority must consider the following matters:

(a)  the likely disruption of, or any detrimental effect on, drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality of the development,

(b)  the effect of the development on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land,

(c)  the quality of the fill or the soil to be excavated, or both,

(d)  the effect of the development on the existing and likely amenity of adjoining properties,

(e)  the source of any fill material and the destination of any excavated material,

(f)  the likelihood of disturbing relics,

(g)  the proximity to, and potential for adverse impacts on, any waterway, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area,

(h)  any appropriate measures proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate the impacts of the development.

 

All earthworks as required for internal road construction are considered to satisfy the provisions of Clause 6.2.

6.6 Essential services

Development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is satisfied that any of the following services that are essential for the development are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required:

(a)  the supply of water,

(b)  the supply of electricity,

(c)  the disposal and management of sewage,

(d)  stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,

(e)  suitable vehicular access.

 

The subject allotments are capable of being provided with the essential services required by Clause 6.6. Stormwater is to be disposed of into an existing stormwater main on the adjoining property to the west. No upgrade to the main is proposed other than a stormwater connection. On site detention will be required.  Conditions to apply. Reticulated water, sewerage and electricity services available. Adequate vehicle access is also proposed.

 

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

 

Draft SEPP (Coastal Management) 2016

The Draft Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) proposes to establish a new, strategic land use planning framework for coastal management. It is intended to support the implementation of the management objectives set out in the Coastal Management Act 2016. Once adopted, the Coastal Management SEPP will be the single land use planning policy for coastal development and will bring together and modernise provisions from SEPP 14 (Coastal Wetlands), SEPP 26 (Littoral Rainforests) and SEPP 71 (Coastal Protection).

 

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

·    coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests area

·    coastal environment area;

·    coastal use area; and

·    coastal vulnerability area.

 

The subject site is mapped within the ‘coastal use area’.  The draft provisions for consideration of development within this area generally reflect the existing matters for consideration currently outlined in SEPP 71. The subject site does not fall within a ‘coastal vulnerability area’ as it is identified within the ‘Coastal Erosion Hazard Area’ on the Byron Bay Coastal Hazards Map (Byron DCP 2014). The proposal is considered to be acceptable having regard to the provisions of the Draft SEPP particularly Divisions No.2, 4 & 5. The proposed development is not in a wetland, littoral rainforest, or coastal environment area.

 

3.3     DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

 

Development Control Plan 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

 

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 checked 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.

 

Development Control Plan 2014 - Issues

 

Chapter B2 - Preservation of Trees and Other Vegetation

The development proposes removal of ten (10) trees to facilitate the driveway and stormwater infrastructure. Trees proposed for removal include:

 

Tree No. 10 – Swamp Mahogany – local native species

Tree No. 14 – Durroby – local native threatened species

Tree No. 16 – Silky Oak – local native species

Tree No. 21 – Umbrella Tree – non-local native, undesirable species

Tree No. 22 – Landscape Tree – unnamed

Tree No. 23 – Bottlebrush – cultivated variety, non-local native

Tree No. 24 – African Tulip Tree – exotic – undesirable species

Tree No. 25 – Tibochina  – exotic species

Tree No. 26 – Frangipani  – exotic species

Tree No. 28 – African Tulip Tree – exotic, undesirable species

 

A further two exotic trees are also likely to require removal as they are within proximity of the building envelope on proposed Lot 2.  Council’s Ecology Planner has recommended compensatory planting for the removal of the native trees. Appropriate conditions of consent have been recommended in this regard including the preparation of a Vegetation Management Plan.

 

Chapter B3 – Services

Having regard to Chapter B3 Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the proposed subdivision is able to be provided with essential urban services subject to conditions of consent.

 

Chapter B14 - Excavation and fill

Section B14.2      Excavation and Fill in all Zones specifies that filling must be limited to a depth of 1 metre. The proposed fill/retaining wall associated with the construction of the new driveway to Orana Road reaches a maximum height of 1.55 metres (typically).

 

The applicant has submitted a section drawing of the proposed retaining wall adjacent to the dwelling at 89 Orana Road (see Figure 3). The submitted section drawing indicates the proposed retaining wall in this location satisfies the DCP Building Height Plane control. In view of the sloping topography of the site the proposed non-compliance with the prescriptive measure is acceptable in this instance as the depth of fill satisfies the objectives of the control which seek to maintain the current and future character of the area.        

 

 

Figure 3 – Section drawing of proposed fill and retaining wall adjacent to western boundary with 89 Orana Road

 

 

 

Chapter D6 - Subdivision

 

1.       Lot Size and shape

 

Lot sizes enable dwellings and driveways to be sited to protect natural or cultural features, and must respond to site constraints including topography, bushland, soil erosion, drainage, and bushfire risk.

 

To provide adequate useable areas each of the proposed lots have a total area significantly exceeding the minimum lot size of 600m2. This additional area provides for more flexible design options for dwellings and access arrangements that assist to compensate for the steep topography. Building envelopes consistent with Councils minimum requirements (12x15m) can be sited on each allotment

 

2.       Vegetation removal

 

Subdivision road layout must be designed around significant stands of trees.  These may be located within reserves or accommodated within the subdivision layout such that dwelling construction may be achieved without causing any undue interference with existing trees.

The proposal involves the removal of scattered exotic and native trees. Appropriate conditions of consent are recommended for compensatory plantings.  

 

3.       Stormwater Management

 

Development applications must demonstrate compliance with Chapter B3 Services, the Northern Rivers Local Government Development Design and Construction Manuals, Byron Shire Council Comprehensive Guidelines for Stormwater Management and relevant Australian Standards.

 

Council’s Development Engineer has indicated the proposal complies with DCP 2014 Section D6.2.1 Subdivision Design Guidelines relating to stormwater management.

 

3.4       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

It is considered that the development is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the natural environment. The loss of vegetation is unlikely to lead to a significant impact on threatened species, populations or ecological communities having regards to the sites location within an urban area. Compensatory plantings are required as per the conditions of consent.

Built environment

The proposal should not have a significantly adverse impact on the built environment of the locality subject to conditions for appropriate acoustic fencing and screen plantings to reduce the visual impact of the retaining wall (and acoustic fence) when viewed from No.89 Orana Road.

Appropriate conditions of consent recommended to control hours of work, construction noise and builders waste. It is also recommended that a restriction be placed on the title to limit the number of dwellings to be constructed on these properties to one only having regards to the slope and topography of the land and access arrangements.

Conditions of consent to apply to control construction activities, hours of work, construction noise and builders waste.

Social Environment

The proposal will not have a significant social impact on the locality.

Economic impact

The proposal will not have a significant economic impact on the locality.

 

3.5     The suitability of the site for the development

 

The subject site contains steeply sloping land including the nominated building envelopes on each of the proposed lots (proposed Lot 2 has the least slope within the nominated building envelope). As the subject land is within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone and each of the proposed lots substantially exceeds the minimum lot size to better facilitate development, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development. Conditions to apply requiring geotechnical classification of each lot and engineering plans and details for construction works.

 

3.6     Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

 

The application was notified/exhibited in accordance with the Level 1 requirements of Council DCP 2017. Council’s records indicate that a total of seven (7) submission were received. Following is a summary of the matters raised in the submissions. 

 

Issue

Comment

Concerns regarding the potential amount of traffic to use the driveway and the location of the second building envelope at the lower part of proposed lot 2. A road supported by a retaining wall up to 1.55m high with guard rails and handrails on top of that is proposed directly along the boundary with No.89 Orana Road. There is no fence on the common boundary between No.89 and No.91 Orana Road.

 

The DA is for subdivision and construction of the driveway. Our concerns include the traffic generated which results in noise, fumes, lack of privacy, security issues, rubbish collection, the increase in housing density, the destruction of vegetation, the alteration of the local drainage and the affect the development will have on our lifestyle.

 

Noise will be generated by the construction of the subdivision, construction of the dwellings on the lots and movement of vehicles up and down a driveway that for a large part exceeds 25% grade.

 

The erection of a fence or noise barrier will potentially add at least another 1.8-2.0m to the 1.55+m retaining wall proposed on the boundary and will be the Ocean Shores equivalent to the ‘Berlin wall’ with a length of up to 70m. The visual impact of a structure with a potential height of 3.55+m on the western boundary will be substantial and adverse as well as restricting sunlight and movement of air.

Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the traffic generated by the proposal as satisfactory having regard to the capacity of the local road network.

 

The applicant has proposed to erect an acoustic fence between properties at No.89 and No.91 Orana Road. This solid fence would assist in maintaining the residential amenity of the neighbouring property having regard to noise, fumes, security and privacy.

 

A condition has been recommended to require the preparation of an acoustic report in support of an acoustic fence atop the retaining wall on the western edge of the proposed driveway to attenuate vehicle noise and to mitigate intrusion from vehicle headlights.

 

A Section drawing of the proposed driveway adjacent to the boundary with 89 Orana Road is shown above (Figure 3). It is anticipated the additional height of the acoustic barrier would be able to generally accord with the building height plane. A condition has been included to require the submission of a detailed vegetation management plan. This plan is to include suitable screen plantings in the 900mm setback adjacent to the driveway along the boundary with No.89 Orana Road.

Having an additional four lots with an access road close to a roundabout to on a steep gradient of Orana Road is dangerous and unnecessary.

 

Council is respectfully requested to consider the appropriateness of the proposed frontage and access road onto Orana Rd for Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 given the alignment and grade of Orana Rd and its capacity and safe operation (acknowledged in the DA SEE as ‘some of the highest of any road in Ocean Shores’) as a collector road in Ocean Shores.

 

No consideration is made in the DA of simple practicalities and urban services, such as ease of transport up a driveway with a 25% (in part) grade to a safe location of the garbage bins for kerbside collection and provision of mail boxes.

Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the proposed driveway access arrangements having regard to the line-of-sight available on Orana Road and raised no objection to the proposal.

 

The applicant has submitted engineering drawings for the proposed driveway including section drawings which clearly illustrate the proposed gradients of the driveway. 

 

Kerbside collection is available on the Orana Road frontage.

 

The proposal will detract from the value of the land at No.89 Orana Road.

 

 

No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the proposed development will detract from the value of any neighbouring property.

Further this is not a matter for consideration under S79C of the EPA Act 1979.

Lots 3, 4 and 5 are proposed on land that is very steep. The DA offers no consideration or study in relation to slope or aspect of the block nor how proposed building envelopes are located in suitable positions within the lots. It appears that the slope of much of the block Lot 450 is over 30% which would be an impediment in terms of development and could be seen as a hazard under Byron’s DCP 2014 Chapter D6.2.1 Subdivision Guidelines.

 

The site is physical constrained. No slope analysis provided. No geotechnical assessment has been carried out for the SEE.

 

NSW Government Guidelines indicate that land with a slope in excess of 30% is considered an absolute constraint and slopes between 20%-30% are a partial constraint or limitation to residential development.  

 

The applicant has submitted a contour plan for the subject site which indicates the areas of the site with the steepest slope. The nominated building envelopes provided by the applicant have used the more accessible areas with the least gradient. Further the size of the lots provides for a substantial degree of flexibility for the future design of dwellings.

 

Council’s DCP 2014 Chapter D6 does identify slope stability as a hazard, however does not specify a percentage gradient limit for residential development.

 

The applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Coffey, dated 23 August 2016. Following a review of the Investigation report Council’s Development Engineer has raised no objection to the proposal subject to a condition requiring a certification from a professional engineer (experienced in soil mechanics) for the proposed works, prior to issue of a construction certificate.

 

The development does not comply with the performance criteria 2 of Byron’s DCP 2014 Chapter D6.2.1 Subdivision Guidelines where Lot sizes must enable dwellings and driveways to be sited to protect natural or cultural features and must respond to site constraints including topography, bushland, soil erosion, drainage and bushfire risk. If the application complied with this criterion then no trees would have to be removed for the driveway and a retaining wall would not be required as the driveway

should be sited to respond to site constraints including the topography.

 

The proposed development is considered to adequately address the requirements of Council’s DCP 2014 subject to conditions included in the recommendation.

 

The proposed lot sizes significantly exceed the minimum lot sizes specified in LEP 2014. To provide adequate useable areas each of the proposed lots have a total area significantly exceeding the minimum lot size of 600m2. This additional space provides for more flexible design options for dwellings and access arrangements that address the topography.

The proposed subdivision is incompatible with the existing pattern of settlement and neighbourhood character.

 

The shape of the proposed lots are irregular and inconsistent with the shape of existing allotments that either adjoin or are in the immediate locality of the site.

 

The proposed configuration of the lots is considered to be more than compatible with that of existing lots in the area. Proposed Lot 5 is a more elongated shape and Lot 1 is slightly smaller in area but well above the minimum lot size in LEP 2014. Building envelopes consistent with Councils requirements (12x15m) can be sited on each allotment

No evidence has been provided in the SEE that the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of the existing dwelling proposed on Lot 1 is less than 0.5:1. 

 

 

Proposed Lot 1 No.1 has an area of 710m2. This allows the existing to have a total of 355m2 of Gross Floor Area. It is apparent the existing dwelling has a Gross Floor Area significantly less than 355m2 and therefore the Floor Space Ratio for proposed Lot 1 is well below 0.5:1.

The proposed development seeks the removal of a Coolamon tree which is not considered or listed in the application material. This is a rare subtropical rainforest tree and is listed as vulnerable in NSW. No consideration of how to minimise the impact of the development on this tree.

The applicant has submitted a seven-part test in relation to the proposed removal of the Durobby (Coolamon) tree from the site. Council. Appropriate conditions have been recommended in relation to compensatory plantings.

Concerns the proposal does not satisfy Byron LEP 2014 Clause 6.2 Earthworks, Clause 6.6 Services, Clause 5.9 Preservation of Trees or Vegetation and fails to satisfy the R2 Zone objectives relating to a low density environment.

As discussed above in the body of the report,  the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant planning controls and the objectives of the R2 Zone for subdivision. (See Section 3.2 of this report)

 

3.7     Public interest

 

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the public interest.

 

4.       DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

 

4.1     Water & Sewer Levies

 

Council’s ET Engineer has advised his development generates an additional load onto Councils Water, Bulk Water and Sewer System. Headworks charges are to apply for Water & Bulk Water (2.8ET) and Sewer (3.0 ET).

 

4.2     Section 94 Contributions

 

Should the application be supported Council’s Section 94 Officer has recommended a condition be included to require the payment of applicable Section 94 Contributions.

 

5.       CONCLUSION

 

The application is considered to have sufficient merit to warrant approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

 

6.       DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL DONATIONS AND GIFTS

 

Has a Disclosure Statement been received in relation to this application

No

Have staff received a ‘gift’ from anyone involved in this application that needs to be disclosed. Where the answer is yes, the application is to be determined by the Director or Manager of the Planning, Development and Environment Division.

No

 

Provide Disclosure Statement register details here: Not applicable.

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                 13.10

 

 

Report No. 13.10         PLANNING - Report update on Council resolution 16-662 - The Farm (DA 10.2016.698.1; PP 26.2016.6.1)

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Rob Van Iersel, Consultant Planner

File No:                        I2017/1011

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Development and Approvals

 

 

 

Summary:

 

Council considered Report 13.16 Report update on Council resolution 16-465 – The Farm at the Ordinary Meeting 15 December 2016 and resolved as follows:

 

16-662 Resolved:

1.   That Council note the report.

2.   That Council continue to work collaboratively and as expeditiously as possible to either regularise or cease unauthorised activities and uses on the land to bring all activities into compliance.

3.   That Council continue to suspend enforcement action in relation to matters within the report until such time as a determination is made. Council may however use its discretion to take enforcement action in circumstances where it is demonstrated that an unauthorised activity or use imposes significant impacts on the environment. This undertaking does not exclude Council from its regulatory obligations in relation to the Food Act, Local Government Act and Protection of the Environment Operations Act.

4.   That Council states its concern regarding the ongoing issues with the OSMS and urges the landholder to take immediate action to resolve these issues to avoid environmental harm.

5.   That Council take action should the OSMS not be operational and compliant within six months.

6.   That where appropriate the immediate neighbours be invited to participate in discussion on any issues that directly impact them.

 

This report provides an update on actions undertaken following that resolution, particularly in relation to Part 4, relating to the performance of the On-Site Sewage Management System.

 

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

 

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

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

 

1.       Note the report.

 

2.       Continue to work collaboratively to either regularise or cease unauthorised activities and uses on the land to bring all activities into compliance, through the processing of a Planning Proposal for the site.

 

3.       Continue to suspend enforcement action in relation to matters within the report until such time as the Planning Proposal has been completed.  Council may, however, use its discretion to take enforcement action in circumstances where it is demonstrated that an unauthorised activity or use imposes significant impacts on the environment. This undertaking does not exclude Council from its regulatory obligations in relation to the Food Act, Local Government Act and Protection of the Environment Operations Act.

 

4.       Where appropriate, invite the immediate neighbours to participate in discussion on any issues that directly impact them during the assessment of the Planning Proposal.

 

 

 

 


 

Report

 

Council considered Report 13.16 Report update on Council resolution 16-465 – The Farm at the Ordinary Meeting 15 December 2016.  This report presents an update on actions undertaken following that resolution, as discussed below:

 

2.    Continue to work collaboratively to either regularise or cease unauthorised activities and uses on the land to bring all activities into compliance, through the processing of a Planning Proposal for the site.

 

In accordance with an earlier resolution of Council (16-465, 25.08.2016), The Farm’s planning consultants lodged a Development Application (10.2016.698.1) and a Planning Proposal (26.2016.6.1) in late October 2016.

 

DA 10.2016.698.1 proposed:

·    Change of Use of the approved “cheese making facility” to agricultural produce industry and industrial retail outlet (bakers); and

·    Change in use of the existing approved dwelling house for use as ancillary offices for the existing approved restaurant and farm.

 

The Planning Proposal (26.2016.6.1) sought “a site-specific amendment to Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (BLEP14) to update Schedule 1 to permit certain additional land uses on the subject land, including:

·    retail premises - shop/ food and drink premises;

·    information and education facility;

·    recreation facility (indoor); and

·    business premises”.

 

Both applications were placed on hold, pending discussions between Council and NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) to clarify significant traffic issues associated with the roundabout to the east of the Pacific Motorway.  It was acknowledged that traffic from The Farm is not the key cause of existing traffic queuing issues at this roundabout, but is a significant contributor.

 

Adding to these traffic issues is Council’s current project examining the future widening of Ewingsdale Road, which includes a need to redesign and expand ‘the hospital roundabout’.  This project has the potential to impact on The Farm property and access to it.

 

As a result of these discussions, RMS advised that they would not object to the traffic generation associated with the existing land uses at the Farm, but that they would oppose any proposal for additional or increased land use.

 

Council staff also advised The Farm that the whole of the existing operation is considered to be tourism development as defined in Clause 6.8 of Byron LEP 2014, which operates to ensure that tourism development on agricultural land remains small scale.

 

Staff further advised that the existing operation at The Farm is considered to be inconsistent with this definition of small scale and that it would therefore be difficult to support the development application.

 

Following discussions with The Farm, development application 10.2016.698.1 was withdrawn on 19 April 2017.  The applicants also agreed to amend the Planning Proposal such that it deals only with existing land uses at the site.  The updated Planning Proposal was submitted on 23 August 2017.  Detailed assessment of the Planning Proposal and its supporting documents has commenced and a further report will be submitted to Council in due course.

 

Assuming a positive assessment of that information, Council would be in a position, through the amended Planning Proposal, to look at ‘regularising’ the existing unauthorised uses at the site.  The proposal seeks to amend Byron LEP 2014 by adding provisions into Schedule 1 to permit the existing land uses at The Farm, subject to future development consent(s).  The Schedule 1 amendment will include a range of applicable criteria, which will define the range of allowable land uses and their ultimate scale.

 

4.    That Council states its concern regarding the ongoing issues with the OSMS and urges the landholder to take immediate action to resolve these issues to avoid environmental harm.

5.    That Council take action should the OSMS not be operational and compliant within six months.

 

Consultants for The Farm have provided a detailed report addressing the performance of the on-site sewage management system (OSMS).  The monitoring and reporting follows various upgrades implemented for the existing system.

 

The Approval to Operate (ATO) for the system requires weekly monitoring of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), suspended solids (SS), thermo-tolerant coliforms, free chlorine and effluent volumes.  This weekly monitoring is required until three consecutive results have been recorded demonstrating compliance with levels in the table below:

 

Sub -surface Irrigation

Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) (mg/L)

Suspended Solids (SS) (mg/L)

Thermo-tolerant coliforms

(cfu/100mL)

Free Chlorine
(mg/L)

90% of all samples

Less than 20

Less than 30

Less than 30

Between 0.2 and 2.0

Maximum Threshold

Less than 30

Less than 45

Less than 100

Less than 2.0

 

The report includes validation of effluent testing to March 2017 and concludes:

“In summary, the results from 2016 to 2017 show a gradual and significant improvement towards the compliance criteria as a result of various enhancements and upgrades.”

 

Council staff have confirmed this gradual and significant improvement, with the effluent consistently meeting the quality objectives in the table above (i.e. more than three weeks in a row for thermo-tolerant coliforms (ecoli)*.  The results are less consistent (irregularly 3 weeks in a row) but also improving for all other analytes.  Flow volumes are within the parameters for which the OSMS is designed.

 

Adverse public health impacts are most likely to arise from EColi contamination via contact with the effluent.  To mitigate this likelihood, The Farm employs measures such as subsurface irrigation, fencing, and ongoing monitoring and maintenance.

 

Staff recommend that weekly monitoring and maintenance continues until regular three weekly compliance periods are achieved.  

 

* Thermo-tolerant Coliforms/ E. coli are considered the best indicators of faecal contamination in water. They are present in faeces in high numbers. The presence of Thermo-tolerant Coliforms/ E. coli in water is unacceptable and indicates major health risks. Levels of Thermo-tolerant Coliforms/ E. coli are expressed as colony forming units per 100 millilitres (cfu/100ml). .

 

6.    That where appropriate the immediate neighbours be invited to participate in discussion on any issues that directly impact them

 

The immediate neighbours have been apprised of the progress in regard to these matters.  With the recent submission of the amended Planning Proposal, staff will be in a position to meet with the neighbours to brief them more fully on the proposal.  Should the amended Planning Proposal be supported, a formal community consultation process will occur prior to a recommendation to Council to prepare a draft Local Environmental Plan amendment.

 

Financial Implications

 

There are no significant financial implications.  Fees are applicable in relation to the amended Planning Proposal.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

As per comments in the report.

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                 13.11

 

 

Report No. 13.11         PLANNING - 'Housekeeping' Amendment - Byron DCP 2014

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Steve Daniels, Planner

File No:                        I2017/1041

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Planning Policy and Natural Environment

 

 

Summary:

 

Following the adoption of Byron DCP 2014, Council staff have prepared a program of proposed DCP amendments to be considered in this report and in future reports to Council.  Circumstances that have necessitated the proposed amendments include: resolutions of Council that require amendments to the DCP; policies adopted by Council that require amendments to the DCP; amendments associated with planning proposals or Council initiatives such as Town Centre Masterplans; and issues identified through the day to day application and interpretation of the current planning controls.

 

The amendments proposed in this report are minor in nature and seek to address anomalies and inconsistencies that create issues when assessing development applications. These proposed amendments have been grouped together in a ‘housekeeping’ format.  Amendments of greater complexity and implications will be reported to Council separately in due course. 

 

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

 

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

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

 

1.       proceed with preparation and public exhibition of the Byron DCP 2014 amendments proposed in this report, as detailed in Attachment 1 (#E2017/86663), Attachment 2 (#E2017/85812); and

2.       receive a further report for consideration of submissions following the statutory public exhibition period;

3.       Should there be no submissions, the amendments to the DCP be adopted as of the close of the statutory public exhibition period date, and notified accordingly.

Attachments:

 

1        Attachment 1 - Schedule of Proposed Amendments to Byron DCP 2014, E2017/86663  

2        Attachment 2 - Draft Byron Shire DCP 2014 Chapter  D9 - Child Care Centres, E2017/85812  

 

 


 

Report

Following the adoption of Byron DCP 2014, Council staff have prepared a program of proposed DCP amendments to be considered in this report and in future reports to Council.  Circumstances that have necessitated the proposed amendments include: resolutions of Council that require amendments to the DCP; policies adopted by Council that require amendments to the DCP; amendments associated with planning proposals or Council initiatives such as Town Centre Masterplans; and issues identified through the day to day application and interpretation of the current planning controls.

 

The amendments proposed in this report are minor in nature and seek to address anomalies and inconsistencies that create issues when assessing development applications. These proposed amendments have been grouped together in a ‘housekeeping’ format.  Amendments of greater complexity and implications will be reported to Council separately in due course.

 

Table 1 below provides a summary of the DCP amendments proposed, including rationale and description.  Excerpts from the relevant DCP chapters and further details of the proposed changes are provided in Attachment 1 – Schedule of Proposed Amendments to Byron DCP 2014.  Chapter D9, Child Care Centres, is a new DCP chapter described below in Table 1 - Item 12 and provided in Attachment 2.

  

Table 1 – Proposed ‘Housekeeping’ Amendments to Byron DCP 2014

 

Item #

 

Provision(s)

 

Reason for / Description of Proposed Amendment

 

 

Item 1

 

Part A

Preliminary

 

Reason for Proposed Amendment:

 

·    To reflect the introduction of Chapter D9 Child Care Centres (new chapter) proposed in Item 13 of this report.

 

 

Description of Proposed Amendment:

 

·    Insert “Chapter D9 Childcare Centres” under Part D.

 

 

Item 2

 

Part A

Preliminary

 

A3

Purpose and Objectives of this DCP

 

A6

Relationship to other Plans and Legislation

 

 

Reason for Proposed Amendment:

 

·    Reference to “Part 4 – West Byron Bay Site of the Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988” was excluded from sub-chapters A3 and A6 in error.

 

·    To inform the reader of the relationship between the DCP and relevant LEP provisions.

 

 

Description of Proposed Amendment:

 

·    Inclusion of “provisions under Part 4 – West Byron Bay Site of the Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988” in A3 and A6.

 

 

 

Item 3

 

Chapter B3

Services

 

B3.2.1

Provision of Services

 

Reason for Proposed Amendment:

 

·    To minimise the installation of transformers in roadways for private developments following increased requests from developers to install Pad Mount Transformers within adjoining road reserves.  The transformers are required to ensure the developments meet Essential Energy requirements for distribution.

 

·    A report to the Executive Team (#E2016/103016) dated 30/11/16 recommends that:

 

Staff prepare a report to Council to consider the amendment of the DCP 2014 (B3.2.1 – Provision of Services) including information that restricts private transformers to be located within the development that they are servicing.

 

 

Description of Proposed Amendment:

 

·    Amendment to ‘Electricity Supply’ provisions to ensure that transformers and associated infrastructure are to be contained within the development that they are servicing.

 

 

Item 4

 

Chapter B3

Services

 

B3.2.1

Provision of Services

 

Reason for Proposed Amendment:

 

·    To ensure that planning controls applicable to the provision of telecommunications infrastructure in rural areas are responsive to advancements in telecommunications technology and the ongoing expansion of wireless telecommunications networks.

 

 

Description of Proposed Amendment:

 

·    Amendment to ‘Telecommunications Infrastructure’ provisions to allow the supply of fixed telephone lines to be optional for subdivisions in rural areas where it can be demonstrated that suitable telecommunications alternatives are available (e.g. mobile network, NBN Fixed Wireless network).  Note: Developer uptake of alternative options to fixed line infrastructure will be subject to market demand. 

 

·    Where an alternative telecommunications service such as mobile network or access to the NBN Fixed Wireless network has been proposed, a letter from a recognised telecommunications consultant is to be provided confirming that each allotment can be serviced by such a system.

·    Approvals for rural subdivisions utilising alternative means of telecommunications access will require restrictions on the title of all new allotments consistent with the concept sought by the developer (e.g. fixed line telephone services not provided).

         

Item 5

 

Chapter B4 Traffic Planning, Vehicle Parking, Circulation and Access

 

Table B4.1 – (Parking Rates) in section B4.2.12 Parking schedules

 

Reason for Proposed Amendment:

 

·    Development for the purpose of ‘Dual Occupancy’ currently requires car parking provision to be the same as that for “medium density housing”, which stipulates:

 

1 space per 1 or 2 bed unit, 2 spaces per 3 or more bed unit, 1 visitor space per 4 dwellings or part thereof. Each dwelling to have at least one covered car space. Where dwellings are designed with studies/ offices and other areas capable of being utilised as separate sleeping quarters these will be counted as bedrooms.”

 

The provision of car spaces for visitors is considered onerous for dual occupancy development and was not required by DCP 2010. It is considered that the use of on-street parking for visitors to dual occupancy developments is not unreasonable and as such it is recommended that the car parking rate for dual occupancy be changed from “See medium density housing” to “See medium density housing, except visitor car spaces are not required where on-street car parking is available within close proximity to the development.”

 

·    Development for the purpose of ‘Medical Centre’ currently requires “2 spaces per consulting room plus 1 space per employee/ practitioner plus any dwelling requirement”.

 

Byron LEP 2014 defines a medical centre as:

 

medical centre means premises that are used for the purpose of providing health services (including preventative care, diagnosis, medical or surgical treatment, counselling or alternative therapies) to out-patients only, where such services are principally provided by health care professionals. It may include the ancillary provision of other health services.

 

As noted above, the parking rate for ‘Medical Centre’ includes a requirement to provide parking for “any dwelling”. A medical centre does not usually include a dwelling.  A dwelling is associated with health consulting rooms, which is defined by Byron LEP 2014 as:

 

health consulting rooms means premises comprising one or more rooms within (or within the curtilage of) a dwelling house used by not more than 3 health care professionals at any one time.

 

Ancillary development, such as cafés, accommodation, chemists, etc. can sometimes occur with medical centres. Accordingly, the word “dwelling” should be replaced with “ancillary development”.

 

Recent assessments of development applications by Council staff has revealed that assessment difficulties occur with applicants choosing to name rooms in the medical centre as procedure rooms, store rooms, etc. to reduce the parking requirement. Council could include a definition of a consulting room in the DCP to address this matter, however it was also found that some surrounding local government areas have parking rates for medical centres based on gross floor area (GFA) at a rate of 1/20m2.  Similarly, the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments has a rate of to 1/25m2.

 

It is therefore recommended that the Car Parking rate for medical centre be changed from “2 spaces per consulting room plus 1 space per employee/ practitioner plus any dwelling requirement” to “1 space per 20m² GFA plus any ancillary development requirement”.

 

 

 

Description of Proposed Amendment:

 

·    For ‘Dual Occupancy’ parking requirements, amend “See medium density housing” to “See medium density housing, except visitor car spaces are not required where on-street car parking is available within close proximity to the development.

 

·    For ‘Medical Centre’ parking requirements, amend the car parking rate from “2 spaces per consulting room plus 1 space per employee/ practitioner plus any dwelling requirement” to “1 space per 20m² GFA plus any ancillary development requirement”.

 

 

Item 6

 

Chapter B5 Providing for Cycling

 

Chapter B6

Buffers and Minimising Land Use Conflicts

 

Chapter B11

Planning for Crime Prevention

 

Chapter B13

Access and Mobility

 

 

 

Reason for Proposed Amendment:

 

·    The term ‘Development Standards’ has been used throughout the DCP and is defined in the EP& A Act as "provisions of an environmental planning instrument or the regulations".  Given that a DCP is not an environmental planning instrument or the regulations of an environmental planning instrument, use of the term ‘Development Controls’ is considered more appropriate.

 

 

Description of Proposed Amendment:

 

·    Replace the term ‘Development Standards’ with the term ‘Development Controls’ wherever it occurs throughout the DCP.

 

Item 7

 

Chapter D1

Residential Development in Urban and Special Purpose Zones

 

D1.2.2

Setbacks from Boundaries

 

Reason for Proposed Amendment:

 

·    Simplify the wording of ‘Minimum Street Frontage Setbacks’ controls and eliminate any confusion regarding the intent of the controls.

 

 

Description of Proposed Amendment:

 

·    Typographical change to ‘Minimum Street Frontage Setbacks’ controls.  The specific control impacted by this change relates to the provision of car parking within setbacks.

 

 

Item 8

 

Chapter D2

Residential Accommodation and Ancillary Development in Rural Zones

 

D2.2.3

Character & Visual Impact

 

D2.3.3

Expanded House (rural)

 

D2.7.1

Studios (rural)

 

Reason for Proposed Amendment:

 

·    To ensure that the character and amenity of the Shire’s rural zones does not become compromised by over development.

 

·    To ensure that planning controls applicable to rural zones seek to achieve a scale of residential development that is consistent with the objectives of the zone.

 

 

Description of Proposed Amendment:

 

·    Introduction of planning controls that seek to limit the total number of residential buildings to six (6) per rural property.  This would enable a rural property to potentially accommodate an expanded house (comprised of four buildings), a secondary dwelling (comprised of a single building) and a rural studio (single building).  It should be noted that this prescriptive measure would not apply to multiple occupancy and community title development, rural workers dwellings, farm buildings, sheds and other structures meant for rural activities.

 

·    Where more than six (6) residential buildings are proposed, the controls would require applicants to demonstrate that there is a need for more than six (6) buildings and that the rural character and rural environment will not be adversely affected by over development.

 

·    Typographical change to rural ‘Expanded House’ controls to clearly specify that an expanded house is to be comprised of a main building and a maximum of three outbuildings.

 

·    Amendment to rural ‘Studios’ controls to specify that studios are limited to one per property, or in the case of multiple occupancy and community title development, one per dwelling.  (Note: This proposed amendment is consistent with the existing provisions of Byron DCP 2010). 

 

Item 9

 

Chapter D2

Residential Accommoda-tion and Ancillary Development in Rural Zones

 

D2.6.1

Multiple Occupancy Development of Rural Land

 

D2.8

Community Title Development of Rural Land

(New Sub-Chapter)

 

Reason for Proposed Amendment:

 

·    To maintain the character and amenity of the Shire’s rural zones.

 

·    To specify development requirements that apply to the establishment of dwellings in Rural Community Title Developments.

 

 

Description of Proposed Amendment:

 

·    Inclusion of controls specifying that dual occupancies are not permitted in multiple occupancy or community title developments on rural land unless otherwise specified in the multiple occupancy approval or in Schedule 1 of Byron LEP 2014.

 

·    Inclusion of controls specifying that individual dwelling houses in Rural Community Title developments are to comply with the relevant provisions contained within DCP 2014 Chapter D2 for single dwelling houses, including D2.2 and D2.3.

 

·    Consequential amendments to DCP 2014 Part A – Preliminary.

 

 

Item 10

 

Chapter D6

Subdivision

 

D6.2.1

Subdivision Design Guidelines

 

Reason for Proposed Amendment:

 

·    Typically, strata subdivision takes place after the construction of buildings (e.g. a row of townhouses or a dual occupancy).  However In some cases, strata subdivision will take place before all of the buildings have been constructed, resulting in a vacant lot.  This scenario often occurs in staged developments where the parcel is re- subdivided in stages, leaving one lot vacant until re- subdivided further at a later stage.  Another scenario may include strata subdivision for the purpose of dual occupancy where there is already an established dwelling on the parcel.  In some cases, strata subdivision prior to the construction of buildings may be advantageous for the securing of development finance.

 

Where a vacant lot is proposed for the purpose of dual occupancy, the purpose of the proposed controls is to ensure that all necessary services to facilitate construction on the vacant lot have been provided for, and to ensure that service provision to existing development will not be impacted.

 

For all cases other than for the purpose of dual occupancy, the proposed controls refer to the Staged Development provisions (Part 5) of the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015.  The purpose of Part 5 is to facilitate the development in stages of a parcel subject to a strata scheme and ensure that all necessary considerations have been provided for.

 

 

 

Description of Proposed Amendment:

 

·    Inclusion of controls specifying that other than for dual occupancy development, vacant strata lots must be created as “development lots” in accordance with Part 5 of the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015.

 

·    Inclusion of controls specifying requirements to be met for strata subdivision of dual occupancies where a vacant lot is proposed.  Requirements include;

 

a)   One of the dwellings having been constructed and a final occupation certificate issued for that dwelling.

 

b)   All relevant services, infrastructure and access provisions are to be constructed and any necessary contributions to be paid, prior to the issue of the subdivision / strata certificate.

 

c)   Relocation of all services to facilitate construction of the development on the vacant lot without affecting service provision to existing development.

 

d)   Creation of a restriction on use that prohibits the construction of a dwelling on the vacant Strata lot other than in accordance with the development consent for the dual occupancy building.

 

 

Item 11

 

Chapter D8

Public Art

 

D8.2.1

Provision of Public Art

 

Reason for Proposed Amendment:

 

·    Council Resolution 15-604 resolved;

 

1.   That Council amend the DCP Chapter D8 ‘Public Art’ to include under ‘Prescriptive Measures’ point 2 “In lieu of providing Public Art, the applicant could enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement with Council to provide an equivalent financial contribution for the installation of Public Art in a suitable location.”

 

 

Description of Proposed Amendment:

 

·    In lieu of providing Public Art, the applicant could enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement with Council to provide an equivalent financial contribution for the installation of Public Art in a suitable location.

 

 

 

 

Item 12

 

Chapter D9

 

Child Care Centres

 

(New Chapter)

 

Reason for Proposed Amendment:

 

·    To reflect Council’s adopted Children’s Services Policy 2017 - Part 4.4 ‘Development Consent’. 

 

 

Description of Proposed Amendment:

 

·    Development Applications for Early Childhood Education and Care services in the Byron Shire will be considered in light of identified local need and established best practice, whereby:

-     ECEC facilities have a suggested maximum capacity of 90 licensed places or under; and

-     30% of licensed places are allocated to children aged 0-2.

 

·    The intent of this consideration is to establish services that are responsive to the need for ECEC for children aged 0-2 rather than to discourage or prohibit service development. This consideration is not relevant to applications regarding preschools whereby funding specifications state that only children aged 3-5 are eligible for enrolment.

 

·    Consequential amendments to DCP 2014 Part A – Preliminary.

 

 

Financial Implications

 

As this is a Council initiated DCP amendment, the processing costs will be borne by Council.  If Council chooses not to proceed then the matter does not incur any additional costs.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

The amendment of development control plans is governed by Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (Part 3 – Development Control Plans). The amendment process is summarised below:

 

Part 3 of the regulation states that a draft development control plan must be publicly exhibited for at least 28 days and copies of the draft development control plan are to be made publicly available.  After considering any submissions about the draft development control plan that have been duly made, the council:

(a)  may approve the plan in the form in which it was publicly exhibited, or

(b)  may approve the plan with such alterations as the council thinks fit, or

(c)  may decide not to proceed with the plan.

 

The council must give public notice of its decision in a local newspaper within 28 days after the decision is made.  Notice of a decision not to proceed with a development control plan must include the council’s reasons for the decision.  A development control plan comes into effect on the date that public notice of its approval is given in a local newspaper, or on a later date specified in the notice.

 

The relevant policy considerations are addressed above.


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                 13.12

 

 

Report No. 13.12         Update on Res 17-299 Alternative trialled options for managing our threatened coastal zone

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Chloe Dowsett, Coastal and Estuary Officer

File No:                        I2017/1121

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Planning Policy and Natural Environment

 

 

Summary:

 

At the Ordinary Meeting 3 August 2017, Council resolved as follows:

 

17-299 Resolved:

 

1.  That Council write to our local members of parliament calling for a coordinated national approach to managing coastal hazards. Currently, the task of dealing with coastal hazards along Australia's vast coastline is left predominately to local councils. This enormous task is beyond the capacity of councils, states and territories. The scale of the challenge requires a national approach, national leadership and national funding.

2.  That Council submit a bid to host the 27th NSW Coastal Conference in 2018 and the next unallocated Australian Coastal Councils Conference.

3.  That if these submissions are unsuccessful, staff prepare a report on the implications of holding an event in Byron Shire, inviting key experts in coastal management.

4.  That Council invites Angus Gordon to share his insights on the Collaroy tripperwall for possible adoption within Byron Shire. (Hackett/Spooner)

 

This report provides an update on action undertaken following that resolution.

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.       That Council note the report.

 

 

 

 


 

Report

This report provides an update on action undertaken with regard to Resolution 17-299.

 

Res 17-299

 

1.    That Council write to our local members of parliament calling for a coordinated national approach to managing coastal hazards. Currently, the task of dealing with coastal hazards along Australia's vast coastline is left predominately to local councils. This enormous task is beyond the capacity of councils, states and territories. The scale of the challenge requires a national approach, national leadership and national funding.

 

A letter has been sent to the following local members of parliament:

 

·     Tamara Smith, MLA, Member for Ballina

·     Hon Ben Franklin, MLC

·     Justine Elliot MP, Member for Richmond

·     Senator John Williams, National Duty Senator for Richmond

 

2.    That Council submit a bid to host the 27th NSW Coastal Conference in 2018 and the next unallocated Australian Coastal Councils Conference.

 

Staff have approached the organisers of both events and expressed Council’s interest in hosting the 27th NSW Coastal Conference 2018 and the next available Australian Coastal Conference. A host has already been confirmed the 27th NSW Coastal Conference, however, Council is able to put in a submission to host the 2019 event. Further details on the process have not been received, however, the submission date for applications is anticipated to be mid-2018.

 

The next available Australian Coastal Conference is 2019 and staff have prepared and submitted an expression of interest (EOI) for hosting this event. The EOI was submitted on Friday 18th August 2017 and if successful, a more detailed application to host the event will be required.

 

3.    That if these submissions are unsuccessful, staff prepare a report on the implications of holding an event in Byron Shire, inviting key experts in coastal management.

 

No further action until Council receives a response on the outcome of the EOI.

 

4.    That Council invites Angus Gordon to share his insights on the Collaroy tripperwall for possible adoption within Byron Shire.

 

Mr Angus Gordon has been contacted and is available to present to Council.  He is able to discuss the history of coastal management and coastal processes with a Byron context with Council but, for professional reasons, not anything to do with the current development applications lodged with the Coastal Panel for Belongil for wall ‘repairs’ nor anything that might influence any decisions or opinions in regard to the development applications and their assessment. This is due to Mr Gordon’s engagement with the Department of Industry – Lands providing professional advice on the rock walls and consideration of owners consent.

 

In the circumstances, it would be prudent for Council to hold off any invitation to Mr Gordon until such time as the above development applications or any others in Byron Shire that he may have involvement with  have been determined by the Coastal Panel. This will avoid the situation of Mr Gordon being placed in a conflict of duties.

 

Financial Implications

 

Mr Gordon’s standard daily rate is $2,450 plus expenses including return airfare from Sydney, car hire and accommodation (if required overnight). The exercise could be undertaken in one day, with Council having up to a 4 hour window of time with Angus (11-3pm) taking into consideration travel time. A budget allocation would be needed for this as it is currently unfunded.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Nil.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                 13.13

 

 

Report No. 13.13         Amendments to Council's adopted Fees and Charges - 2017/18

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Kylie Grainey, Project Officer

James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No:                        I2017/1145

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Development and Approvals

 

 

Summary:

 

Council adopted its annual Fees and Charges at the Ordinary meeting held on 22 June 2017. Part 2(d) of the resolution stated:

 

“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.”

 

The resolution included a requirement to place new fees in relation to the introduction of an Information Technology Service Fee and a Temporary Food Businesses (Market Stalls) inspection fee structure on public exhibition.

 

The fees were on public exhibition between 13 July and 10 August 2017. One submission was received in relation to the Information Technology Service Fee.

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council adopt the amendments to the Fees and Charges 2017/18 by including the following fee:

 

1.       Information and Technology Service fee levied against all new Development Applications (DAs) received at 0.07% of the estimated value of application.

Attachments:

 

1        Confidential - Amendments to Council's Adopted Fees and Charges 2017_18 - Information Technology Service Fee, E2017/88074  

 

 

Report

 

Council adopted its annual Fees and Charges at the Ordinary meeting held on 22 June 2017. Part 2(d) of the resolution stated:

 

“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.”

 

The Information and Technology Service Fee and Temporary Food Business Inspection fees were placed on public exhibition between 13 July and 10 August 2017. One submission was received in relation to the Information and Technology Service Fee. No submissions were received on the Temporary Food Business Inspection Fees so as per Resolution 17-268 part 2(d), these fees are now adopted. The concerns noted in the submission related to the Information Technology Service Fee are addressed below:

 

Information and Technology Service Fee

 

It is proposed to levy the ‘Information and Technology Service fee against all development applications (DA’s) to recover costs associated with:

 

·    Continuous improvement of Council’s processes and technology within the Sustainable Development division.

·    The implementation and ongoing costs of the State governments ePlanning reforms;

 

Costs associated with these initiatives have increased over time and we do not have the necessary income to cover these increases appropriately.

 

The State government are in the process of introducing ePlanning reforms through their planning portal. This will give the community the ability to be able to lodge and review development applications online and will fully integrate with Council’s current application management system. Costs associated with these reforms are unknown at this stage.

 

Ballina and Lismore Council’s both charge a similar Information and Technology Service fee. Ballina has levied their Information and Technology fee at 0.07% and Lismore at 0.1%. Lismore also charge an additional fixed archiving fee which varies from $57 to $115 depending upon the value of the application.


 

Response to submission:

 

Submission

Response

There is no information on public exhibition that provides justification for this fee. I have had to search the Council Report to find some background to the proposed fee.

Noted. The information was contained within the report to Council on 22 June 2017.

How does this new fee relate to the new “Scanning fee for development applications”?  This scanning fee is imposed even though I always submit an electronic version of DAs that I lodge with Council.

The $30 Scanning/Archiving fee is charged to cover scanning/archiving costs of development applications and is payable on lodgement. It is charged regardless of whether electronic versions of DA’s are submitted as it also covers ancillary certificates and applications, additional information and plan changes that may occur during the assessment of the DA.

 

This fee has been set at $30/development application. It is noted that other Council’s charge vary from $10 to $200 per DA.

The cost of the proposed development is a very poor representation of the likely costs involved.  If Council feels that there is a need for this new fee it should be on a reducing scale with an upper limit.  A $2million commercial development will not have ten times the volume of submitted material as a $200,000 rural dwelling.

The proposed methodology of charging is considered appropriate. A development with higher costs is likely to generate a greater workload on staff, technology and processes required to assess a development and associated certificate and/or application. As this fee is ongoing, it will enable Council to invest in better and updated technology to support the development assessment process.

The fee should not be imposed until Council finally has electronic lodgement of development applications.

The introduction of the fee will assist with funding necessary technology and processes required to implement appropriate electronic lodgement.

 

Financial Implications

 

Funding for these resources can be provided by the revenue proposed to be generated by the Information Technology Service fee as this revenue is not currently included in the 2017/2018 Budget Estimates.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Section 610F of the Local Government Act 1993.


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                 13.14

 

 

Report No. 13.14         PLANNING - S96 Application 10.2016.438.2 Minor changes to approved floor plan of dual occupancy dwelling, 2/4 Belongil Cres, Byron Bay

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Shannon Burt, Director Sustainable Environment and Economy

File No:                        I2017/1157

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Development and Approvals

 

 

Proposal:

 

Section 96 Application No:

10.2016.438.2

Proposed modification:

S96 for Minor Changes to Approved Floor Plan for Dual Occupancy

Original Development:

Alterations and Additions to Dwelling 2 of Dual Occupancy

Type of s96 sought:

 

 

 

 

Property description:

LOT: 1 SP: 33853

2/4 Belongil Crescent BYRON BAY

Parcel No/s:

236116

Applicant:

Mrs J L Hackett

Owner:

Mrs J L Hackett

Zoning:

R2 Low Density Residential

S96 Date received:

14 August 2017

Original DA determination date:

14 November 2016

Integrated Development:

No

Public notification or exhibition:

Level 0 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications

Issues:

·    S94 Contributions

 

Summary:

 

An application has been received to modify the approval to provide for minor changes to the approved floor plan, primarily to open the space that was previously approved as two rooms, separated by a laundry. As approved, the additions included a room labelled ‘Office/ Library’ at the front, a laundry behind, with a ‘studio’ room to the rear.

 

In accordance with Council’s policy, the studio and office rooms were considered to be capable of use as bedrooms, and S94 developer contributions were levied. The main purpose of the proposed modifications is to create one larger space, which is not considered as a bedroom, to therefore remove the condition relating to S94 Contributions.

 

Council’s S94 officer has reviewed the application and agrees that the condition can be deleted. The proposal is satisfactory having regard to relevant matters for consideration and the section 96 application is recommended for approval, with the development consent to be modified as outlined in Schedule 2.

 

Council’s Procedure No: 63. “Development Applications – Conflict Of Interests” requires that development applications submitted by a Councillor of Byron Shire Council would be assessed by the Director, Sustainable Environment & Economy or by an independent consultant and be determined by Council.  This procedure is in response to guidelines provided by the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which are intended to assist councils to minimise the potential for conflicts of interest to arise in the assessment of development applications.

 

This report has been prepared by the Director Sustainable Environment & Economy. The application is recommended for approval subject to amended conditions of consent.

 

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

 

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

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That, pursuant to Section 96 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Application No. 10.2016.438.2, for minor changes to approved floor plan for Dual Occupancy, be approved by modifying Development Consent number 10.2016.438.1 as indicated in Attachment 3.

 

Attachments:

 

1        Plans of Proposed Modification, E2017/83855  

2        Existing Consent 10.2016.438.1, E2017/83867  

3        Modified Conditions of consent, E2017/83865  

 

 


 

 

Report

 

1.   INTRODUCTION

 

1.1.       History/Background

 

Building Application approved 1988 for Dual occupancy.

 

DA 129 of 2007 approved 15/3/2007 for removal of 1 tree (eucalypt).

 

Complying Development 57 of 2011 approved 1/8/2011 for additions and alterations to rear patio.

 

DA 10.2016.483.1 approved 14 November 2016 for alterations and additions to Dwelling 2.

 

1.2.       Description of the proposed development

 

The application proposes to modify the approval to provide for minor changes to the approved floor plan, primarily to open the space that was previously approved as two rooms, separated by a laundry.

 

As approved, the additions included a room labelled ‘Office/ Library’ at the front, a laundry behind, with a ‘studio’ room to the rear.

 

In accordance with Council’s policy, the studio and office rooms were considered to be capable of use as bedrooms, and S94 developer contributions were levied.

 

The main purpose of the proposed modifications is to create one larger space, which is not considered as a bedroom, to therefore remove the condition relating to S94 Contributions.

 

1.3.       Description of the site

 

Land is legally described as:

LOT: 1 SP: 33853

Property address is:

2/4 Belongil Cres BYRON BAY

Land is zoned:

R2 Low Density Residential

Land area is:

360m2

Property is constrained by:

Acid Sulfate Soils (Class 3)

 

Photo 1: Subject site. Unit 2/4 Belongil Crescent, Byron Bay.

DSC08918

 

Photo 2: Backyard of subject dwelling. 

DSC08914

 

Photo 3: Single car garage, converted into library

DSC08916

 

2.   SECTION 96(1A) ASSESSMENT

 

Section 96(1A)

Comment:  The proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact.  The development as modified is substantially the same as that originally approved.  The application is not required to be notified.

 

Section 96(3)

Comment: Section 79C(1) matters are considered below.

 

3.   ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000

 

Clause 115(1)

Comment:  The appropriate information has been provided.

 

Clause 117(2)

Comment:  Adjoining owner or public notification of this application is not required.

 

Clause 120(1)

Comment:  Referral to a concurrence or approval body is not required for this application.

 

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

 

4.1.       State Environmental Planning Instruments

 

The proposed modifications raise no issues in regard to applicable State Environmental Planning Policies.

 

4.2.       Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP 2014)

 

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

(a)     The development is defined in the LEP 2014 Dictionary as dual occupancy;

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

(c)     The proposal is permitted with consent; and

(d)     The proposed modifications raise no issues in regard to the Zone Objectives or any provisions of the LEP.

 

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

 

Draft SEPP (Coastal Management) 2016

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

 

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

 

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

·    coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests area

·    coastal environment area;

·    coastal use area; and

·    coastal vulnerability area.

 

The whole of the subject site will be mapped within the coastal use area.  The proposed modifications raise no issues in regard to the matters contained in the draft SEPP.

 

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

 

The proposed modifications raise no issues in relation to any applicable DCP provision.

 

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

 

Impact on:

Likely significant impact/s?

Natural environment

No. The proposal will not have a significantly adverse impact on the natural environment of the locality.

Built environment

No. The proposal will not have a significantly adverse impact on the built environment of the locality.

Social Environment

No. The proposal will not have a significant social impact on the locality.

Economic impact

No. The proposal will not have a significant economic impact on the locality.

 

4.6.       The suitability of the site for the development

 

The site is a serviced, unconstrained property containing an existing approved dual occupancy development.  The proposed modifications are minor and do not alter the suitability of the site for the development as approved and constructed.

 

4.7.       Public interest

 

The proposed modification of the development approval is unlikely to prejudice or compromise the public interest or create an undesirable precedent.

 

5.   DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

 

5.1.       Section 94 Contributions

 

As approved under Development Consent 10.2016.438.1, the additions to the dwelling include the conversion of a single car garage to provide a room labelled ‘Office/ Library’ at the front, a laundry behind, with a ‘studio’ extension to the rear.

 

In accordance with Council’s policy, in the assessment of that application, the studio and office rooms were considered to be capable of use as bedrooms, and S94 developer contributions were therefore levied. The main purpose of the currently proposed modifications is to create one larger space, which is not considered as a bedroom, to therefore remove the condition relating to S94 Contributions.

 

Council’s S94 officer has reviewed the application and agrees that, as now proposed, the development will not result in an increase in the demand for public facilities.  Therefore, the condition relating to developer contributions can be deleted.

 

6.   CONCLUSION

 

The S.96 Application modifies the approved floor plan, primarily to open the space, which was approved as two rooms, separated by a laundry. As approved, the additions included a room labelled ‘Office/ Library’ at the front, a laundry behind, with a ‘studio’ room to the rear which were capable of being used as a bedroom. The proposed amendments create one larger space, which is not considered as a bedroom, and it is recommended that the condition for contributions can be deleted in this instance.

 

The proposal is satisfactory having regard to relevant matters for consideration and the section 96 application is recommended for approval, subject to amended conditions of consent.

 

7.   DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL DONATIONS AND GIFTS

 

Has a Disclosure Statement been received in relation to this application

No

Have staff received a ‘gift’ from anyone involved in this application that needs to be disclosed. Where the answer is yes, the application is to be determined by the Director or Manager of the Planning, Development and Environment Division.

No

 

Provide Disclosure Statement register details here: Not applicable


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                 13.15

 

 

Report No. 13.15         PLANNING - DA 10.2017.258.1 - Temporary Use of Land for Wedding Venue, 46 Bay Vista Lane Ewingsdale

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Rob Van Iersel, Consultant Planner

File No:                        I2017/1229

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Development and Approvals

 

 

Proposal:

 

DA No:

10.2017.258.1

LEP Definition:

Function Centre

Proposal description:

Temporary Function Centre

Property description:

LOT: 21 DP: 793702

46 Bay Vista Lane EWINGSDALE

Parcel No/s:

110340

Applicant:

Mr R A McEwen c/- Chris Pratt, Planning Resolutions

Owner:

Mr R A & Mrs V McEwen

Zoning:

R5 Large Lot Residential / PART RU2 Rural Landscape / PART DM Deferred Matter (part 1(a) Rural; part 7(b) Coastal Habitat)

Date received:

25 May 2017

Integrated Development:

No

Public notification or exhibition:

-    Level 2 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications

-    Exhibition period: 15/6/17 to 28/6/17

-    Submissions received: Five

Delegation to determination:

Council

Issues:

·    Potential for adverse amenity impacts associated with noise and dust

·    Traffic concerns McGettigans Lane/ Ewingsdale Road intersection.

 

Summary:

 

The application is made pursuant to the provisions of Cl. 2.8 of BLEP 2014, and proposes the use of the site as a temporary function centre, to host up to 14 weddings per annum.  The application proposes a two-year approval period.

 

The site is located on the eastern edge of the Ewingsdale large lot residential area, and extends eastward onto the floodplain.  Weddings are proposed to be held toward the central part of the property, approximately 1.2kms east of the Bay Vista Lane frontage.

 

Marquees would be brought into the site for each wedding and removed afterwards.  The application proposes a maximum of 150 guests for each event, with temporary portable toilets and garbage facilities also provided for each event.  The application suggests that the majority of wedding guests would be transported to and from the site by bus.

 

The application also proposes the erection of a 1.8m high acoustic barrier along part of the site entry driveway, where is adjoins neighbouring dwellings as well as the sealing of the internal access road in the vicinity of adjoining dwellings.

 

An acoustic report submitted with the application indicates that activities associated with wedding events are unlikely to be audible at nearby dwellings up until 10pm at night.  After 10pm, activities such as amplified music and vehicle movements would be audible. The application proposes that all wedding activities will cease, and all guests will be off the site by 10pm.

 

The application was publically notified and five (5) submissions were received, objecting to the development.  Reasons for objection centred on potential for amenity impacts, primarily associated with noise from wedding activities and dust from the currently unsealed internal access. An owner of nearby land also expressed concern about noise from events disturbing wildlife in the area.

 

The application as proposed addresses these concerns.  Sealing of the internal access road will alleviate dust issues, whilst the infrequent nature of the use, and the relative isolation of the wedding site, is such that there is not likely to be any impacts on local wildlife.

 

There are significant existing traffic concerns at the intersection of McGettigans Lane and Ewingsdale Road, primarily associated with weekday peak hour congestion.  The proposed temporary use will generate traffic outside of peak time, with events occurring primarily on weekends.  The majority of wedding guests will be transported to and from the site by bus, as is the conventional operation for events in the Shire.  In addition to the bus trips, event car trip generation is estimated at around 36 trips (in and out) per wedding.  Event set up and pack up would occur on weekdays, before and after each event, and can be conditioned to occur outside of weekday peak hours.

 

A Noise Management and Monitoring Plan is to be submitted to Council for approval. The Plan must include protocols for the monitoring of the first three wedding events, including a requirement that a report be provided to Council following the third wedding, outlining the results of noise monitoring and compliance with the requirements of this consent. The protocols must include detailed contingency measures that would be implemented if the monitoring demonstrates that noise at sensitive receivers has exceeded that predicted in the Environmental Noise Assessment Report (TTM Consulting, dated 16/02/2017). In that case, monitoring is to be extended to the next two events, with a further report to be provided to Council at the end of this extended monitoring period. If the noise levels at sensitive receivers have not been met at either of these two events, this development consent will cease.

 

The application is recommended for approval consistent with the temporary use provisions of the LEP, for a maximum of 14 weddings per calendar year for a two year period. 

 

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 No. 10.2017.258.1, for a Temporary Function Centre, be approved subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 2.

Attachments:

 

1        Proposed Plans 10.2017.258.1 46 Bay Vista Lane Ewingsdale , E2017/86709  

2        Conditions of Consent 10.2017.258.1 46 Bay Vista Lane Ewingsdale , E2017/86579  

 

 

Report

 

1.         INTRODUCTION

 

1.1.          History/Background

 

BA 6.1993.2286.1

Dwelling

Approved 30/07/1993

BA 6.1995.2034

Swimming Pool

Approved 09/02/1995

DA 10.1999.654.1

Subdivision (2 lots)

Refused 22/11/1999

DA 10.2000.200.1

Subdivision (2 lots)

Refused 02/11/2000

DA 10.2007.715.1

Rural Farm Shed

Approved 04/03/2008

DA 10.2008.554.1

Use of unauthorised structure as a holiday cabin

Refused 23/12/2008

DA 10.2008.590.1

Alterations and additions to farm shed

Approved 05/02/2009

DA 10.2012.433.1

Rural Tourist Facility (two holiday cabins)

Refused 12/11/2012

 

Reasons for refusal of the most recent application include issues associated with:

·    bush fire risk, particularly relating to single access;

·    potential for soil contamination – previous records of uncontrolled fill; insufficient assessment/ analysis of risks;

·    flooding; and

·    constraints to on-site wastewater management.

 

1.2.          Description of the proposed development

 

The application is made pursuant to the provisions of Cl. 2.8 of BLEP 2014, and proposes the use of the site as a temporary function centre, to host up to 14 weddings per annum.  The application proposes a two-year approval period.

 

The site is located on the eastern edge of the Ewingsdale large lot residential area, and extends eastward onto the floodplain.  Weddings are proposed to be held toward the central part of the property, approximately 1.2km east of the Bay Vista Lane frontage.

 

Marquees would be brought into the site for each wedding and removed afterwards.  Marquees would typically be 10m x 20m in size and erected in the location shown in yellow below.

 

The application proposes a maximum of 150 guests for each event, with catering, temporary portable toilets and garbage facilities also provided for each event.  Portable toilets would be supplied at a rate of 1 toilet per 20 people on site.  Potable water is available from an existing Rous Water supply.

 

The application suggests that the majority of wedding guests would be transported to and from the site by bus, anticipating that approximately 20 people would arrive in private cars. 

 

As originally proposed, amplified music was to cease by 11:30pm, with guests vacating the site by midnight.  In response to concerns regarding potential noise impacts, the application has been amended such that all activities would cease by 10pm.  This would require amplified music to cease by 9.30pm, with all guests vacating the site by 10pm.

 

The application also proposes the erection of a 1.8m high acoustic barrier along the northern side of part of the site entry driveway, where is adjoins neighbouring dwellings.  The internal access road is also proposed to be sealed adjacent to the nearby dwellings to ensure that dust is not generated by vehicles using this access in association with events.

 

Location of Weddings within Site

 

Yellow – proposed site for erection of marquees

Blue – internal parking sites

 

1.3.          Description of the site

 

Land is legally described as:

LOT: 21 DP: 793702

Property address is:

46 Bay Vista Lane EWINGSDALE

Land is zoned:

R5 Large Lot Residential / PART RU2 Rural Landscape / PART DM Deferred Matter (part 1(a) Rural; part 7(b) Coastal Habitat under BLEP 1988)

Land area is:

54.74ha

Property is constrained by:

Flood liable land

 

Bushfire prone land (Vegetation Buffer in marquee area)

 

Acid Sulfate Soils (Class 2 in marquee area, Class 3 to SW)

 

High environmental value vegetation

 

Eco wetlands

 

Threatened flora records in vegetation adjacent to marquee site

 

 

2.         SUMMARY OF REFERRALS

 

Development Engineer:

Access:

Access is off Bay Vista Drive and is acceptable.  The driveway is proposed to be bitumen sealed.  Given peak hour traffic volumes of 26+ trips, it is considered appropriate to condition that the driveway is to be widened to 5.5m from the Bay Vista Lane entrance to 6m inside the property boundary.

 

Parking:

Sufficient room exists on site to make coach parking and manoeuvring work effectively.  It is proposed that 4 buses will transport up to 120 guests per wedding.

 

Traffic Impacts:

The following peak traffic numbers will occur in the lead-up to a wedding, on the day of each event:

·    4 buses - 2 trips per bus (arrive and leave) = 16 trips;

·    10 guest cars - 1 trip (cars stay for the whole event) = 10 trips;

·    1 car for wedding co-ordinator (stay for the whole event) = 1 trip;

·    2 cars for bridal party (stay for the whole event) = 2 trips;

·    6 cars for wedding support (catering, photographer, etc. stay for the whole event) = 6 trips;

 

It is estimated therefore that each event would generate approximately 35 peak traffic movements in the lead up to each event.  In accordance with DCP 2014 Chapter B4.2.1, this is regarded as a moderate traffic impact. The Ewingsdale Rd / McGettigans Lane intersection has been modelled by several consultants and all have confirmed that the intersection will “fail” by 2019 under current traffic growth conditions.  If additional traffic generating developments are approved in this area the intersection will begin to fail sooner.

 

However, the current proposal can be supported from a traffic generation perspective for the following reasons:

·    While each would generate approximately 35 peak trips, these trips will occur on weekends, mostly on a Saturday afternoon, when the intersection peak hour conditions are significantly less than the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday peak conditions.

·    Any approval can be conditioned so that weddings are held only on weekends, to ensure impacts coincide only with weekend traffic.

·    Peak wedding trips will typically occur at 9-10am-ish for morning weddings and 2-3pm for afternoon weddings, outside the intersection peak hour periods.

·    Weddings will only occur 14 times per calendar year.

·    The venue proposes to operate for 2 years, eliminating its long term impact.

 

Flooding:

The site is impacted by the 5yr through to 100yr storm event.  Given the temporary nature of the venue, the low hazard flood classification, shallow flood water depth (0.1m approx.) and that the weather will keep people away, flooding is not considered a significant concern.

 

Environmental Health Officer:

Detailed conditions recommended regarding noise measures/ monitoring.

 

A Noise Management and Monitoring Plan will be required before an Occupation Certificate can be issued for the first event.  Amongst other things, the Plan must include protocols for the monitoring of the first three wedding events, including a requirement that a report be provided to Council following the third wedding, outlining the results of noise monitoring and compliance with the requirements of this consent.

 

The protocols must include detailed contingency measures that would be implemented if the monitoring demonstrates that noise at sensitive receivers has exceeded that predicted in Table 11 of the TTM Environmental Noise Assessment Report (dated 16/02/2017). In that case, monitoring is to be extended to the next two events, with a further report to be provided to Council at the end of this extended monitoring period. If the noise levels at sensitive receivers have not been met at either of these two events, this development consent will cease.

 

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 eastern part of the site is mapped as bush fire prone land.  The proposed marquee site is located at the edge of the buffer mapping, with the stand of trees to the south-east mapped as vegetation Category 1. Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 does not contain any specific provisions relevant to the use of land for function centre. 

 

The property contains a large cleared area that is available in the unlikely event that a wedding is disrupted by bush fire coming from the vegetation to the east.  Emergency access would also be available. Overall, the proposed use is unlikely to be detrimentally impacted by bush fire.

 

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 14—Coastal Wetlands

Consideration: There is a very small part of the extreme north-east corner of the site that is within a SEPP 14 mapped area.  The proposed wedding site is located approximately 1km away from the wetland area.  The proposed wedding use would not result in any direct or indirect impacts on the wetland.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 26—Littoral Rainforests

Consideration: There are no mapped littoral rainforest areas in the vicinity of the site.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 44—Koala Habitat Protection

Consideration: The site is within land mapped in Council’s Byron Coast Koala Habitat Study as being an area likely to be subject to significant koala activity.  Notwithstanding that mapping, the site is unlikely to contain “potential” or “core” koala habitat as defined in the SEPP. A Koala Plan of Management, as required by the SEPP, is therefore not required.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land

Consideration: The proposed temporary use will not require any soil disturbance.  It is considered to be acceptable in regard to the matters for consideration in this SEPP.

 

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:

 

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 Function Centre;

(b)     The land is within the R5 Large Lot Residential and RU2 Rural Landscape zones according to the Land Zoning Map;

(c)     The proposed development is prohibited in the both the R5 and RU2 zones, but can be permitted with consent as a temporary use of land, pursuant to the provisions of Cl. 2.8 (see discussion below); and

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

 

R5 Large Lot Residential

To provide residential housing in a rural setting while preserving, and minimising impacts on, environmentally sensitive locations and scenic quality.

To ensure that large residential lots do not hinder the proper and orderly development of urban areas in the future.

To ensure that development in the area does not unreasonably increase the demand for public services or public facilities.

To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones

 

The proposed wedding site is outside of the R5 zoned land, which only applies to a small narrow part of the site on its western edge.

 

RU2 Rural Landscape

To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base.

To maintain the rural landscape character of the land.

To provide for a range of compatible land uses, including extensive agriculture.

To enable the provision of tourist accommodation, facilities and other small-scale rural tourism uses associated with primary production and environmental conservation consistent with the rural character of the locality.

To protect significant scenic landscapes and to minimise impacts on the scenic quality of the locality.

 

The application proposes a land use that is normally prohibited.  The temporary function centre use would not prevent the land from being used for primary industry purposes now or in the future, as it would occupy a very small part of the land on an intermittent basis.

 

Similarly, it will not impact on the rural character of the land as the wedding venue site is not visually prominent.

 

The use of the site for temporary functions raises the potential for land use conflicts associated with adjoining and nearby rural land uses, mainly associated with noise and traffic associated with weddings.  The acoustic assessment undertaken in support of the proposal shows that there is potential for adverse noise impact at nearby residences, associated with activities after 10pm.  The application, as amended, proposes that all activities associated with events at the site would cease by 10pm.

 

The noise assessment report indicates that activities at the wedding site are unlikely to be audible during the day or in the evening, when typical background noise levels are higher than after 10pm.  Based on the assessment in the noise report, noise from activities at the wedding site are unlikely to be audible above background during the day and during the evening.

 

The proposed use can be considered to be a ‘small-scale rural tourism use’, but it is not associated with primary production or environmental conservation.  It does not, however, necessarily impede either of those uses.

 

Clause 2.8 Temporary use of land

A function centre is prohibited in the R5 and RU2 Zones.  The application seeks approval for the temporary use of the site to hold functions, under the provisions of clause 2.8 of BLEP 2014.  These provisions are addressed below:

 

1.   The objective of this clause is to provide for the temporary use of land if the use does not compromise future development of the land, or have detrimental economic, social, amenity or environmental effects on the land.

 

The application proposes the use of a relatively small part of the site, with all wedding facilities being brought into the site, and then removed, for each event.  This temporary use, on a maximum of 14 occasions in a 12 month period, does not physically impede the ability to use the land for other permitted uses (subject to future approvals). The potential for detrimental impacts is addressed below.

 

2.   Despite any other provision of this Plan, development consent may be granted for development on land in any zone for a temporary use for a maximum period of 14 days (whether or not consecutive days) in any period of 12 months.

 

The application seeks consent for temporary function usage of 14 marquee weddings per year.  Each event is likely to involve activities over three (3) days, which include set-up before and removal of facilities after each event. 

 

The issue of the number of “days” versus the number of “events” was considered in a Land and Environment Court case, EMRR Pty Ltd v Murray Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 144, which dealt with approval for a wedding venue under the cl. 2.8 provisions.

 

In that case, Justice Sheahan concluded:

The definition of “function centre” in the LEP anticipates the use of land for the purpose of events, rather than any preparatory or subsequent work associated with such events.  It would be an impractical construction of the term “temporary use” if the land were able to be used only for the purpose of functions and associated preparatory work for a total of 52 days in a 12 month period.” [cl. 2.8 within Murray Shire LEP is identical to BLEP, other than allowing 52 days, whereas BLEP allows 14 days].

 

On the basis of this judgement, the temporary use for 14 events can be considered.

 

3.   Development consent must not be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a)  the temporary use will not prejudice the subsequent carrying out of development on the land in accordance with this Plan and any other applicable environmental planning instrument, and

 

As outlined above, the temporary use will not prevent the rural use of the site, nor does it compromise the ability to pursue permitted uses in the future.

 

(b)  the temporary use will not adversely impact on any adjoining land or the amenity of the neighbourhood, and

 

The consideration of this provision within clause 2.8 was the basis of a decision of the NSW Land and Environment Court in the matter of Marshall Rural Pty Ltd v Hawkesbury City Council and Ors [2015] NSWLEC 197

 

In part, this judgement, clarified the requirements for assessing adverse amenity impacts associated with proposals under Clause 2.8, finding that this test is cast in “absolute terms” and, therefore, a significantly higher threshold exists than that which would normally be applied.

 

This stricter test requires that the temporary use has no adverse impact on adjoining land or property.  It is not open to Council to consider whether the adverse amenity impacts are “acceptable” in the circumstances. In this regard, adverse impact is considered in the light of a “reasonable person”, i.e. simply seeing or hearing an activity does not necessarily constitute an adverse impact.  However, impacts that are over and above what would be considered acceptable by a reasonable person would not be permitted.

 

In order to assess the potential impacts of the proposal on the amenity of the locality, consideration needs to be given to adjoining properties and their land uses, which in this case are predominately associated with large-lot residential lots.  There is also a school located nearby (Cape Byron Steiner School), a number of bed and breakfast-scale tourism uses and low-scale grazing. Some small-scale horticulture is being undertaken to the south and south-east of the property.

 

These uses, and their setting, establish the amenity of the area, and it can be expected that the rural / residential uses will be most active during the day and early evening, with a quieter rural residential setting dominating in the evenings and into the night (and potentially on days during the weekend).

 

The primary issue with respect to amenity impacts relates to having functions at the site, involving up to 150 guests, at a time when the local setting and amenity can be categorised as ‘quiet’.  The impacts would therefore predominantly be around noise from the events, with traffic, dust from the traffic on the unsealed internal road and visual impacts also being important considerations.

 

In relation to noise, the Hawkesbury decision specifically noted that assessment of potential impacts against the Industrial Noise Policy (or other such) noise threshold tests) was inconsistent with the ‘strict’ requirements of Clause 2.8, in that such assessments were aimed at determining whether potential noise impacts were “acceptable”. Based on this more strict interpretation, the acoustic assessment should determine how noise from events relates to the existing background levels in the area.  As a first step, it is important to determine whether noise from proposed activities would be audible at nearby dwellings.  If noise is not audible, it could not, logically, be considered to result in an adverse impact.

 

The acoustic assessment submitted with the application provides a measure of the background noise levels in the area, based on noise monitoring undertaken at the site in accordance with standard practice (AS1055:1997 Acoustics – Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise).  An unattended noise monitor was set at the proposed wedding site from Friday 25/11/2016 to Thursday 01/12/2016.  Further noise measurements were taken on 25/11/2016 during the afternoon period (4:45-5:30pm).

 

Based on the monitoring, the acoustic consultant established the following background noise levels for each of the ‘standard’ time periods outlined in the EPA’s Industrial Noise Policy:

 

Time Period

Rating Background Level

LA90 dB(A)

Existing Noise Levels

LAeq dB(A)

Day time (7am – 6pm)

35

54

Evening (6pm – 10pm)

36

51

Night time (10pm – 7am)

34

46

 

LA90 represents noise levels present for at least 90% of the monitoring period.

LAeq is effectively the average noise level during the monitoring period.

 

The acoustic consultant (Jason Fox, TTM) has advised that noise will not be audible if it is around 10dB(A) below the existing noise levels (LAeq).

 

Based on the background levels measures at the site, therefore, noise from weddings will not be audible at nearby receivers if it is at or below the following LAeq levels:

·     Day time (7am – 6pm)             44 dB(A);

·     Evening (6pm – 10pm)             41 dB(A); and

·     Night time (10pm – 7am)          36 dB(A).

 

The acoustic assessment outlines predicted noise levels, based on noise modelling, likely to be received at three nearby dwellings, located as shown below:

 

·     Receiver 1: Residential dwellings located on Bay Vista Lane (approx. 760m from wedding site);

·     Receiver 2: Cape Byron Steiner School (approx. 580m from wedding site); and

·     Receiver 3: Dwellings to the south (approx. 900m from wedding site.

 

 

The modelling predicted noise levels associated with activities typical of a wedding event, including:

·     Cars and buses passing by;

·     Truck deliveries;

·     Crowd noise associated with 150 people;

·     Typical amplified music;

·     “Total noise”, which is the combined level from crowd noise and amplified music.

 

The modelling predicted the following levels relative to the identified receivers:

Receiver

Noise Source

Predicted level at receiver

LAeq dB(A)

Audible?

Day

44 dB(A)

Evening

41 dB(A)

Night

36 dB(A)

1

Total noise

35

N

N

N

Bus passing

38

N

N

Y

Truck passing

42

N

Y

Y

Crowd noise

29

N

N

N

Amplified music

34

N

N

N

2

Total noise

37

N

N

Y

Bus passing

23

N

N

N

Truck passing

26

N

N

Y

Crowd noise

31

N

N

N

Amplified music

36

N

N

Y

3

Total noise

33

N

N

N

Bus passing

<10

N

N

N

Truck passing

12

N

N

N

Crowd noise

27

N

N

N

Amplified music

32

N

N

N

 

The results show that noise from weddings would only be audible at receivers 1 and 2 after 10pm.  As outlined above, the application has been amended such that all activities are now proposed to be completed before 10pm.  This would be reinforced by a condition of approval. The results also show that truck movements would be audible in the evening period at receiver 1.

 

It is unlikely that trucks would need to access the site in the evening period, as trucks would be associated with set up and pack up, which conventionally occur during normal business hours.  This would be reinforced by a condition of approval.

 

While having a noise source as audible does not necessarily mean that this creates an adverse impact, it is considered that, given the rural / residential setting, noise associated with large crowds and amplified music would be unusual, and it is this ‘difference’ to the nature of the normal noise in the area that would generate the adverse impact.

 

In this case, however, the acoustic assessment indicates that there will not be any adverse impacts associated with noise, given that noise from the wedding activities will not be audible at the identified receivers during the events. The other potential for adverse amenity impact in this case comes from dust generation associated with wedding traffic using the internal access road.

 

That road is currently unsealed and adjoining land owners have identified that dust generation is an issue for them from current traffic on the access. The application will involve the sealing of a substantial portion of this access, particularly where it passes adjoining houses.  A condition is recommended that the proposed sealing must occur prior to any weddings at the site.  With that in place, there will not be any adverse amenity impact associated with dust generation from wedding traffic.

 

In terms of visual amenity, the separation distance between the proposed wedding site and existing dwellings is such that the temporary presence of a wedding marquee would not dominate an6y views, and would only be seen in the background distance.  As such, the erection of temporary marquees will not result in any adverse amenity impacts.

 

(c)  the temporary use and location of any structures related to the use will not adversely impact on environmental attributes or features of the land, or increase the risk of natural hazards that may affect the land, and

 

The proposed wedding site is subject to flooding.  In this locality, however, flooding is associated with ‘storage’ and the back-up of waters from nearby and downstream drainage lines and watercourses.  The erection of marquees on a temporary basis, will not exacerbate flooding or increase risks.  Flooding at this site is not fast flowing and there is an ample warning time.  It is very unlikely, therefore, that any wedding event would be impacted a by a flooding event.

 

In terms of the environmental features of the site, there is a stand of high conservation value vegetation located relatively close to the wedding site.  This vegetation will not be directly impacts by the events and their temporary nature will not result in any indirect imp acts on the habitat value of that vegetation, given the infrequent nature of use.

 

(d)  at the end of the temporary use period the land will, as far as is practicable, be restored to the condition in which it was before the commencement of the use.

 

The site will be restored after each event, with the removal of marquees and clean-up of the site.  It is recommended that the approval for the temporary use be limited to a three-year period, and the land would be returned to its current state at the end of that period.

 

 

 

4.2B  Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988 (LEP 1988)

 

LEP 1988 is an applicable matter for consideration in relation to the deferred parts of the site, which retain the LEP 1988 zoning.  The wedding event site and access thereto are outside of the deferred areas and therefore there are no provisions of the LEP that are directly relevant to a consideration of this 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 Draft Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) proposes to establish a new, strategic land use planning framework for coastal management.  It is intended to support the implementation of the management objectives set out in the Coastal Management Act 2016.

 

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

 

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

·    coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests area

·    coastal environment area;

·    coastal use area; and

·    coastal vulnerability area.

 

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

 

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 following DCP Chapters have some relevance to a consideration of the application:

 

Chapter B3 Services:

·    Toilets will be provided via portable toilets at the rate of one toilet per 20 people on site.

·    Potable water will be provided via the existing Rous Water supply.

 

Chapter B4 Traffic Planning:

See comments from Development Engineer above.

 

Chapter B6 Buffers and Minimising Land Use Conflicts:

The potential for land use conflict arises associated with noise and traffic from events at the site.  These maters are discussed in detail above.  It is considered that the proposal will not result in land use conflicts.

 

Chapter B12 Social Impact Assessment:

As above, the potential for social impacts are associated with noise and traffic from events at the site.  These maters are discussed in detail above. It is considered that the proposal will not generate any social impacts.

Chapter C2 Areas Affected by Flood:

See comments from Development Engineer above.

 

4.5       Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 Considerations

 

Clause

This control is applicable to the proposal:

Does the proposal comply?

92

Yes

Yes

93

No

N/A

94

No

N/A

94A

Yes

Conditions recommended in relation to the temporary structures (marquees) proposed

 

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

 

Impact on:

Likely significant impact/s?

Natural environment

No. The proposal will not have a significantly adverse impact on the natural environment of the locality.

Built environment

No. The proposal will not have a significantly adverse impact on the built environment of the locality.

Social Environment

No. The proposal will not have a significant social impact on the locality.

Economic impact

No. The proposal will not have a significant economic impact on the locality.

 

4.7       The suitability of the site for the development

 

The site is particularly suitable to the proposed temporary use, as it contains a relatively isolated area with sufficient separation from nearby dwellings to ensure that noise from events at the site will not cause an adverse impact on the neighbourhood.

 

4.8       Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

 

The application was publicly notified from 15/6/17 to 28/6/17.  Five submissions were received.  The issues raised in these submissions are addressed below:

 

Issue

Comment

Quality of living will be impacted by the development, associated with noise, dust and traffic.

These issues are discussed in detail in the report above. 

The internal access road is to be sealed in the vicinity of adjoining and nearby dwellings.  This will limit dust generation associated with event traffic.

The noise assessment report demonstrates that, prior to 10pm at night, event activities are not likely to be audible above background noise levels at the nearest dwellings.

The traffic assessment indicates that peak trips associated with each event are unlikely to generate significant impacts as they occur during low traffic periods.

The temporary nature of the proposal will also assist in ensuring that events do not compromise local amenity.

Internal access road should be sealed for a significant distance past adjoining houses.

Applicant proposes to seal a section of the road.  A condition is recommended to reinforce this, requiring sealing for a minimum distance of 280m from the property boundary into the site.

Hours for venue set up and pull-down should be restricted so that it cannot occur before 9am.

Agreed.  Condition recommended.  This will also assist to ensure that venue set up traffic does not add to peak hour congestion at the McGettigans Lane/ Ewingsdale Road intersection.

Visual impact of acoustic barrier.

The acoustic barrier is proposed as a 1.8m high lapped timber fence.  As such, it is no different form a ‘conventional’ boundary fence and will, therefore, not result in a significant visual impact.

Events should cease earlier to minimise noise impacts.

When the application was originally advertised, the proposed finishing time for events was 11.30pm for amplified music, with all people leaving the site by midnight.

The applicant has since amended the proposal, such that all activities will now cease by 10pm.  A condition is recommended specifying that amplified music is to cease no later than 9:30pm, with all people off site by 10pm.

Impacts on wildlife and conservation efforts. Owner of 345 St Helena Rd – significant revegetation efforts over the last few years is resulting in increased wildlife movement in the area – including koalas. Concerned about noise and lighting impacts.

The acoustic assessment report indicates that noise from events is unlikely to be audible above existing background levels (see discussion above). A condition is recommended to ensure that all lighting is shielded and directional to minimise light spill outside the site.

It is apparent, therefore, that koalas move through this area, in the vicinity of the subject property.  It is possible (though not known) that koalas could utilise the paperbark forest located on the site, directly adjacent to the proposed wedding site and be disturbed. However the temporary nature of the proposal means the likelihood of such impacts is considered to be low.

Approval would set a precedent in relation to land within the RU2 zone.

The application is assessed against the provisions of Cl.2.8 Temporary Use of Land, based on the merits of the application.

 

Any subsequent application would be similarly assessed, and approval of one application provides no precedent to other circumstances.

No confidence that majority of guests would arrive by bus.

Discussions with a number of wedding coordinators indicate that this is the preferred way of transporting guests, and they can be more easily managed, particularly after the wedding is over.

Use of buses is a ‘normal’ part of weddings in the Shire and, anecdotally, most wedding guests also prefer to use buses, as it means they can avoid dinking and driving.

It is considered that the applicant’s proposed use of 4 buses to transport up to 130 guests is a realistic and achievable proposal.

Concerned that this application is a step toward a more permanent approval.

Under the current planning provisions, permanent approval for a function centre is not possible. 

The applicant has requested a two-year approval period, and this, together with the restriction of annual event numbers, ensures that the use will be temporary.

It will not be possible to approve any extension of the approval at the end of the two year period, as that would confer an element of permanence.

 

4.9       Public interest

 

The proposed development is unlikely to prejudice or compromise the public interest or create a dangerous precedent

 

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

 

Having regard to sections 5A, 5C and 5D of the EP&A Act, there is unlikely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats as a result of the proposed development as it will not directly impact vegetated area.  It is also considered that indirect impacts associated with event noise and/ or lighting are unlikely given the location of the site and the temporary nature of the activity.

 

4.11     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.