Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 23 November 2017

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion 9.2

Notice of Motion No. 9.2 Adani Contracts

File No: I2017/1722

I move that Council:

1. Notes the Stop Adani campaign event in Byron Bay and events around Australia for the National Stop Adani Day of Action on 7 October 2017 to support the farmers directly affected and the wider community's concerns over this mine.

2. Resolves not to contract or engage in services under any existing contract with Downer EDI or any of its subsidiaries, including the RPQ Group and NSW Spray Seal, until they publicly withdraw from their agreement with Adani to construct and operate the Carmichael mine and publicly renounce any further involvement with Adani and the Carmichael mine.

3. Investigates further companies to which at present or in the future Council may award contracts that may have any involvement in contracting for the development and operation of the Carmichael mine, or otherwise have ties to Adani.

4. Resolves not to award future contracts to those companies identified in point three that are involved with Adani or the construction of the Carmichael mine until they renounce any involvement with Adani and the Carmichael mine.

5. Writes to Downer EDI, the RPQ Group, NSW Spray Seal and any other companies identified in point three alerting them to this motion and similar actions in neighbouring Councils, and urging them to reconsider their involvement with Adani and the construction of the Carmichael mine.

6. Writes to the Prime Minister, the Hon. Mr Malcolm Turnbull and Queensland Premier, the Hon. Annastacia Palaszczuk to express in the most respectful terms our extreme concern about the Adani mine and alert them to the contents of this motion.

Signed: Cr Michael Lyon

Councillor’s supporting information:

If realised, the Adani Carmichael mine in Queensland’s Galilee Basin would become the largest coal mine in Australia, and would irrevocably undermine international efforts to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. In order to prevent catastrophic climate change, 88% of the world’s coal reserves must remain in the ground for a 50% chance at meeting the 2 degree target. The opening of the Galilee Basin to coal mining would have dire consequences for our planet’s future. If the Carmichael mine went ahead, leading to the development of other mines in the Galilee Basin, their potential combined maximum output would result in an annual output of carbon emissions 1.3 times Australia’s total current emissions. With the planet at a precarious tipping point, the idea of opening up a never-before-mined region to the coal industry is deplorable.

In addition to the massive impact on climate change the development of the Carmichael mine would have, there are also grave concerns surrounding two of Australia’s most precious natural formations: the Artesian Basin, Australia’s largest groundwater system, and the Great Barrier Reef, one of the Seven Natural Wonders of the World. Adani has been awarded a 60-year contract to extract unlimited water from the Artesian Basin, a highly unusual move by the Queensland government, even more so because their application was exempted from public submission and appeals. This puts farmers whose livelihoods are dependent on being able to use water from Artesian bores at risk, as the projected 12 billion litres Adani expects to extract annually runs the serious risk of a significant drop in water pressure. This would not only be ruinous for these farms, but also for the natural desert springs and their unique species, which rely heavily on water pressure from the Artesian Basin to exist. As with any coal mine, there is also a serious risk of contamination of this incredible groundwater source. Additionally, the Adani Carmichael mine is likely to have ruinous effects on the Great Barrier Reef, a national treasure. Coal extracted at the Carmichael mine would pass through the Abbot Point terminal, currently operated by an Adani-owned company that has just been fined for releasing coal-laden stormwater eight times the permissible level opposite from the Reef. Furthermore, proposed dredging to expand the terminal to accommodate for increased output from the Carmichael mine is notoriously awful for coral health, not to mention the fatal impacts of a warming earth for the Great Barrier Reef. These impacts must be taken seriously, because once set into motion, they will be irreversible.

As the Queensland government continues to support the development of this enterprise, it is necessary that we, as a climate-conscious Council, do everything in our power to stave off its realisation. Following motions earlier this year to take action to encourage the big four banks to pledge against supporting Adani financially, it is in our best interest to support the national Stop Adani campaign’s efforts to boycott businesses associated with the building of the Adani Carmichael mine. These companies include NSW Spray Seal, a subsidiary of the RPQ Group, which is owned by Downer EDI, the company engaged by Adani to take the lead in constructing mining and other infrastructure for the Carmichael mine and operating the mine once constructed. Tweed Shire Council and Lismore City Council have advanced similar motions and it is important that we support our neighbouring Councils and take our own strong stance against those that would support the development of this disastrous mine.

Staff comments by Tony Nash, Manager Works, Infrastructure Services Directorate:

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

NOROC Tender

A panel tender was invited for Kyogle, Lismore, Richmond Valley and Byron Council’s for the services of:

1. Bitumen spray sealing

2. Asphalt works

3. Stabilisation works

Tenders were received for each type of work as per Table 1, which has been listed in order of financial benefit to Council with the lowest or most advantageous tender first on the list.

ie, for asphalt works, Fulton Hogan is less expensive than Bitupave (Boral) which is less expensive than Downer.

Table 1:

Spray Seal	Asphalt	Stabilisation
NSW Spray Seal	Fulton Hogan	Downer
COLAS	Bitupave (Boral)	BMR Quarries
Bitupave (Boral)	Downer	Stabilised Pavements Australia
Fulton Hogan

Each Council considered the tenders received and entered in separate contracts applicable to their LGA.

The benefits of the combined tenders were the buying power of 4 Council’s working collaboratively versus individually.

The companies are not located within our Council area and the nearest offices / depots are as follows:

· NSW Spray Seals – Chinderah NSW

· COLAS – Kempsey NSW

· Bitupave – Lismore NSW and Burleigh QLD

· Fulton Hogan - Burleigh QLD

· Downer - Brisbane QLD

· BMR Quarries – Sydney NSW

· Stabilised pavements Australia – Ormeau QLD

Byron has entered onto a panel contract with each company for each of the 3 services of Bitumen spray sealing, Asphalt works and Stabilisation works.

The contract works are activated when staff contact the company, arrange works and raise a Purchase Order.

The panel contract allows staff to use different companies for each service type if the least expensive contractor is not available and the works are urgent and cannot wait.

In practice Byron has been able to undertake all of these works with the least expensive contractors by working collaboratively with them.

The price per type of service depends upon the size and type of the works, eg, for bitumen spray sealing this is the area of works per site, per visit to our area and the type of bitumen binder used.

Table 2 indicates the companies remaining if Downer and any companies they own at this time, either in part of full, were to be excluded.

All percentages are the extra costs to use other than the least expensive contractor if they are Downer or Downer owned companies.

The comparison is based on the scenarios and typical work packages used at the time of tender evaluations.

Table 2:

Spray Seal	Price Effect	Asphalt	Price Effect	Stabilisation	Price Effect
~~NSW Spray Seal~~	N/A	Fulton Hogan	N/A - Fulton Hogan and Boral Cheaper	~~Downer~~	N/A
COLAS	+ 3.1%	Bitupave (Boral)		BMR Quarries	+ 5.7%
Bitupave (Boral)	+ 4.3%	~~Downer~~		Stabilised Pavements Australia	+ 38.9%
Fulton Hogan	+ 7.4%

As an example, the expenditure by Council with NSW Spray Seals in 2016/17 was approximately $630,000, which includes any sealing works for our capital road projects and for our Reseal Program, which had a total budget of $840,600.

Noting that the reseal budget includes preparatory works and the actual bitumen reseal works.

If the panel tender was available in 2016/17, the extra costs for Council to use other than NSW Spray Seals would be as per Table 3

Table 3:

Spray Seal	Price Increase
NSW Spray Seal	$0
COLAS	$19,530
Bitupave (Boral)	$27,090
Fulton Hogan	$46,620

In 2017/18 our Reseal Program has a budget of $1.3M and our roads capital works program is substantially larger than 2016/17, $41.5M v $19M.

Supply of Bitumen Emulsion

Currently Downer supply bulk emulsion to Council for use with our pothole patching truck under Contract 2015-0026.

The tendered prices for emulsion under 2015-0026 were as follows:

Boral: $1.00/L

Downer: $0.98/L

Fulton Hogan: $1.01/L

Note the rates quoted above are GST-inclusive and fixed for the contract term.

In 2016/17 we bought 160,000 Litres of emulsion. This meant we would have spent the following had we engaged alternative suppliers:

Boral: $160,000

Downer: $156,800

Fulton Hogan: $161,600

We are contractually committed to purchasing emulsion from Downer until 1 August 2018. The contract also has another extension option on it.

In regards to the NoM potentially restricting our ability to contract with Downer and related companies in the future, this will potentially undermine the savings we can achieve through procurement. Downer is a major player in the market and their presence helps maintain competitive tension in a somewhat limited market. If Council decides not to contract with Downer et al then it is likely that we will be paying significantly more for our road building activities in the future which will have a direct impact on the savings we are able to deliver through procurement as part of our Financial Sustainability Plan.

Council may wish to consider a review mechanism/sunset provision in the motion should the Adani Mine not proceed.

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

The implications are detailed earlier in the report.

Council has existing contracts with Downer and with companies owned in part of full by Downer, some are panel contracts where the use of other companies is more easily achievable, albeit at a higher cost. Other contracts such as the bitumen emulsion supply contract, 2015-0026, are a single company contract with a fixed end date. The ability of Council to cancel this contract and procure from another company needs to be investigated in detail, both contractually and legally, before advice can be provided.

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion 9.4

Notice of Motion No. 9.4 Biosecurity

File No: I2017/1724

I move:

1. That a report to Council be prepared on the potential impacts of the new Biosecurity Act (2017) on the draft Rural Land Use Strategy (RLUS);

2. That the report pay particular attention to:

a) biosecurity considerations in Land Use Conflict Risk Assessment (LUCRA);

b) the potential for biosecurity risks to agriculture as a result of increased agritourism, and;

c) the potential risk to Byron Shire’s biodiversity as a result of agritourism;

3. That Council consider including biosecurity management as a factor in the RLUS, and

4. That Councillors hold a workshop with a view to developing a Shire-wide Biosecurity Policy.

Signed: Cr Cate Coorey

Councillor’s supporting information:

In April 2017 Council discussed the draft Biosecurity Act 2015.

The 10 Acts being wholly repealed when the Biosecurity Act 2015 commences are:

· Animal Diseases and Animal Pests (Emergency Outbreaks) Act 1991

· Apiaries Act 1985

· Deer Act 2006

· Fertilisers Act 1985

· Non-Indigenous Animals Act 1987

· Noxious Weeds Act 1993

· Plant Diseases Act 1924

· Stock (Chemical Residues) Act 1975

· Stock Diseases Act 1923

· Stock Foods Act 1940

The Acts being partly repealed when the Biosecurity Act 2015 commences are:

· Fisheries Management Act 1994 (Aquatic Biosecurity)

· Stock Medicines Act 1989

· Local Land Services Act 2013 (Part 10 Pests)

· Wild Dog Destruction Act 1921

The Biosecurity Act 2015 came into effect in June 2017 with an update to cattle management provisions in October 2017. In light of the soon to be completed Rural Land Use Strategy, it seems timely to consider biosecurity as an essential issue on rural land.

Additionally, in protecting the biodiversity of our native environment, biosecurity must be considered. Australia’s island status has conferred us an advantage when it comes to biosecurity but there are still threats and the chances of these are increasing.

With increasing numbers of travellers to Byron, the increase of food and farm tours (agritourism) and the co-location of agriculture and tourism, there are many new challenges to be met. Some of these are perhaps unique to Byron Shire as we are a high visitation area that is also a highly productive agricultural area and a biodiversity hotspot.

Byron has a name as a centre for premium products and quality, low food production is a growing industry. Council has pesticide free/low pesticde policies but to enable to be low pesticide we have to be vigilant and not allow pests into our farms or forests in the first place.

Myrtle rust is a fungal disease which infects plants in the Myrtaceae family. Common Australian Myrtaceae species include eucalyptus, willow myrtle, turpentine, bottlebrush, paperbark, tea tree and lilly pilly. Severe infections can see plants die. As just one example the further depleting eucalyptus just for koalas is enormous.

Since myrtle rust was first detected in NSW in April 2010 it has spread across the

eastern Australian landscape in bushland reserves, home gardens, commercial operations, parks and street plantings. Over 300 hosts have been recorded so far.

Something as small as a fungus spore can have disastrous consequences.

Agriculture is a high-risk industry in regards to pest, diseases and weeds and the introduction of any of these can decimate an agricultural industry and a farmer’s income for many years. Generally speaking Byron Shire Council has not had as big an agritourism sector as some other LGAs. In other areas businesses engaging in agritourism have been imposed with tighter restrictions than are currently permitted in Byron.

Agritourism was introduced on the rural zoning so that farmers could value add to their existing businesses and create a supplementary income stream. Agritourism is ancillary to the agriculture on the site and generally small groups that can be supervised and managed by the agritourism operator, e.g. 20 school children or groups of 5 -10 tourists being taken through the site of a bee farmer. The tourists are shown the hives and honey extraction techniques, partake in some activities related to the venture i.e making honey bee wax wraps, served a morning tea and then take home some honey.

In most such operations there is a visitor register or log and usually a biosecurity declaration to sign along with some sort of biosecurity awareness education before entering the site. Visitors then either “wash down” their boots/shoes in a “wash down” station area with disinfectant and/or put on clean gum boots provided by the agricultural entity, or put on plastic footwear protectors. If visitors do not meet the requirements for entry then they must be denied entry due to the risks associated.

Any person who deals with biosecurity matter or a carrier and who knows, or ought reasonably to know, the biosecurity risk posed or likely to be posed by the biosecurity matter, carrier or dealing has a biosecurity duty to ensure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, the biosecurity risk is prevented, eliminated or minimised.

The risks to Australian plants and animals from poor biosecutry management is very real as detailed. ‘Australia’s Biosecurity Future – preparing for future biological challenges’. CSIRO, 2014. pp 4-5.

Biosecurity Implications on Agriculture:

· The number of international tourist arrivals for Australia continues to increase

· We continue to see an increase in the movement of goods and vessels around the world, in line with growing global trade

· In a globalised world, bioterrorism (including agroterrorism) is a potential threat

· We are also seeing greater movement of goods across our interstate borders

· Increased travel creates opportunities for infectious diseases, including those resistant to antibiotics and antiviral medications, to enter Australia

· Increased movement of people and goods can help to bring pests or diseases into the country that could impact on our environment or primary industries

· A general disconnection from primary production in Australia is leading to a lack of understanding of biosecurity issues and their impacts

· Changing consumer expectations require new and adaptive biosecurity capabilities

· The ongoing expansion of our cities is changing interactions between people, wildlife, agriculture and disease vectors, increasing risks such as zoonotic disease

· It is important to engage with peri-urban/amateur producers as part of the biosecurity community to improve their understanding of biosecurity risks and their adoption of biosecurity practices …

· An ageing population is leading to a decline in biosecurity specialists and experienced farmers, with a lack of younger talent to fill the gaps created

· Biosecurity investment does not appear to be keeping pace with the growing challenges we face

· A lack of biosecurity specialists and investment could limit our ability to prevent and respond to shocks

Biosecurity Implications on Biodiversity:

· Significant biodiversity loss can decrease the resilience of our natural environment to pests and diseases

· The management of invasive species can be a valuable and cost-effective tool in curbing biodiversity losses

· Biodiversity can provide a number of benefits, such as ecosystem services (e.g. pollination). Understanding the interconnections between biodiversity and biosecurity may therefore prove to be a vital component of biosecurity management

Objects of Biosecurity Act

(1) The primary object of this Act is to provide a framework for the prevention, elimination and minimisation of biosecurity risks posed by biosecurity matter, dealing with biosecurity matter, carriers and potential carriers, and other activities that involve biosecurity matter, carriers or potential carriers.

(2) The other objects of this Act are as follows:

(a) to promote biosecurity as a shared responsibility between government, industry and communities,

(b) to provide a framework for the timely and effective management of the following:

(i) pests, diseases, contaminants and other biosecurity matter that are economically significant for primary production industries,

(ii) threats to terrestrial and aquatic environments arising from pests, diseases, contaminants and other biosecurity matter,

(iii) public health and safety risks arising from contaminants, non-indigenous animals, bees, weeds and other biosecurity matter known to contribute to human health problems,

(iv) pests, diseases, contaminants and other biosecurity matter that may have an adverse effect on community activities and infrastructure,

(c) to provide a framework for risk-based decision-making in relation to biosecurity,

(d) to give effect to intergovernmental biosecurity agreements to which the State is a party,

(e) to provide the means by which biosecurity requirements in other jurisdictions can be met, so as to maintain market access for industry.

Staff comments by Sharyn French, Manager Environmental and Economic Planning, Sustainable Environment and Economy:

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

On 1 July 2017, the Biosecurity Act 2015 and Biosecurity Regulations 2017 commenced providing specific legal requirements for state-level priority weeds and high-risk activities.

Council at the 20 April 2017 meeting considered a report on the then draft Biosecurity Regulations and Resolved 17-141 that Council note:

1. The information contained in this report on the draft Biosecurity Regulation 2016.

2. That Council staff are undertaking an internal peer review of the draft Integrated Weed Strategy March 2016.

3. That Council staff are developing a Directions Document to provide a continued direction for reducing the use of pesticideon Council land in the long term.

4. The potential for the 'Small Steps to Healthy Rural Roadsides' measures to reduce chemical use and improve biodiversity on rural roadsides.

For a copy of the report: http://byron.infocouncil.biz/Open/2017/04/OC_20042017_AGN_605.htm#PDF2_ReportName_3823

In relation to items 1 to 3 of this NOM, the Biosecurity Act 2015 and Biosecurity Regulations 2017 have direct relevance to the development of the Integrated Pest Management Policy and Strategy (Resolution 13-621) and to some degree the review of Council’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (Resolution 14-334). The legislation has less relevance to Council’s Rural Land Use Strategy, which was adopted at the 26 October 2017 meeting (Resolution 17-504).

The social, economic and environmental implications arising from the Biodiversity Act and Regulation will be addressed in the Integrated Pest Management Policy and Strategy and the review of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy.

The development of both the Integrated Pest Management Policy and Strategy and the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy will respond to major changes in legislation and regional plans and strategies, including but not limited to:

· NSW Biosecurity Act 2015

· NSW Biosecurity Strategy 2013-2021

· Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

· Australian Weed Strategy and Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity

· North Coast Regional Strategic Weed Management Plan 2017-22

The Integrated Pest Management Strategy will consider all pests as defined by the Biosecurity Act 2015:

Pest means a species, strain or biotype of a plant or animal, or a disease agent, that has the potential to cause, either directly or indirectly, harm to (a) human, animal or plant health or (b) the environment.

A presentation on the review of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy was provided to the Biodiversity and Sustainability Panel at their 12 October 2017 meeting and can be accessed here:

http://byron.infocouncil.biz/RedirectToInvalidFileName.aspx?FileName=BIO_12102017_ATT_730.HTM*$PDF3_ATTACHMENT_4436_1

Two reports in this meeting agenda provide Council with an update on both the Integrated Pest Management Policy and Strategy and Biodiversity Conservation Strategy.

In relation to item 4 of this NOM, that Councillors hold a workshop with a view to developing a shire-wide Biosecurity Policy, Council has already resolved (Resolution 13-621) to prepare an Integrated Pest Management Policy which will articulate Council’s direction and obligations including those under the Biosecurity Act and Regulation. The development of this Policy will be work shopped with both Council and the Biodiversity and Sustainability Panel as outlined in the accompanying report to this meeting.

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

The preparation of the Integrated Pest Management Strategy and the review of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy are provided for in the existing 2017/18 budget.

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

Yes.

EN1.1.1 Protect and enhance our natural environment and biodiversity.

· Prepare a Shire Wide Integrated Pest Management Strategy

· Continue to undertake the Biodiversity Strategy review

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.1

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services

Report No. 13.1 Review of Natural Disaster Response Protocols

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Jessica Orr, Strategic Risk and Improvement Coordinator

Sarah Ford, Manager Community Development

Anna Vinfield, Manager Corporate Services

James Flockton, Drain and Flood Engineer

File No: I2017/1361

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary:

This Report responds to the Mayoral Minute No. 8.1 – Review of Natural Disaster Response Protocols (RES 17-130) made at Council’s ordinary meeting of 2 April 2017.

Since the March 2017 Ex-Tropical Cyclone Debbie disaster event, Council has undertaken a variety of activities and developed resources to facilitate an improved pre and post event response and recovery, noting that no event is ever the same. Some of the key resources Council has in place include:

· Byron Shire Council Emergency Communications Plan

· Byron Shire Council Fact Sheet: What to do in an emergency or disaster?

· Community relationships, coordination of community organisations or volunteer groups

This report addresses the key points raised in the Mayoral Minute, provides an overview of the SES debrief held with Councillors and articulates Councillor’s role during a natural disaster.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council supports the proposed SES approach to creating a ‘Community Action Team/s’ in the Northern Rivers regional community, and that when the framework for this approach is finalised by the SES, that it be the subject of a further report to Council.

2. That Council note the work that has been undertaken so far in improving Council’s business continuity and disaster recovery efforts.

3. That Council receive a further report on the operations of the South Golden Beach flood pump following the consideration of the Peer Review of South Golden Beach Flood Pump (#E2017/103521) by staff.

4. That Council request that a finalised Business Continuity/Disaster Recovery Plan be reported to Council by Corporate and Community Services by mid 2018.

Attachments:

1 Confidential - Draft Emergency Communications Plan supercedes E2017/64654, E2017/93620

2 Confidential - Fact sheet - what to do in a disaster, E2017/101552

3 Confidential - Peer Review of South Golden Beach Flood Pump (Prepared by Jacobs), E2017/103521

4 SES presentation - recommendations from review of operational response to Norther Rivers floods, E2017/104277 ⇨

5 SES Presentation to Byron Council Nov 2017, E2017/105034 ⇨

6 SES Community Action Teams Presentation, E2017/105036

Report

Background

Byron Shire Council and its residents experienced significant rainfall from Ex Tropical

Cyclone Debbie from 28 March 2017 which resulted in major flooding across the northern sections of the Shire including areas of Billinudgel, Mullumbimby, Ocean Shores, New Brighton and the Hinterland. The impacts were both significant to those communities and to the wider community with significant property damage, social and emotional impacts to residents and businesses. The event raised a number of concerns regarding Council’s and other agencies' effectiveness and responsiveness during and post the event.

Mayoral Minute No. 8.1 – Review of Natural Disaster Response Protocols (RES 17-130) was made at Council’s ordinary meeting of 2 April 2017. The following key issues were raised and addressed below:

· Response to extreme weather and disaster communication protocols

· Review of successes, failings and inefficiencies of Council operated or maintained infrastructure during the April flood event

· Council’s community support protocols and approach

· Review organisational preparedness including

A Notice of Motion was considered by Council at its Extraordinary meeting held on 2 November meeting. Council resolved via Resolution 17-538 as follows:

· Invite the State Emergency Service (SES) to provide a briefing to Council on current efforts to establish ‘Community Action Teams’ (CATs) as part of forward planning and responsiveness to flood events in local communities.

· Determine and provide support to potential CAT formation within the Byron Shire in conjunction with the SES and local communities.

· Develop a response plan as to how Council will respond to flood events with particular focus on the coordination of information and resources required by the community during and in the immediate aftermath of a flood.

· Implement a communications strategy to ensure widespread community understanding of Council’s role during and in response to a flood event.

· Consider funding and resources necessary to support these initiatives and provide a report to Council by the end of 2017.

This report also addresses the key points from the Notice of Motion.

Council wrote to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services seeking support for an independent review of the flood response in Byron Shire following Ex-Tropical Cyclone Debbie.

NSW Police Deputy Commissioner Dave Owens had been engaged to undertake this review of both Lismore City and Tweed Shire Council and Council officers requested that Mr Owen's brief be extended to include Byron Shire Council. The Minister responded that many of the findings of the independent review provide opportunities for improvement to response processes and systems and that the NSW SES could brief Council on these recommendations – these are detailed in section 3: ‘SES debrief’ of this report.

Council is committed to being involved in regional forums and aiming to achieve best practice in disaster response. Officers recently attended a regional forum for ‘Disaster Ready Councils’ hosted by Hunter Joint Organisation of Councils and funded by the State Government’s new Office of Emergency Management (OEM) unit. The forum was highly relevant and practical in delving into the question of “Is your Council disaster ready?” Outcomes for Council in attending the regional forum include continuing to be part of the state wide conversation on disaster planning and response support, ensuring that Byron Shire Council’s voice is heard, awareness of training and resources offered by the OEM in assisting councils to become disaster ready and access to new forms of relief funding.

Response to issues raised in Mayoral Minute

1. Response to extreme weather and disaster communication protocols

Council has developed an Emergency Communication Plan (attached to this report) which outlines in detail how and when it will communicate with the community and staff as an event approaches and unfolds. This includes a detailed list of steps that may be taken including the platform of communication and frequency. For example, posting on social media at regular intervals, working with Customer Service to update after-hours phone messaging, regular updates of the Byron Shire Council website, Council E-news, media releases and SMS messaging alerts.

Council is continuing to investigate the use of SMS messaging to update, inform and alert residents at times of extreme weather events. It is also worth noting that the SES manages this process and is investigating improvements to its system.

As a disaster or emergency event unfolds, Council will continue to liaise with Emergency Services and recognised providers of relevant information such as the SES, RFS, Bureau of Meteorology and ABC radio (as the local emergency services broadcaster), to provide the broadest possible coverage of an event.

To address the high workload in the communications area approaching, during and after a disaster event, Council acknowledges that additional resources may be required. Managers are asked to reallocate their staff where possible to provide customer service or communications assistance during a disaster event, where their core duties are not essential. This will be a decision of the Crisis Management Team (CMT).

The table below establishes Council’s CMT, highlighting the key roles for leadership, decision making and support that will be required to be taken on by Council staff before, during and after a disaster event.

As an emergency or disaster unfolds, the CMT will meet regularly throughout the event, at least once daily to support, coordinate and plan action and response efforts. Role descriptions of each position will be developed with guidance on who communicates with who and responsibilities. Depending on the context of the emergency or disaster unfolding, different key support staff and managers / executive will take a lead role in informing decision-making and directing resources. For example, where the disaster is a cyber terrorism attack, Manager Business Systems & Technology will play a lead role, rather where the disaster is a natural disaster, Infrastructure Services Director and relevant Managers for works, open spaces, utilities and assets, and community development will play a lead role.

2. Review of successes, failings and inefficiencies of Council operated or maintained infrastructure during the April flood event

Council’s road networks and assets performed as designed and received minimal damage in comparison to the size of the event.

Council’s flood pump in South Golden Beach operated and reduced flood water to a degree until it tripped and couldn’t be restarted until safe access was available. Previous discussion has been held around operational issues with the pump and staff recently received a third party review into the pump stations design, operation and capacity. The review raised a number of concerns for operational staff to consider.

The South Golden flood pump report is attached to this report (attachment 3) for information only. Noting that the report has just been received and staff are working through the recommendations. The consultant responsible for the pump station design has previously confirmed to Council that it was built as per the design. Therefore, the likely intention moving forward is to discuss the results of the peer review of the pump station with the designers, before Council considers taking the matter further. Infrastructure Services will present a further report to Council on the outcomes at the earliest opportunity.

Council has investigated the flexibility of increasing the opening hours at the Myocum Resource and Recovery Centre within Environment Protection Agency (EPA) operation licence. The EPA have advised it will be lenient on licence conditions and regulation of waste management facilities in response to flood clean-up operations, thus enabling extended operating hours at the Byron Resource Recovery Centre. Staff will maintain open communication with the EPA in the lead up and recovery phases of future events to facilitate any clean-up operations.

Post the March 2017 flood event, Council staff have undertaken tender processes to establish panels of providers for plant hire (in collaboration with Tweed Council who also had a similar issue in response to the flood) and garden waste/tree clearing services. This provides Council with the ability to immediately engage a number of local contractors, at a predetermined plant hire rate, to conduct clean-up works in a disaster event.

In the lead up to any future potential event, staff will contact contractors to ensure availability and immediate response if required. Experience from the March 2017 flood has shown that contractors will have capacity to provide necessary plant as they generally cannot perform their core construction activities during/post significant wet weather events.

Council’s drainage maintenance crew has been working in the Billinudgel area to remove debris and vegetation from open drains, works to date have been very successful and the local community have been appreciative. Council’s maintenance crew is also planning to remove vegetation and debris from the main drains in South Golden Beach before Christmas, these drains supply the flood pump station. A general green waste collection is being considered as part of this work to help reduce the debris load on the pump station.

Council’s position on the Mud Army

The concept of a Mud Army (as seen in the 2011 Brisbane floods) is one of several community response options that Council is currently considering in terms of involvement, coordination and support during an emergency event. Council is progressing, in conversation with the SES and the Northern Rivers regional community, with investigation of volunteer models that harness the community spirit and eagerness of residents to support their neighbours and local community.

The State Emergency Service (SES) presented to Councillors at the 9 November Strategic Planning Workshop. This presentation outlined community preparedness for future natural disasters including the potential formation of ‘Community Action Teams’ as part of forward planning and responsiveness to flood events in local communities.

It is anticipated that the formation of a ‘Community Action Team’ (CATs) would allow the region to harness the supportive spirit of the community in the preparation and response phase (as is the case with the Mud Army example in the recovery phase) in coordinating volunteers and support initiatives as an event unfolds and in the recovery phase. This is part of a broader community discussion and Council will receive updates as it progresses.

It has been anticipated that the CATs will mature and evolve to deal with all natural disaster situations, not just floods (as seen in NSW near the Victorian border). The CATs would be coordinated by SES community liaison officers with Council involvement. Council is likely to be requested to assist with resourcing certain emergency or disaster equipment, currently being discussed to assist local communities. This is particularly relevant where local communities and residents may not be immediately accessible and to support such communities to be able to assist each other at the local level.

Infrastructure Services will prepare a further report to Council on the proposed CAT framework and resourcing implications once SES have finalised the arrangements.

3. Council’s community support protocols and approach

The Northern Rivers region is still in the flood recovery phase from the March 2017 Ex-Tropical Cyclone Debbie events. Council is in contact with various community and government organisations concerning the ongoing recovery and learning efforts, taking into account scope for improvement and partnering into the future.

A series of regional forums were held in Byron Bay in June 2017, with service providers and the volunteer sector participating three focus groups in the homelessness, community services and mental health sectors. A Regional Action Plan was developed, which assisted in securing Community Recovery Funding from Office of Emergency Management. Two Community Development Officer positions have been funded for twelve months to implement key activities from the Regional Action Plan. Community Development Officers are based in Lismore and Tweed. The Tweed Community Development Officer covers the Tweed, Byron and Ballina Shires, and Council staff are working collaboratively to develop mutually agreed deliverables.

Additional regional Community Recovery Fund projects funded by Office for Emergency Management include:

· Mental health awareness training for government and community agencies

· Mental health awareness workshops for the community

· Disaster preparedness workshops for Community Service Organisations

· Community Engagement Flood Resilience Building Program

A regional learning from the March 2017 flood event is the need for strong coordination of community volunteers in order to maximise the impact of community good will and avoid duplication and ensure residents affected by natural disaster receive clear messaging in relation to assistance. Council is working with key service providers to develop a local community response protocol which will include the development of a mechanism to effectively harness community volunteers in relation to provision of support for disaster affected residents. Delays in this process are being experienced as service providers are still assisting people affected by flood, some of whom are making contact with key service providers for support for the first time. Further, local Councils are responsible for the joint implementation, project planning and oversight of the Community Development positions, as well as taking a lead roll in ensuring the effective delivery of the additional regional recovery project listed above. The CATs proposed by the SES could be the appropriate mechanism for this.

A key learning regionally from Ex-Tropical Cyclone Debbie was the complexity of facilitating community donations and administering and awarding donations to businesses and individuals. Council referred community to Mullumbimby and District Neighbourhood Centre (MDNC) to make donations for Ex-Tropical Cyclone Debbie. MDNC has deductible gift recipient status and an online donation tool. MDNC donates 100% of donations to community and was seen as a strong and trusted community to administer donations.

If Council wishes to take carriage of natural disaster donations, a robust system of criteria will need to be established prior to any community donations received. This can be achieved by working with other Local Council’s to learn from their experiences.

Council is committed to participating in the development of a Regional Community Recovery Plan, anticipated to be completed by December 2018. One of the tasks involved in the development of the Regional Community Recovery Plan will be establishing agreement between key service organisations in relation to recovery plan development, implementation and annual review.

SES debrief

SES representatives attended the Councillor’s strategic planning workshop on 9 November to present on key lessons learnt arising from Ex-Tropical Cyclone Debbie weather event and the ongoing recovery efforts in the region. The SES highlighted a number of local, regional and state outcomes that have been realised out of this event and that action is being taken on. SES held nine post-flood forums across the region.

The presentation is attached to this report.

Key SES outcomes from the forums and the Independent Review of the NSW State Emergency Service Operational Response - Northern Rivers Floods March 2017 report from Dave Owens include:

· Review operational readiness, including local and regional resources, training, skills register and availability for deployment;

· Consider implementation of a triage procedure for flood rescues, in consultation with other Emergency Services for a standardised risk based approach to flood rescue;

· Formalise new process for the issuing of Evacuation Orders into Policy;

· Liaise with the appropriate NSW Government Agencies to ensure stronger linkages are forged at a local level between emergency responders, local councils and community development professionals; and

· Become a recognised authority for land use planning purposes, having greater involvement in floodplain development with Local Councils and that their input is mandatory before any consent by council is given in flood planning areas.

Role of Councillors

A learning from the March event was to identify specific role for Councillors during an event.

During an event, Councillors will receive regular updates from the CMT as information becomes available (this is articulated in the internal fact sheet on ‘what to do in an emergency’). The Emergency Communications Plan highlights that during an event or emergency, the media spokespeople for Council are the Mayor, General Manager and Council’s Local Emergency Management Officer.

Council staff, particularly members of the CMT, may be reallocated to undertake specific duties, other than their regular responsibilities, to support the community and Council’s service provision during an emergency or disaster.

It is anticipated that a workshop be held with Councillors at the January 2018 strategic planning workshop to develop a detailed fact sheet, as well as share key information from the CMT, on the role of Councillors in supporting the community and Council operations, before, during and in the recovery of an event.

Next steps

Council is continuing to develop its business continuity / disaster recovery resources internally for the organisation and externally to support the Byron Shire community and the Council services during an emergency or disaster. Council is currently investigating software options to support a business continuity and disaster preparedness framework. At the time of writing this report, a presentation with Council managers and key staff is taking place on 13 November from Continuity2, presenting their business continuity management system software as an option for Council to consider in terms of the most appropriate process and system.

Council will take a lead role and work with Office of Emergency Management to develop a data collection tool and will support the community service sector to understand and utilize the tool as soon as a natural disaster is declared.

Council will continue to play a lead role in advocating for community payments and grants in the wake of natural disasters and will, where appropriate, submit grant funding applications, or support key organisations to do so.

As noted staff will hold a workshop with Councillors in early 2018 to articulate ‘what to do in an emergency’.

Council staff are reviewing the recommendations of the South Golden Beach flood pump peer review report and will prepare a further report on progressing the implementation of the reports recommendations.

A Regional Community Recovery Plan will be delivered by December 2018.

Financial Implications

Where Council seeks to further develop its business continuity and disaster recovery plan framework and software, this may require additional funding from across business units – this isn’t currently allocated in the 2017/18 budget.

In relation to national disaster relief funding, the Office of Emergency Management has recently confirmed that mitigation and betterment funding will form a part of the new arrangements. Under the new system the “like for like” requirement will be removed and councils will be able to add their own funding for betterment to reconstruction and repair projects. This was previously not permitted. The criteria for spending these funds are still being clarified with the Commonwealth. The Policy for how NSW will distribute this funding is still under consideration.

The resourcing requirements of CATs are still being determined as the SES has not finalised their preferred model.

It is anticipated that the implementation of the emergency communications plan will be accommodated within existing budget allocations.

The resource implications of the South Golden Beach flood pump report are being reviewed by staff.

While the financial impact on affected residents and businesses was significant, the financial implications on Council were minor. Only a small number of Council assets and infrastructure were impacted and these were covered by flood insurance.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Local Government NSW actively represents council interests in dealing with the NSW and Australian Governments on the range of issues concerning emergency management.

The State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 (NSW) outlines emergency management obligations at the local level in Division 3 of the Act. This includes outlining the functions of the Local Emergency Management Committees and providing for where 2 or more local government areas agree (with the approval of the Minister) they will be permitted to combine their emergency management arrangements, such is the case with the combined Tweed-Byron Local Emergency Management Committee.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.2

Report No. 13.2 Meeting Schedule 2018

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

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

File No: I2017/1497

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary:

The proposed schedule of dates, times and places for Council’s Ordinary Meetings, Strategic Planning Workshops, Advisory Committees and Panels in 2018 is recommended for adoption.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council adopts the following schedule of Ordinary Meetings and Strategic Planning Workshops (SPW) for 2018:

Date (2018)	Meeting/Workshop (Thursday 9am)
25 January	SPW
1 February	Ordinary
8 February	SPW
22 February	Ordinary
8 March	SPW
22 March	Ordinary
5 April	SPW
19 April	Ordinary
10 May	SPW
24 May	Ordinary
7 June	SPW
21 June	Ordinary
2 August	Ordinary
9 August	SPW
23 August	Ordinary
6 September	SPW
20 September	Ordinary
4 October	SPW
18 October	Ordinary
8 November	SPW
22 November	Ordinary
6 December	SPW
13 December	Ordinary

2. That Council adopts the following schedule of Advisory Committee and Panel meetings for 2018:

Meeting	Date (2018)
Advisory Committees
Arakwal Memorandum of Understanding (Thursday 9.00am)	1 March 31 May 13 September 1 November
Finance (Thursday 2.00pm)	15 February 17 May 16 August 15 November
Audit, Risk and Improvement (Thursday 11.30am) * Extraordinary	15 February 17 May 16 August 11 October 15 November*
Transport and Infrastructure (Thursday 9.00am)	15 March 17 May 16 August 15 November
Water, Waste and Sewer (Thursday 11.30am)	1 March 31 May 13 September 1 November
Byron Shire Floodplain Risk Management (Thursday 2.00pm)	1 March 31 May 13 September 1 November
Panels
Biodiversity and Sustainability (Thursday 11.30am)	29 March 28 June 30 August
Coastal Estuary Catchment (Thursday 2.00pm)	15 March 3 May 27 September 29 November
Communications (Thursday 9.00am)	29 March 28 June 30 August
Heritage (Thursday 2.00pm)	29 March 28 June 30 August
Public Art (Thursday 9.00am)	15 February 3 May 9 August 29 November
Sustainable Economy (Thursday 11.30am)	15 March 3 May 27 September 29 November

3. That Council endorses the following schedule of Planning Review Committee meetings for 2018:

Planning Review Committee

Thursday 4.30pm

18 January

15 February

15 March

12 April

17 May

14 June

9 August

13 September

25 October

15 November

29 November

4. That Council endorses the following schedule of Local Traffic Committee meetings for 2018:

Local Traffic Committee

Tuesday 10.00am

16 January

20 March

15 May

17 July

18 September

20 November

5. That the Ordinary Meetings be held in the Council Chambers, Mullumbimby with a start time of 9.00am.

6. That the Code of Meeting Practice be amended to reflect the adopted meeting schedule and times.

Attachments:

1 Council Meeting Matrix 2018, E2017/102958 ⇨

Report

The schedule has been prepared with consideration to events, such as public holidays and conferences. Listed below is the proposed 2018 Meeting Schedule:

Date (2018)	Meeting/Workshop (Thursday 9am)
25 January	SPW
1 February	Ordinary
8 February	SPW
22 February	Ordinary
8 March	SPW
22 March	Ordinary
5 April	SPW
19 April	Ordinary
10 May	SPW
24 May	Ordinary
7 June	SPW
21 June	Ordinary
Mid-year recess
2 August	Ordinary
9 August	SPW
23 August	Ordinary
6 September	SPW
20 September	Ordinary
4 October	SPW
18 October	Ordinary
8 November	SPW
22 November	Ordinary
6 December	SPW
13 December	Ordinary

· The 2018 National General Assembly of Local Government will not affect the meeting dates as it is scheduled to be held from 17-20 June 2017 in Canberra.

· The date for the LGNSW Annual Conference 2018 has not yet been determined however based on previous Conference dates, it will most likely not affect the proposed meeting dates.

· Easter public holidays will not affect the meeting dates as they fall during the dates 31 March -2 April 2018.

As the proposed schedule includes two February meetings, a Strategic Planning Workshop is required during the January recess period.

Financial Implications

Should Council resolve to hold evening Council meetings, extra financial implications for meetings would include payment of overtime for staff below the level of senior management should they be required to answer questions during the meeting, as well as for minute taking staff (one minute taker per evening meeting).

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Point 4.1 of Councils Code of Meeting Practice will require amending to reflect the adopted meeting schedule and times, specifically that meetings will not be held once every 3 weeks. Schedule B will also require amending at point 1 under the heading of Planning Review Committee.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.6

Report No. 13.6 Council Budget Review - 1 July 2017 to 30 September 2017

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2017/1559

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

This report is prepared to comply with Regulation 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and to inform Council and the Community of Council’s estimated financial position for the 2017/2018 financial year, reviewed as at 30 September 2017.

This report contains an overview of the proposed budget variations for the General Fund, Water Fund and Sewerage Fund. The specific details of these proposed variations are included in Attachment 1 and 2 for Council’s consideration and authorisation.

Attachment 3 contains the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (IP&R) Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS) as outlined by the Division of Local Government in circular 10-32.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council authorise the itemised budget variations as shown in Attachment 2 (#E2017/104035) which includes the following results in the 30 September 2017 Quarterly Review of the 2017/2018 Budget:

a) General Fund – $161,900 decrease to the Estimated Unrestricted Cash Result

b) General Fund - $1,651,500 increase in reserves

c) Water Fund - $110,000 decrease in reserves

d) Sewerage Fund - $15,000 decrease in reserves

2. That Council adopt the revised General Fund Estimated Unrestricted Cash Result of $940,600 for the 2017/2018 financial year as at 30 September 2017.

Attachments:

1 Budget Variations for General, Water and Sewerage Funds, E2017/104033 ⇨

2 Itemised Listing of Budget Variations for General, Water and Sewerage Funds, E2017/104035 ⇨

3 Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (IP&R) required Quarterly Review Statement, E2017/104034 ⇨

Report

Council adopted the 2017/2018 budget on 22 June 2017 via Resolution 17-268. It also considered and adopted the budget carryovers from the 2016/2017 financial year, to be incorporated into the 2017/2018 budget at its Ordinary Meeting held on 24 August 2017 via Resolution 17-322. Since that date, Council has reviewed the budget taking into consideration the 2016/2017 Financial Statement results and progress through the first quarter of the 2017/2018 financial year. This report considers the September 2017 Quarter Budget Review.

The details of the budget review for the Consolidated, General, Water and Sewer Funds are included in Attachment 1, with an itemised listing in Attachment 2. This aims to show the consolidated budget position of Council, as well as a breakdown by Fund and Principal Activity. The document in Attachment 1 is also effectively a publication outlining a review of the budget and is intended to provide Councillors with more detailed information to assist with decision making regarding Council’s finances.

Contained in the document at Attachment 1 is the following reporting hierarchy:

Consolidated Budget Cash Result

General Fund Cash Result Water Fund Cash Result Sewer Cash Result

Principal Activity Principal Activity Principal Activity

Operating Income Operating Expenditure Capital income Capital Expenditure

The pages within Attachment 1 are presented (from left to right) by showing the original budget as adopted by Council on 22 June 2017 plus the adopted carryover budgets from 2016/2017 followed by the resolutions between July and September and the revote (or adjustment for this review) and then the revised position projected for 30 June 2018 as at 30 September 2017.

On the far right of the Principal Activity, there is a column titled “Note”. If this is populated by a number, it means that there has been an adjustment in the quarterly review. This number then corresponds to the notes at the end of the Attachment 1 which provides an explanation of the variation.

There is also information detailing restricted assets (reserves) to show Council estimated balances as at 30 June 2018 for all Council’s reserves.

A summary of Capital Works is also included by Fund and Principal Activity.

Office of Local Government Budget Review Guidelines:-

The Office of Local Government on 10 December 2010 issued the new Quarterly Budget Review Guidelines via Circular 10-32, with the reporting requirements to apply from 1 July 2011. This report includes a Quarterly Budget Review Statement (refer Attachment 3) prepared by Council in accordance with the guidelines.

The Quarterly Budget Review Guidelines set a minimum standard of disclosure, with these standards being included in the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting as mandatory requirements for Council’s to address.

Since the introduction of the new planning and reporting framework for NSW Local Government, it is now a requirement for Councils to provide the following components when submitting a Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS):-

· A signed statement by the Responsible Accounting Officer on Councils financial position at the end of the year based on the information in the QBRS

· Budget review income and expenses statement in one of the following formats:

o Consolidated

o By fund (e.g General, Water, Sewer)

o By function, activity, program etc to align with the management plan/operational plan

· Budget Review Capital Budget

· Budget Review Cash and Investments Position

· Budget Review Key performance indicators

· Budget Review Contracts and Other Expenses

The above components are included in Attachment 3:-

Income and Expenditure Budget Review Statement by Type – This shows Councils income and Expenditure by type. This has been split by Fund. Adjustments are shown, looking from left to right. These adjustments are commented on through the last 16 pages of Attachment 1.

Capital Budget Review Statement – This statement identifies in summary Council’s capital works program on a consolidated basis and then split by Fund. It also identifies how the capital works program is funded. As this is the first quarterly review for the reporting period, the Statement may not necessarily indicate the total progress achieved on the delivery of the capital works program.

Cash and Investments Budget Review Statement – This statement reconciles Council’s restricted funds (reserves) against available cash and investments. Council has attempted to indicate an actual position as at 30 September 2017 of each reserve to show a total cash position of reserves with any difference between that position and total cash and investments held as available cash and investments. It should be recognised that the figure is at a point in time and may vary greatly in future quarterly reviews pending on cash flow movements.

Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) – At this stage, the KPI’s within this report are:-

o Debt Service Ratio - This assesses the impact of loan principal and interest repayments on the discretionary revenue of Council.

o Rates and Annual Charges Outstanding Ratio – This assesses the impact of uncollected rates and annual charges on Councils liquidity and the adequacy of recovery efforts

o Asset Renewals Ratio – This assesses the rate at which assets are being renewed relative to the rate at which they are depreciating.

These may be expanded in future to accommodate any additional KPIs that Council may adopt to use in the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP.)

Contracts and Other Expenses - This report highlights any contracts Council entered into during the July to September quarter that are greater then $50,000.

CONSOLIDATED RESULT

The following table provides a summary of the overall Council budget on a consolidated basis inclusive of all Funds budget movements for the 2017/2018 financial year projected to 30 June 2018 but revised as at 30 September 2017.

2017/2018 Budget Review Statement as at 30 September 2017		Original Estimate (Including Carryovers) 1/7/2017	Adjustments to 30 Sept 2017 including Resolutions*	Proposed 30Sept 2017 Review Revotes	Revised Estimate 30/6/2018 at 30/9/2017
	Operating Revenue	76,828,000	0	2,530,900	79,358,900
	Operating Expenditure	79,542,600	155,000	3,072,500	82,770,100
	Operating Result – Surplus/Deficit	(2,714,600)	(155,000)	(541,600)	(3,411,200)
	Add: Capital Revenue	27,790,000	66,000	(1,897,700)	25,958,300
	Change in Net Assets	25,075,400	(89,000)	(2,439,300)	22,547,100
	Add: Non Cash Expenses	12,939,400	0	0	12,939,400
	Add: Non-Operating Funds Employed	2,160,000	0	2,516,000	4,676,000
	Subtract: Funds Deployed for Non-Operating Purposes	(64,587,000)	(400,000)	1,287,900	(63,699,100)
	Cash Surplus/(Deficit)	(24,412,200)	(489,000)	1,364,600	(23,536,600)
	Restricted Funds – Increase / (Decrease)	(24,419,500)	(439,000)	1,526,500	(23,332,000)
	Forecast Result for the Year – Surplus/(Deficit) – Unrestricted Cash Result	7,300	(50,000)	(161,900)	(204,600)

GENERAL FUND

In terms of the General Fund projected Unrestricted Cash Result the following table provides a reconciliation of the estimated position as at 30 September 2016:

Opening Balance – 1 July 2017	$1,145,200
Plus original budget movement and carryovers	$7,300
Council Resolutions July – September Quarter	(50,000)
Recommendations within this Review – increase/(decrease)	($161,900)
Forecast Unrestricted Cash Result – Surplus/(Deficit) – 30 June 2018	($204,600)
Estimated Unrestricted Cash Result Closing Balance – 30 June 2018	$940,600

The General Fund financial position overall has decreased by $161,900 as a result of this budget review. The proposed budget changes are detailed in Attachment 1 and summarised further in this report below.

Council Resolutions

Resolution 17-269 for the Mullumbimby Hospital Acquisition in part 3 stated “That a budget of $50,000 be approved by the Council to fund the independent peer review and that any remaining funds be used for the forward planning process”. There was no suggested funding source for this resolution and at this point no funding source has been identified.

Budget Adjustments

The budget adjustments identified in Attachments 1 and 2 for the General Fund have been summarised by Budget Directorate in the following table:

Budget Directorate	Revenue Increase/ (Decrease) $	Expenditure Increase/ (Decrease) $	Accumulated Surplus (Working Funds) Increase/ (Decrease) $
General Manager	0	0	0
Corporate & Community Services	134,900	111,500	23,400
Infrastructure Services	3,721,300	3,847,200	(125,900)
Sustainable Environment & Economy	209,100	268,500	(59,400)
Total Budget Movements	4,065,300	4,227,200	(161,900)

Budget Adjustment Comments

Within each of the Budget Directorates of the General Fund, are a series of budget adjustments identified in detail at Attachment 1 and 2. More detailed notes on these are provided in Attachment 1 but in summary the major additional items included are summarised below by Directorate and are included in the overall budget adjustments table above:

Corporate and Community Services

· In the General Purpose Revenues Program an additional $42,400 in revenue has been recognised as the allocation for Council’s 2017/2018 Financial Assistance Grant is more than budgeted.

· In the Governance Services Program it is proposed to increase expenditure by $15,000 for grant management costs. This can be funded through the Grants Management reserve.

· In the Sandhills program, it is proposed to increase the budget for the installation of solar panels ($12,600). This has no net effect on the result as all movements are taken up through the Childrens’ Service reserve.

· In the Pubic Libraries program, it is proposed to increase the budget for the installation of solar panels ($60,000) and costs for concept plans for Brunswick Heads library ($5,300).

Infrastructure Services

· In the Projects & Commercial Development program, it is proposed to increase capital income due to the sale of land at Station Street Mullumbimby for $1,300,000. This can be transferred to the Property Development reserve.

· In the Local Roads and Drainage program, there are a number of adjustments outlined under Note 14 in the Budget Variations explanations section of Attachment 1. Further disclosure is included in the second page of Attachment 2 under the budget program heading Local Roads and Drainage.

· In the Roads and Maritime Services program (RMS) it is proposed to increase operating income and expenditure by $1,742,700 to account for Natural disaster works from June 2016 ($945,000) and March 2017 ($797,700).

· In the Open Space and Recreation program, operating expenditure increased by $21,600 due to a request for a budget for Shara Boulevard sportsfield maintenance of $60,000, reductions of $40,100 against various park and reserve maintenance budgets and a support service cost adjustment of $1,700. There are a number of capital expenditure adjustments outlined under Note 16 in the Budget Variations explanations section of Attachment 1. Further disclosure is included in the third page of Attachment 2 under the budget program heading Open Space & Recreation.

· In the Waste & Recycling program It is proposed to increase operating income by $182,100 due to the receipt of the Better Waste and Recycling grant ($74,500) and a grant for the enhancement of the Resource Recovery Centre ($107,600). It is proposed to increase operating expenditure by $245,000 for the Waste Management Strategy ($130,000) and the Waste Compliance program ($114,000). It is also proposed to make a support service adjustment of $2,500. It is proposed to allocate a budget of $1,216,000 for capital income due to the sale of land at Dingo Lane. This will be transferred to the Waste Management reserve.

· In the Cavanbah Centre program, it is proposed to decrease capital expenditure overall by $217,000 due to estimated grant revenues for projects such as AFL Barrier Netting and Grandstands and Aquatic Centre project as explained in Attachment 1 at Note 18.

· In the First Sun and Suffolk Beachfront Holiday Parks program, it is proposed to increase the budget by $20,000 at each site to continue painting for the year and $40,000 at First Sun for Western Beach access. All adjustments are through the Holiday Park reserve.

· In the Facilities Management program it is proposed to increase operating expenditure by $96,800. This is the excess that Council must pay relating to the flood damage from March 2017

Sustainable Environment and Economy

· In the Development and Certification program, it is proposed to increase income and expenditure by $13,000 to budget for the Information and Technology Service fee. This will fund the Process Improvement Officer. It is propose to add an additional $35,000 to the DA fees received.

· In the Planning Policy and Natural Environment Program, It is proposed to increase income and expenditure to accommodate the Byron Habitat Corridors grant ($64,600), an increase to the Employment Land Strategy ($20,000), an increase to Coastline Beach Scraping ($61,000 – to match grant funding) and an increase for the Integrated Weed management Strategy ($20,000).

· In the Environment & Compliance program it is proposed to increase the budget for licence plate recognition costs of $87,600. This can be funded through the Paid Parking reserve.

WATER FUND

After completion of the 2016/2017 Financial Statements the Water Fund as at 30 June 2017 has a capital works reserve of $4,953,000 and held $6,692,100 in section 64 developer contributions.

The estimated Water Fund reserve balances as at 30 June 2018, and forecast in this Quarter Budget Review, are derived as follows:

Capital Works Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2017	$4,953,800
Plus original budget reserve movement	1,539,000
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2016/2017	(124,800)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(40,000)
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2017/2018 – Increase / (Decrease)	1,374,200
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2018	$6,328,000

Section 64 Developer Contributions

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2017	$6,692,100
Plus original budget reserve movement	(1,874,000)
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2016/2017	(2,645,300)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(70,000)
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2017/2018 – Increase / (Decrease)	(4,589,300)
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2018	$2,102,800

Movements for Water Fund can be seen in Attachment 1 with a proposed estimated decrease to reserves (including S64 Contributions) overall of $110,000 from the 30 September 2017 Quarter Budget Review.

SEWERAGE FUND

After completion of the 2016/2017 Financial Statements the Sewer Fund as at 30 June 2017 has a capital works reserve of $7,372,800 and plant reserve of $827,800. It also held $9,583,600 in section 64 developer contributions.

Capital Works Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2017	$7,372,800
Plus original budget reserve movement	(1,008,100)
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2016/2017	(102,200)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	24,000
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2017/2018 – Increase / (Decrease)	(1,086,300)
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2018	$6,286,500

Plant Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2017	$827,800
Plus original budget reserve movement	0
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2016/2017	0
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(12,300)
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2017/2018 – Increase / (Decrease)	(12,300)
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2018	$815,500

Section 64 Developer Contributions

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2017	$9,583,600
Plus original budget reserve movement	(188,800)
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2016/2017	(1,949,600)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(26,700)
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2017/2018 – Increase / (Decrease)	(2,165,100)
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2018	$7,418,500

Movements for the Sewerage Fund can be seen in Attachment 1 with a proposed estimated overall decrease to reserves (including S64 Contributions) of $15,000 from the 30 September 2017 Quarter Budget Review.

Legal Expenses

One of the major financial concerns for Council over previous years has been legal expenses. Not only does this item represent a large expenditure item funded by general revenue, but can also be susceptible to large fluctuations.

The table that follows indicates the allocated budget and actual legal expenditure within Council on

a fund basis as at 30 September 2017.

Total Legal Income & Expenditure as at 30 September 2017

Program	2017/2018 Budget ($)	Actual ($)	Percentage To Revised Budget
Income
Legal Expenses Recovered	0	0	0%
Total Income	0	0	0%

Expenditure
General Legal Expenses	201,000	84,328	41.9%
Total Expenditure General Fund	201,000	84,328	41.9%

Note: The above table does not include costs incurred by Council in proceedings after 30 September 2017 or billed after this date. At the time of writing this report, Council has incurred an additional $57,247 of expenditure in October and November 2017.

Byron Railway Precinct Projects

The adopted 2017/2018 Budget Estimates currently provides an allocation of $500,000 funded from the Infrastructure Renewal Reserve for projects related to the Byron Bay Master Plan – Railway Precinct. The 30 September 2017 Quarter Budget Review contains a proposal to reduce this allocation by $260,700 to enable Council to match its contribution to the projects funded by the $260,700 Tourism Demand Driver Infrastructure (TDDI) grant provided to Council.

A summary of the current projects with proposed funded budgets associated with the Byron Railway Precinct should Council adopt this Quarterly Budget Review are outlined in the table below:

Job No	Project	Proposed Budget 2017/2018 $	Funding from TDDI Grant $	Funding from Infrastructure Renewal Reserve $	Funding from Section 94 $
44283.014	Byron Bay Masterplan – Railway Precinct	239,300	0	239,300	0
4835.188	Byron St Connection Upgrade	139,000	69,500	69,500	0
4835.189	Railway Park Upgrade	237,500	118,700	118,700	0
4835.190	Visitor Centre Refurbishment	130,000	50,000	50,000	30,000
4835.191	Visitor Centre Technology Project	45,000	22,500	22,500	0
	Total	790,800	260,700	500,000	30,000

With the addition of the TDDI grant revenue to Council’s existing budget allocation of $500,000, there is now $790,800 available towards projects in the Byron Railway Precinct.

In relation to any further projects relating to the Byron Railway Precinct in terms of budget allocation, these will be reported to Council for consideration through the Budget Review process as they arise.

Financial Implications

The 30 September 2017 Quarter Budget Review of the 2017/2018 Budget has decreased the overall budget result by $161,900. As a result there is a reduction of $161,900 to the estimated unrestricted cash balance attributable to the General Fund, with this becoming an estimated $940,600 at 30 June 2018. This is below the adopted target of Council of $1,000,000. It is recommended that Council will need to recover the 2017/2018 budget result to at least a balanced outcome over the remainder of the 2017/2018 financial year and be conscious of this when considering matters with financial implications.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

In accordance with Regulation 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 the Responsible Accounting Officer of a Council must:-

(1) Not later than 2 months after the end of each quarter (except the June quarter), the responsible accounting officer of a council must prepare and submit to the council a budget review statement that shows, by reference to the estimate of income and expenditure set out in the statement of the council’s revenue policy included in the operational plan for the relevant year, a revised estimate of the income and expenditure for that year.

(2) A budget review statement must include or be accompanied by:

(a) a report as to whether or not the responsible accounting officer believes that the statement indicates that the financial position of the council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure, and

(b) if that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action.

(3) A budget review statement must also include any information required by the Code to be included in such a statement.

Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer

This report indicates that the short term financial position of the Council is still satisfactory for the 2017/2018 financial year, having consideration of the original estimate of income and expenditure at the 30 September 2017 Quarter Budget Review.

This opinion is based on the estimated General Fund Unrestricted Cash Result position and that the current indicative budget position for 2017/2018 outlined in this Budget Review is recovered during the remainder of the 2017/2018 financial year. It is most important this occurs and the current projected budget deficit of $204,600 does not deteriorate further.

There needs to be an awareness that any modifications proposed for Council’s budget are not approved without consideration of funding if additional expenditure is proposed through either reallocation of existing budgets, additional revenue or available reserves.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.7

Report No. 13.7 Council Investments October 2017

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2017/1565

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

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

Report

In relation to the investment portfolio for the month of October 2017, Council has continued to maintain a diversified portfolio of investments. At 31 October 2017, the average 90 day bank bill rate (BBSW) for the month was 1.70%. Council’s performance to 31 October 2017 is 2.45%. 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 October 2017:

Schedule of Investments held as at 31 October 2017

Purch Date	Principal ($)	Description	CP*	Rating	Maturity Date	No Fossil Fuel 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
09/10/17	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	09/01/18	N	TD	2.51%	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
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
18/09/17	2,000,000	AMP Bank	P	A	18/12/17	N	TD	2.40%	2,000,000.00
08/09/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	08/12/17	N	TD	2.52%	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
27/09/17	1,000,000	Bank of Queensland	N	BBB+	27/03/18	Y	TD	2.50%	1,000,000.00
04/10/17	2,000,000	Beyond Bank	P	BBB	21/12/17	Y	TD	2.40%	2,000,000.00
13/10/17	1,000,000	Auswide Bank Ltd	N	BBB-	15/01/18	Y	TD	2.50%	1,000,000.00
05/10/17	1,000,000	Police Credit Union	N	NR	05/04/18	U	TD	2.56%	1,000,000.00
15/08/17	1,000,000	Bank of Queensland	N	BBB+	12/01/18	Y	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
06/09/17	1,000,000	Bananacoast Credit Union	N	NR	07/03/18	Y	TD	2.60%	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
30/10/17	2,000,000	Beyond Bank	N	BBB	07/02/18	Y	TD	2.42%	2,000,000.00
04/10/17	2,000,000	Police Credit Union	N	NR	04/04/18	U	TD	2.70%	2,000,000.00
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
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
05/07/17	1,500,000	Hunter United Employees Credit Union	P	NR	06/11/17	U	TD	2.85%	1,500,000.00
17/10/17	1,000,000	Police Credit Union	N	NR	17/04/18	U	TD	2.55%	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
30/10/17	2,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	30/01/18	Y	TD	2.42%	2,000,000.00
03/08/17	1,000,000	Maitland Mutual Building Society	P	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
01/09/17	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	02/01/18	N	TD	2.52%	1,000,000.00
05/09/17	1,000,000	Bananacoast Credit Union	N	NR	06/03/18	Y	TD	2.60%	1,000,000.00
15/09/17	1,000,000	Auswide Bank Ltd	N	BBB-	15/12/17	Y	TD	2.40%	1,000,000.00
15/09/17	1,000,000	Peoples Choice Credit Union	P	NR	15/03/18	Y	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
28/09/17	2,000,000	Rural Bank	P	BBB+	29/01/18	Y	TD	2.50%	2,000,000.00
28/09/17	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	29/12/17	N	TD	2.51%	1,000,000.00
04/10/17	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	05/03/18	N	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
04/10/17	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	04/01/18	N	TD	2.50%	1,000,000.00
04/10/17	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	05/02/18	N	TD	2.52%	1,000,000.00
11/10/17	1,000,000	Auswide Bank Ltd	N	BBB-	11/01/18	Y	TD	2.50%	1,000,000.00
20/10/17	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	20/01/18	N	TD	2.48%	1,000,000.00
23/10/17	1,000,000	Bank of Queensland	N	BBB+	23/04/18	Y	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
26/10/17	1,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	24/01/18	Y	TD	2.42%	1,000,000.00
N/A	1,567,714	CBA Business Online Saver	N	A	N/A	N	CALL	1.40%	1,567,714.21
Total	76,717,714						AVG	2.45%	76,732,457.27

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.	No Fossil Fuel 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 a ‘No Fossil Fuel’ investing 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 in respect of fossil fuels only.

The notion of Environmental and Socially Responsible Investing is much broader than whether a financial institution as rated by ‘marketforces.org.au’ invests in fossil fuels or not. Council current Investment Policy defines Environmental and Socially Responsible Investing at Section 4.1 of the Policy. Council’s Investment Policy can be found at the following link:

http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/files/publications/council_investments_policy_2017.pdf

In this regard Council has an additional two investments that are with financial instituions that invest in fossil fuels but the purposes of the investments are in accord with the broader definition of Environmentall and Socially Responsible investments as indicated below:

1. $1,000,000 investment with the National Australia Bank maturing on 24 March 2022 known as a Social Bond that promotes Gender Equity.

2. $1,000,000 investment with Commonwealth Bank maturing on 31 March 2022 known as a Climate Bond.

For the month of October 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 October 2017

Principal Value ($)	Investment Linked to:-	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
72,500,000.00	Term Deposits	72,500,000.00	0.00
1,650,000.00	Floating Rate Note	1,653,642.89	3,642.89
1,567,714.21	Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	1,567,714.21	0.00
1,000,000.00	Bonds	1,011,100.17	11,100.17
76,717,714.21		76,732,457.27	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 October 2017 on a current market value basis.

Movement in Investment Portfolio – 1 to 31 October 2017

Item	Current Market Value (at end of month) $
Opening Balance at 30 September 2017	76,230,039.91
Add: New Investments Purchased	19,000,000.00
Add: Call Account Additions	0.00
Add: Interest from Call Account	2,417.36
Less: Investments Matured	18,000,000.00
Less: Call Account Redemption	500,000.00
Less: Fair Value Movement for period	0.00
Closing Balance at 31 October 2017	76,732,457.27

Investments Maturities and Returns – 1 to 31 October 2017

Principal Value ($)	Description	Type	Maturity Date	Number of Days Invested	Interest Rate Per Annum	Interest Paid on Maturity $
2,000,000.00	Beyond Bank	TD	03/10/17	124	2.65%	18,005.48
2,000,000.00	Beyond Bank	TD	04/10/17	92	2.65%	13,358.90
2,000,000.00	Police Credit Union	TD	04/10/17	184	2.80%	28,230.14
1,000,000.00	Police Credit Union	TD	05/10/17	92	2.60%	6,553.42
1,000,000.00	NAB	TD	09/10/17	98	2.44%	6,551.23
1,000,000.00	Hunter United Credit Union	TD	10/10/17	92	2.65%	6,679.45
1,000,000.00	Auswide Bank	TD	13/10/17	122	2.60%	8,690.41
1,000,000.00	Bananacoast Credit Union	TD	13/10/17	122	2.60%	8,690.41
1,000,000.00	Police Credit Union	TD	17/10/17	104	2.60%	7,408.22
2,000,000.00	ME Bank	TD	23/10/17	108	2.55%	15,090.41
2,000,000.00	Beyond Bank	TD	30/10/17	103	2.65%	14,956.16
2,000,000.00	ME Bank	TD	30/10/17	94	2.45%	12,619.18
18,000,000.00						146,833.41

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

Dissection of Council Cash Position as at 31 October 2017

Item	Principal Value ($)	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
Investments Portfolio
Term Deposits	72,500,000.00	72,500,000.00	0.00
Floating Rate Note	1,650,000.00	1,653,642.89	3,642.89
Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	1,567,714.21	1,567,714.21	0.00
Bonds	1,000,000.00	1,011,100.17	11,100.17
Total Investment Portfolio	76,717,714.21	76,732,457.27	14,743.06

Cash at Bank
Consolidated Fund	1,409,410.27	1,409,410.27	0.00
Total Cash at Bank	1,409,410.27	1,409,410.27	0.00

Total Cash Position	78,127,124.48	78,141,867.54	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 13.10

Report No. 13.10 Sunshine Cycles occupation of a site at First Sun Caravan Park (Lot 5 DP 827049)

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Ralph James, Legal Counsel

File No: I2017/1684

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary

On 2 November 2017 Council resolved that a report be brought to the next meeting of Council on the trial incubation project at First Sun Caravan Park.

On 16 December 2016 Council granted a licence to Luke Young trading as Sunshine Cycles Pty Ltd to occupy land at Lot 5 DP 827049 being a site within the visitor area of the First Sun Caravan Park.

The licence term commenced on 16 December 2016 and expired six months thereafter. The term of the license has been extended, by Council resolution, to a non-defined date.

As at the date of Council’s meeting Sunshine Cycles will have been in occupation of a site at the First Sun Caravan Park for 11 months and 1 week (16 December 2016 to 23 November 2017).

The recommendation made to Council would see the term of Sunshine Cycles occupation being 1 year and 1 week (16 December 2016 to 23 December 2017).

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That this report be noted.

2. That pursuant to clause 4.3 of the Licence for occupation of Council land between Byron Shire Council and Luke Young, Council terminate the license effective as at 23 December 2017.

3. That notice of termination be provided to Luke Young forthwith.

Report

On 2 November 2017 Council resolved as follows:

1. “That Council support the progression of a Byron Innovation Incubation Program including the models and list of potential sites identified in the report for further investigation.

2. That part of this work include:

i. scope the ‘types’ of businesses that would fit this model and research their needs

ii. Develop the financial business case for the models.

iii. Develop project plan and budget to deliver the BIIP.

3. That staff present a further report to Council on point 2 above in early 2018.

4. That upon the establishment of the Strategic Business Panel, this program be listed for their consideration, advice and input.

5. That a report be brought to the next meeting of Council on the trial incubation project at First Sun Caravan Park.”

This report addresses part 5 of Council’s resolution.

The Licence

On 16 December 2016, Council granted a licence to Luke Young trading as Sunshine Cycles Pty Ltd to occupy land at Lot 5 DP 827049 being a site within the visitor area of the First Sun Caravan Park. The site is depicted the site is depicted in the following map.

The licence term commenced on 16 December 2016 and expired six months thereafter. As is outlined in the body of this report the term of the license has been extended to a non-defined date.

The licence provides that occupation of the licensed area continues after the expiry of the term on a month-to-month basis which either party may terminate on one months notice at any time.

The licence provides that the licensee acknowledges that the licence does not contain any option for the licensee to extend the licence beyond the term.

The licences granted in consideration of the licensee paying $1 per month on demand.

To date Council has not made demand for payment and consequently no payments have been made.

Occupation of the First Sun Caravan Park site

As at the date of Council’s meeting Sunshine Cycles will have been in occupation of a site at the First Sun Caravan Park for 11 months and 1 week (16 December 2016 to 23 November 2017).

The recommendation made to Council would see the term of Sunshine Cycles occupation being 1 year and 1 week (16 December 2016 to 23 December 2017)

History

Sunshine Cycles, in all its dealings with Council, is represented by its founder, Luke Young. Throughout this document, where the context permits, a reference to Sunshine Cycles is a reference to a communication to or from Mr Young.

Sunshine Cycles made an application to the 2016 Byron Bay Town Centre Placemaking Seed Fund.

That program was said to be a launchpad initiative to quickly progress key strategies of the Masterplan relating to revitalisation, beautification and activation that will result in a higher level of connectedness for locals, opportunities for home grown enterprise and inspiring visitor product.

It was said to allow council and the community to activate the town centre and create a more vibrant public realm and will encourage innovation and entrepreneurial partnerships by allowing quick implementation and small scale activation, to test concepts for larger scale implementation.

The objectives of the program, inter-alia, were to:

- inspire the use of underutilised and inactive spaces, such as laneways, shared zones, streets, parks and reserves.

- Beautify the town centre, which could include public art installations, laneway beautification, pavement treatments, plantings, street furniture etc.

Sunshine Cycles was one of 28 applicants for funding. The application was unsuccessful. Sunshine Cycles was advised of this on 16 June 2016.

Sunshine Cycles made contact with Council’s Economic Development team.

Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2016 11:47 AM

“It was good to touch base about our Sunshine Cycles solar powered electric business model for the Byron shire.

We have been busy acquiring components and developing the idea and almost have our first prototype ready to go. We are developing a fully automated, solar powered, locally manufactured, electric bike share system that works from off grid, free energy, fully automated via smart app pods.

We really want to show you what’s possible and to introduce the concept so you get to experience what we are all trying to achieve. We will have the bikes and container ready for the first pod in October. With the solar system to follow shortly. We hope to launch, self funded, the first pod over summer to see how the system goes and develop the automation and functionality to cater for users expectations. Following this we will launch the next pod at another location out of town such as the Cavanbah Centre in the new year. The third phase will be the fully automated app that lets members access bikes as they need when they want. This will co-incide with the third pod. Probably down towards suffolk park within the first 2 years.

I have been working with the BZE Transport group looking into zero emission transport options for other forms too however I believe if this is successful it will be a great asset for the Shire. We will be continually developing to bring a new user friendly transport system to our great community.

Our first priority is to obtain the necessary permits to operate in town centre. We would be seeking a trial temporary pop-up shop permit to test the system over summer and see whats needed to develop it further. I will be on hand to operate this from 8-6 daily. We will have a full callout availability for any bike issues and be complying with all relevant codes and practices for electric bike rental.

The requirements for the first pods location to give us the best shot of succeeding would be somewhere right in town where there is a lot of thoroughfare and accessibility to the public. Somewhere with high visibility, security and direct northern exposure for maximum sunshine for the solar system. The Pods look great and serve as a visual creative site with artwork on each one.

The best options we feel would be;

1. east of the surf club in the park next to carpark.

2. in the carpark (taking 2 carparks) around the pool area, either Northside or Southside with visibility from the top of Johnson Street

3. near the visitor centre carpark either north or south side with maximum sun exposure

4. near the round about on the train reserve opposite the police station

These sites would give us maximum exposure to showcase what we are doing and gain public interest and support. The sites give great sun coverage, secure parking and street accessibility for potential customers.

If non of these sites are suitable we could look at potentially another site however it must have the exposure we need to make the trial feasible. The pods are fully relocatable so we could trial different locations as we develop.

I have included some maps showing the locations we request. The red and yellow squares show possible locations we feel would work well for the initial trial. We would be happy to discuss the pro’s and con’s with council and come to an agreement with the best initial trial location.

It would be great to come and do a presentation of our business model and discuss council requirements to proceed.”

Staff considered the concept and acted on Sunshine Cycles’s overture in to make a presentation to Council. It should be noted that the meeting was set up to allow Luke Young to present his model – which was proposed as a trial.

Sent: Tuesday, 20 September 2016 6:34 PM

Subject: FW: Sunshine Cycles - Proposal for pod locations

“As you know Council has been perusing a bike hire solution in Byron Bay for some time. Originally we were looking at running something similar to Brisbane and Melbourne however upon some research found that these initiatives have been heavily underwritten by the Councils in those areas and probably not a viable option for us.

Luke Young from Sunshine Cycles approached us through the Placemaking Seed Fund program process with a very innovative bike program solution and one that I believe will encourage a shift to bike use and provide a positive impact on the town centre.

I would like to propose that we invite Luke in to present his project to us and for us to look at how we could support the venture with no cost or low cost lease space for the first 12-18 months during the start up and trial phases.

I suggest this as given own desire to bring this type of product to the Shire and our own research discovery making us more aware of the business case challenges that it could be a win win to support Luke’s venture.

This project would also work well in terms of its integration with the Stone & Wood bike racks project.

Please let me know if you are open to a presentation from Luke in the first instance and I will arrange this for mid October.”

Off the back of this email a meeting was held on 17 October 2016 with the following staff members.

· General Manager

· Director Infrastructure Services

· Manager and Open Spaces

· Economic Development Coordinator

· Tourism officer

· Luke Young and his wife

Sunshine Cycles made a power point presentation and ran through its business model. It also brought in a bike to demonstrate.

One of the outcomes of the meeting was that consideration was to be given to leasing spaces to Sunshine Cycles on a trial basis. Councils Infrastructure Services directorate was tasked with this looking at what open spaces were available and suitable.

Thereafter various emails were exchanged between Sunshine Cycles and Council staff.

By 5 December 2016 discussions had reached the point that appropriate sites had been identified and narrowed to 3 in number and consideration was being given to drawing an agreement between Council and Sunshine Cycles in respect of the trial.

It emerged that the preferred site was one within First Sun visitor car park.

On 16 December 2016 Council issued Luke Young trading as Sunshine Cycles Pty Ltd a licence to occupy the site with was more particularly described as Lot 5 DP 827049. The period of the agreement was six months.

The licence stipulated that its context was:

“to allow Young to occupy certain Council land for the purpose of providing public transport (bicycles) to the Byron Shire community on a trial basis (emphasis added).”

The consideration payable was $1 per month on demand.

Vacation of the site

As the end of the trial period approached Sunshine Cycles made an unsolicited approach to Council staff (1 June 2017). That approach included the words

“we would love to maintain our position as we gear back up for the tourist season at the end of the year. We would like to have the opportunity to discuss options as we would not be able to afford a lease until things pick up again. At this time we would be happy to negotiate our continued residence at this location as well as another location out of town for Park and ride availability.”

The staff attitude to this request was that Sunshine Cycles would be advised that Council is unable to extend the trial further and that he should provide the information it had gathered from the trial so that it could be compiled for reporting purposes.

On 9 June 2017 Sunshine Cycles was advised in the following terms:

“Executive Management have advised that Byron Shire Council is unable to extend the trial beyond the agreed period as direct negotiations cannot be justified in this case in relation to guidelines around competitive processes.”

In response, on 12 June 2017, Sunshine Cycles requested an extension of his occupancy of the site until after the Splendour in the Grass Festival being 21 July–23 July 2017.

On 16 Jun 2017, at 9:17 am, the Mayor wrote to all Councillors and to nominated senior staff:

‘Hi all. I’ve been thinking about the space we have provided for the electric bike guys in the front of First Sun Holiday Park. We absolutely need to be fair and transparent when supporting new businesses for locals and also need to have in place strict criteria for selecting businesses that we wish to support, including not adversely affecting other local businesses.

I think we have stumbled onto something pretty cool. It is in a great location that could highlight a new local business and give them a great kick start whilst providing 'reputational' benefit for us.

Is there any appetite for the following model:

1. Providing this space for business support for young locals?

2. Providing 12 month peppercorn leases for start ups, with no capacity to extend or double up or repeat.

3. The business required to front up all establishment and infrastructure costs that need to be update all year

4. We advertise each year and Sasha Graham and the Economic Development Officer select each years business. “

On 16 June 2017 Sunshine Cycles was advised that

“Executive Management have advised that Council is unable to extend the trial period beyond the license period which expires today, and operations are not to continue beyond today also.

Please remove the pod as soon as possible and please advise us of the removal date and time so that we can advise management of First Holiday Park.”

The same day Sunshine Cycles responded to staff. It requested information as to Council exercising an option to enable it to remain on the site.

The following is a notation made by staff on 21 June 2017 in respect of contact with Sunshine Cycles on 19 June 2017:

“I followed up this response (the response of 16 June 2017 set out above) with a phone call on Monday, 19 June 2017 and was advised that Mr Young would like to elevate his request to extend his tenure and had made application for Public Access at tomorrow’s Council meeting”.

At 10:56am on 19 June 2017 the Mayor forwarded the following email to all Councillors and nominated senior staff:

Sent: Monday, 19 June 2017 10:35 PM

“Hi all. I will be moving an urgency on this matter. I will move that we develop and create a program for business support.

I consider it important that we create the transparent and clear process as described already ….and establish spaces both on this site, and on other identified sites-we could investigate opportunities in railway square, the rail corridor, sandhills area, and other areas etc.

I believe we could also do more and actually help businesses, with incubation support whilst they are there and all of this could be developed by (staff).

This will cost council next to nothing but it will be a terrific leg up to those who secure each years support.

I also believe, that if we agree with this, providing the current site users the site until we are ready to replace them with the next business would be appropriate. i’m not sure moving someone on and having an empty space for a few months when we know we will refill it would be a waste. I don’t believe 12 months is an overly long time to support incubating a business.”

On 22 June 2017 Luke Young made a Public Access submission to Council.

On 22 June 2017 the Mayor moved a Matter of Urgency - Innovative Business Incubation

Program which resulted in the following being resolved:

1. “That council prepare a report to outline the establishment of an Innovative Business Incubation Program.

2. That this report consider the following:

i. Providing set term leases for start ups, with no capacity to extend or double up or repeat

ii. The business required to front up all establishment and infrastructure costs that need to be relocatable, or possibly Council purchasing a temporary space charge a low rate to pay back purchase costs

iii. The advertising for expressions of interest on a cyclical basis for projects and businesses to utilise council spaces to develop their innovative businesses

iv. Creation of a criteria to adjudicate on applications, possibly including sustainability, innovation, potential for scalability or employment growth

v. Identification of possible sites for incubation spaces

vi. Possible mentoring and incubation support

vii. Liaisons and relationships with permanent businesses

viii. Levels of subsidisation

3. That the current business utilising the Council space at First Sun Holiday park continue its operation until the program commences and the next recipient of support takes its place and that the General Manager receives delegated authority to negotiate a temporary lease. (emphasis added)

4. That the report authors consult mentoring and business incubation groups and chambers to assist the formulation of the program. (Richardson/Ndiaye)”

Part 3 of the motion sought to continue the operation of Luke Young and Sunshine Cycles on the site for an undetermined period.

Sunshine Cycles continues to be in occupation of the site.

Legal nature of current occupation

The provisions of the existing licence which are applicable to the continued occupation (in the absence of a lease) are:

3. Grant of Licence

3.1 In consideration of $1 per month payable by the Licensee on demand, Council grants and the Licensee accepts a licence of the Licensed Area for the Permitted Use for the Term, subject to any rights of early termination contained in this Licence.

3.2 This Licence confers no right of exclusive possession of the Licensed Area to the Licensee and Council may at any time exercise any of its rights as owner or controller of the Licensed Area.

3.3 The rights conferred by this Licence shall rest in contract only and shall not create or confer upon the Licensee any tenancy, estate or interest in or over the Licensed Area.

3.4 The Licensee is not permitted to use for the purpose of the Licence any part of the Land other than the Licensed Area.

4 Term and holding over

4.1 The Licence Term:

a) Commences on the date both parties have executed the Licence (Agreement Date); and

b) Expires six months from the Agreement Date.

4.2 Council does not need to provide any notice to the Licensee that the Licence will expire at the end of the Term.

4.3 If, with Council’s consent, the Licensee continues to occupy the Licensed Area after the Term, the Licensee will occupy the Licensed Area on a month-to-month basis which:

a) Either party may terminate on one month’s notice at any time; and

b) Is on the same terms as this Licence.

4.4 The Licensee acknowledges that the Licence does not contain any option for the Licensee to extend the Licence beyond the Term.

Financial Implications

A certified practicing valuer was engaged on 4 September 2017 to prepare a commercial market valuation for the use of the site. The agreed timeframe for completion of the valuation was 4 October 2017. Subsequent to numerous follow up enquiries by staff, the valuer advised on 3^rd November that the report will be completed by 8 November 2017.

The intention of the valuation is to ascertain an appropriate amount for the site. Mr Young was informed by email on 29 June 20/17, that when a value is determined it is intended to back date payments to 17 June 2017.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

An Unsolicited Proposal is an approach to Council from a Proponent with a proposal to deal directly with Council over a commercial proposition, where Council has not requested the proposal. For present purposes the approach of Sunshine Cycles is an unsolicited proposal.

There is no doubt that unsolicited proposals may be pursued in justifying circumstances. Generally, unsolicited proposals and direct negotiations with an individual or organisation would be considered where the proposal has unique attributes such that others could not deliver with the same value for money outcome.

Relevant to the present circumstances is the Guideline produced by the NSW Government which provides that a proposal is not unique and/or would be unlikely to be progressed where:

· The proponent has an existing license to provide goods or services and seeks to bypass a future tender process.

· The proposal embodies a significant extension to an existing arrangement (or the next stage of a staged project) on the basis that the proponent is already “on-site” or has some other claimed advantages, absent of other “uniqueness” criteria.

The Guideline in respect of unsolicited proposals refers to a method of assessment.

The guideline identifies an assessment of value for money as a criterion. In assessing value for money relevant questions are:

Does the proposal deliver value for money to Council?

A proposal is value for money if it achieves the required project outcomes and objectives in an efficient, high quality, innovative and cost effective way with appropriate regard to the allocation, management and mitigation of risks.

While Value for Money will be tested appropriately in the context of each specific proposal, factors that will be given consideration are likely to include:

· Quality of all aspects of the proposal, including: achievable timetable, clearly stated proposal objectives and outcomes, design, community impacts, detailed proposal documentation and appropriate commercial and/or contractual agreements (including any key performance targets), and a clearly set out process for obtaining any planning or other required approvals.

· Innovation in service delivery, infrastructure design, construction methodologies, and maintenance.

It is more than a reasonable interpretation of the circumstances of the licence granted to Sunshine Cycles, that a trial period was appropriate to enable Council to assess its value for money in the above context.

It is clear that the intention of Council in implementing the trial was to enable Council to assess the project’s ability to contribute to the activation of the Byron town centre and the creation of a more vibrant public realm. The project was seen as being innovative and entrepreneurial. It was a small scale activation. Council wished to assess its potential.

It was intended that the period of occupation would be no more than the six months trial.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.13

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report No. 13.13 PLANNING - State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Variations to development standards - 1 July to 30 September

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Chris Larkin, Manager Sustainable Development

Noreen Scott, EA Sustainable Environment and Economy

File No: I2017/969

Theme: Ecology

Development and Approvals

Summary:

This report has been provided as a requirement of the NSW Department of Planning Circular PS-08-014, as amended by agreement to enable the quarterly reporting of all development applications, where SEPP 1 variations have been granted under delegated authority. SEPP 1 only applies to development applications submitted under Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988. The report also provides an update where a variation has been granted under Clause 4.6 of Byron LEP 2014.

The report is for information and noting purposes.

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 note the report.

Report

In accordance with the NSW Department of Planning Circular PS-08-014, all development applications where SEPP 1 variations have been granted under delegated authority are to be reported to Council for information. The report also includes development applications where a variation has also been granted to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Byron LEP 2014.

The period of reporting is for the 1 July 2017 to 30 September 2017. The following DA’s are outlined below:

DA No.	10.2017.79.1
Development	Consolidation of Two (2) Existing Flats into One (1) Dwelling and Construction of a New Dwelling to Create a Dual Occupancy (Attached) Demolition of Detached Garage, Tree Removal and Strata Subdivision
Property:	2 Bower Street BRUNSWICK HEADS
Lot and DP:	LOT: 12 SEC: 27 DP: 758171
Zoning:	R2 Low Density Residential
Development Standard being varied:	Clause 4.6 variation to clause 4.1E of Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 – 800m² minimum lot size for dual occupancies (attached) in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone.
Justification	· The allotment already contained an attached dual occupancy dating to the 1970’s; · Allowing a variation enables rejuvenation of out dated housing stock in the area; · The site attributes are conducive to a dual occupancy (attached).
Extent of variation	40.4m² (5%)
Concurrence	Delegated to Council
Determined Date	11 July 2017

DA No.	10.2016.425
Development	Subdivision to Create Three (3) Lots and Change of Use of Existing Dwelling House and Rural Workers Dwelling to Dual Occupancy (Detached)
Property:	149 Federal Drive EUREKA NSW 2480
Lot and DP:	LOT: 22 DP: 1014053
Zoning:	RU1 Primary Production/RU2 Rural Landscape/PART DM Deferred
Development Standard being varied:	Clause 4.6 Variation subclause 4.2D(2) of Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 -
Justification	The proposed location of the dual occupancy (detached) dwelling at the entrance to the subject site had greater merit than trying to demolish and relocate one of the dwellings 36m closer to the other to be within 100m of the existing dwelling onsite. Reasons for this: · Located in a previously cleared area – thereby minimising the disturbance on the site; · Each of the structures exists onsite already; · The dual occupancy dwellings accessed via a single driveway which minimises any upgrades required for the existing access driveway through the site and/or loss of mature macadamia trees as a result of any access upgrades.
Extent of variation	The extent of the variation to the 100m development standard is therefore 36%.
Concurrence	Delegated to Council
Determined Date	28 September 2017

DA No.	10.2017.245.1
Development	New Dwelling to Create Dual Occupancy (Detached), New Garage and Swimming Pool
Property:	1026 Friday Hut Road BINNA BURRA NSW 2479
Lot and DP:	LOT: 9 DP: 610194
Zoning:	RU2 Rural Landscape
Development Standard being varied:	Clause 4.6 variation to clause 4.2D of Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 – requirement for dual occupancies and secondary dwellings in the RU1 and RU2 zone to utilise a shared vehicular access and be no more than 100m apart.
Justification	· The allotment is bisected by a gully and already contains two vehicular access points. Creating a shared vehicular access would involve substantial earthworks and engineering, potentially resulting in adverse environmental and/or visual impacts. · Strict compliance with the 100m separation standard is impractical due to the presence of a gully and other topographical constraints. A condition was imposed requiring a 110m separation between the two dwellings.
Extent of variation	· Two vehicular access points instead of one (utilise existing access points). · 110m separation (10%).
Concurrence	Delegated to Council
Determined Date	20 September 2017

DA No.	10.2016.818.1
Development	Use of a Building as a Dwelling to Create Dual Occupancy (Detached), Demolition of Movie Room and use of a Building as an Art Studio
Property:	150 Tandys Lane BRUNSWICK HEADS NSW 2483
Lot and DP:	LOT: 5 DP: 863320
Zoning:	RU1 Primary Production / PART RU2 Rural Landscape / PART DM Deferred Matter
Development Standard being varied:	Clause 4.6 variation to clause 4.2D of Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 – requirement for dual occupancies and secondary dwellings in the RU1 and RU2 zone to utilise a shared vehicular access.
Justification	· The allotment is bisected by Andersons Lane. The existing buildings have frontages to different roads, making strict compliance impractical in the circumstances.
Extent of variation	· Two vehicular access points instead of one.
Concurrence	Delegated to Council.
Determined Date	9 August 2017

DA No.	10.2017.200.1
Development	Dwelling-house and swimming pool and demolition of existing buildings (two SEPP 1 variations)
Property:	119 Possum Shoot Road COORABELL NSW 2482
Lot and DP:	LOT: B DP: 386324
Zoning:	7(d) (Scenic/Escarpment Zone) DM Deferred Matter
Development Standard being varied:	Clause 27 - Building lines along arterial roads & Clause 31 - Development on ridgetops – Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988
Justification	Clause 27 · The proposed dwelling-house appropriately ensures the retention and enhancement of rural character and amenity along this road corridor by ensuring appropriate setbacks and not significantly impacting on the rural character, amenity and scenic qualities from the road perspective. · The proposed dwelling-house will not be visible from Coolamon Scenic Drive due to the existing landscaped earth berm, the vertical separation of the dwelling from Coolamon Scenic Drive, and the proposed setback. · The proposed setback would not be out of character when compared with the variety of other setbacks along the nearby stretch of Coolamon Scenic Drive. · It is unlikely that this road would be subject to road widening in the near future that would be adversely affected by the proposed setback. · The development application includes landscaping to visually soften the proposed development. · Compliance with the standard would push the development, including the bush fire mitigation inner protection area, further down the slope into the site towards vegetated areas leading to likely vegetation removal. Clause 31 · The proposed dwelling-house is set down below the crest of the ridgeline. · The proposed dwelling-house will not be overtly visible in the broader lower areas below this part of the ridgeline, being only of low-key visibility to a confined part of Myocum. · The proposed dwelling-house does not have an excessive scale in the overall context of the range associated with the ridgeline. · The visibility of the dwelling-house will be softened landscaping and sympathetic colours and building materials · No significant tree or vegetation removal is proposed.
Extent of variation	· Clause 27 is 69% and Clause 31 100%
Concurrence	Delegated to Council
Determined Date	9 August 2017

DA No.	10.2017.236.1
Development	Strata Subdivision of an existing tourist facility (10 motel units and 4 serviced apartments) to create fourteen (14) Strata Lots and Common Property
Property:	18-20 Bay Street BYRON BAY NSW 2481
Lot and DP:	LOT: 1 DP: 1076677
Zoning:	B2 Local Centre
Development Standard being varied:	Clause 4.1 2014 Byron Local Environmental Plan
Justification	· The proposal produces a better planning outcome than one that strictly complies with the development standard because requiring strict compliance would result in lot sizes that are not in keeping with the approved and long established built form. The circumstances of the case warranted a more flexible approach to application of the lot size development standard.
Extent of variation	· the extent of the variation ranges from 18% to 44.5%
Concurrence	Delegated to Council
Determined Date	8 September 2017

Financial Implications

Not applicable.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The report is provided as a requirement of NSW Department of Planning circular PS-08-014. This circular can be viewed at http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/planning-system-circulars.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.14

Report No. 13.14 PLANNING - Event Sites/ Function Centres in Rural Zones

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Rob Van Iersel, Major Projects Planner

File No: I2017/1485

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

The recent public consultation undertaken for the draft Rural Land Use Strategy highlighted a number of issues that were considered by the community to be a priority for action. The appropriateness of wedding sites in the rural area was one of these priority issues.

In recent years Council has received complaints regarding a number of unauthorised wedding venues in the rural parts of the Shire, resulting in a variety of compliance actions. A number of development applications have also been dealt with, the majority of which have been withdrawn or refused.

Under the current provisions of Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014, wedding venues, which are defined as functions centres for the purpose of the LEP, are prohibited in both the RU1 Primary Production Zone and the RU2 Rural landscape Zone.

Previous development applications have therefore been lodged under Clause 2.8 of the LEP, which allows consideration of any use on land on a temporary basis, even if that use is otherwise prohibited, subject to a range of merit considerations, including the potential for adverse amenity impacts.

A recent Land & Environment Court judgement in relation to a wedding venue approval in Hawkesbury Shire has highlighted the absolute nature of the controls included in Clause 2.8 (which is a Standard Template LEP provision).

Council cannot approve a temporary use under that clause unless it is satisfied that (amongst other things) there will not be any adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbourhood [emphasis added].

The key finding of the judgement was that this is absolute, i.e. Council cannot turn its mind to whether a potential adverse impact might be acceptable in the circumstances; if an adverse impact is identified, Council is prevented from granting approval.

The wedding industry in Byron Shire is very large; estimated to generate a total expenditure of $54M per annum; total wages of $21.6M per annum and support 392 direct full-time and 314 indirect employees.

Weddings are the main type of rural functions, but demand also exists in the rural area for other small commercial events, which would also fall within the function centre definition.

Consultation with industry representatives, and with rural residents previously impacted by unauthorised events, suggests that, on appropriate sites, the adverse impacts of rural events can be managed, through an approval process that combines a range of site location and event management criteria.

A draft LEP provision is recommended that would allow Council to support rural events in appropriate locations, where there is clear separation between the event site and nearby dwellings, and with strict operational and management controls that would ensure that individual events would be managed to minimise noise and traffic.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council prepare a draft Planning Proposal to amend Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 to insert a clause permitting function centres with consent in zones RU1 and RU2, subject to a range of controls which will manage impacts on existing residents.

Attachments:

1 Attachment 1 Discussion Paper - Event Sites in Rural Area, E2017/104995 ⇨

Report

Overview

The draft Rural Land Use Strategy (RLUS) has been prepared as part of a staged process that commenced in early 2015. The draft RLUS will guide the future zoning and use, protection and/or development of our rural lands over the next 20 years.

At the Ordinary Meeting of 20 April 2017 Meeting Council resolved (Resolution 17-126) to:

1. Exhibit for further community feedback and discussion the draft Rural Land Use Strategy, supporting 'Policy Directions Paper', 'Site Suitability Criteria and Mapping Methodology' and the draft 'Rural Land Use Strategy Implementation Plan' for 28 days.

2. As part of the exhibition process encourage guidance from the community on priorities for the 'Rural, Land Use Strategy Implementation Plan'.

3. That Council commence actioning priorities confirmed following the exhibition process prior to the winter recess.

4. That a public communication and engagement strategy be created in consultation with the Communications Panel to guide the exhibition process.

The exhibition of the draft RLUS was undertaken and reported to the October meeting of Council. That report noted that the community has identified rural wedding venues as one of the key policy issues for Council.

The community response is a result of the increase in functions held in the rural parts of the Shire over recent years, primarily involving weddings.

The wedding industry has grown steadily within Byron Shire, and rural venues continue to be in high demand.

An Economic Assessment Report, prepared by RPS Australia East Pty Ltd, for a recent applicant, provided a summary of the industry:

§ Typical cost of a wedding: $36,000-$39,000

§ Peak seasons: spring and autumn

§ Approx. 30 to 35 venues available for weddings in the Shire (include restaurants and halls)

§ Estimated that between 600 and 700 weddings in the Shire annually

§ Up to 20 weddings per weekend in peak season

§ Estimated that typical wedding guest spends $200 per day

§ Direct annual local expenditure attributed to destination weddings in the Shire: estimated to be $25.4 million

§ Expenditure by guests while staying in Shire: estimated to be $28.6 million

§ Total estimated expenditure: $54 million (13% of all tourist expenditure)

§ Total (direct) wages estimated to be $21.6 million

§ Estimated to support 392 direct EFT (equivalent full time) employees & 314 indirect EFT employees (6.5% of Shire workforce)

Rural Wedding Venues:

In recent years, Council has received a substantial number of complaints regarding a variety of unauthorised wedding venues in the rural parts of the Shire, resulting in a variety of compliance actions. A number of development applications have also been lodged and assessed, the majority of which have been withdrawn or refused. Compliance action has also been undertaken in a number of cases, resulting in fines and orders under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

An analysis of known rural venues indicates that there is significant variety in both location and in the distance to adjoining and nearby dwellings. Correlating separation distance with complaints received does not show any discernible pattern.

There are sites, for example, where there is a reasonably large separation distance (closest neighbour approx. 225m away), that have been subject to numerous complaints from neighbours. Conversely, there are venues where there are reasonably close neighbours (approx. 125m away), where Council has no record of complaints.

Sites with no history of complaints have an average of approx. 250m to the nearest neighbouring dwelling (minimum: 115m; maximum: 350m) whereas sites where there is some history of complaints have an average of approx. 160m (minimum: 55m; maximum: 330m).

This assessment indicates that, while separation from neighbours can be an important aspect, protection of neighbourhood amenity requires additional controls, relating primarily to the management of weddings and events.

Existing Planning Provisions:

Wedding venues are defined as functions centres under Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014, and are prohibited in both the RU1 Primary Production Zone and the RU2 Rural landscape Zone.

Previous development applications have been lodged under Clause 2.8 of the LEP, which allows consideration of any use on land on a temporary basis, even where that use if otherwise prohibited, subject to a range of merit considerations, including the potential for adverse amenity impacts.

Noise and traffic are the key issues associated with events on rural properties and have formed the basis of the majority of complaints. Assessment of the complaints, and an overview of previous development applications, indicates that it is exceedingly difficult to find a situation where noise from a wedding event would not result in any adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood.

Only two applications have been approved, one at Myocum and one at Ewingsdale, and in both cases, detailed acoustic assessments demonstrated that event noise was not likely to be audible above the background noise at the nearest dwellings.

Given the settlement pattern in the rural area, however, the clause 2.8 provisions are likely to continue to prevent approval for event sites in most locations within the RU1 and RU2 zones.

Preliminary Consultation:

In the preparation of this report, staff met with concerned rural land owners and residents, at individual meetings, during consultation events for the RLUS and by way of telephone conversations.

Residents routinely reported frustration with unauthorised wedding events where noise resulted in serious disturbance. The ongoing frequency of events was also a significant area of concern. A number of rural residents were of the view that a smaller number of well managed events, appropriately located, could be acceptable.

Staff have also had preliminary discussions with wedding industry representatives who indicated a view that management of individual events is key to minimising impacts on neighbours.

Participants within the industry have been coming together in recent times, to form the Byron Wedding and Event Industry Association. One of the aims of this association is to develop an industry Code of Practice to guide the management of events.

The operators expressed a desire to work collaboratively with Council in addressing issues around rural events and in developing and refining their Code of Conduct.

Planning Options:

There are three options for Council:

1. Status quo – rely on the provisions of clause 2.8 of the LEP as the only mechanism to consider individual applications for rural events; or

2. Prohibit rural events in RU1 and RU2 – amend clause 2.8 such that it cannot apply to the temporary use of land in zones RU1 and RU2 for function centre; or

3. Permit function centres, subject to development consent, in RU1 and RU2 – this could be achieved by a stand-alone rural function centres provision or by adding function centre to the list of development permissible with consent in the zoning tables for those zones.

The demand for weddings and other functions in Byron Shire is growing and is unlikely to decline in the foreseeable future.

Continuing to rely on the existing temporary use provisions of the LEP for events in the rural zones will be problematic. The absolute nature of the cl.2.8 controls provides a difficult hurdle. In many cases, depending on the site, the frequency of events and the management arrangements in place, it could be reasonable to conclude that potential adverse amenity impacts could be acceptable, but it will remain difficult to conclude that events would not have any adverse amenity impacts.

This status quo situation will continue to require significant investigation and compliance resourcing associated with unauthorised and uncontrolled venues in the Shire.

Similarly, given the ongoing industry demand, prohibiting rural events completely is unlikely to stop unauthorised rural events and will continue to require significant resourcing from Council.

A new provision in the LEP addressing rural events would have the benefit of establishing a range of criteria around the location, frequency and management of rural events, with the key aim of managing potential amenity impacts.

Council could work with both the industry and with rural residents to ‘fine-tune’ the LEP provisions to ensure that events can only occur where the community can be assured that the events would be well managed and that the resultant amenity impacts would be acceptable in the circumstance of the particular site and its locality.

The following preliminary draft LEP clause is recommended:

Function Centres in Rural Zones:

(1) Despite any other provision of this Plan, development may be carried out with development consent for the purposes of a function centre on land in Zones RU1 Primary Production and RU2 Rural Landscape.

(2) Development consent must not be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a) no more than 20 events will occur at the site in any one calendar year and that events will not occur over more than 2 consecutive weekends;

(b) events will occur in a location that is a minimum of 500m from an existing dwelling house on an adjoining property not in the same ownership;

(c) if the land is zoned RU1 Primary Production, the property is used for an existing agricultural purpose and will be continued to be used for farming;

(d) the use of the site for events will not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on any adjoining land or the amenity of the neighbourhood, particularly in relation to noise and traffic; and

(e) the use of the site for events will not result in any land use conflict in relation to adjoining or nearby farming activities.

(3) Applications for development consent for a rural function centre must include an Events Management Plan, which contains (as a minimum) provisions that:

(a) ensure that the majority of event attendees will be transported to and from each event by bus; and

(b) require all amplified activities (music, speeches, etc.) to be undertaken within a temporary or permanent structure after 7.00pm; and

(d) ensure that all event attendees will be off-site no later than 10.30pm; and

(e) outline measures that will be in place to ensure predicted noise levels are not exceeded at nearby dwellings; and

(f) provide for the monitoring of noise generated at events and six-monthly reporting of results to Council; and

(g) provide for the notification of nearby residents prior to each event, including contact details for an appropriate management person who can be contacted during each event.

A Planning Proposal will need to be prepared to implement this clause, and further community consultation would be undertaken before any amendment to the LEP could be finalised.

Financial Implications

The cost of preparing a draft planning proposal would be met by Council.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The recommendation will provide an approval framework for rural events that allow Council to approve applications where it can be demonstrated that the proposed use will not result in unacceptable impacts on rural amenity.

The NSW Department of Planning & Environment recently released a discussion paper relating to Primary Production and Rural Development, signalling an intention to consolidate a range of existing planning policies and provisions into a new State Environmental Planning Policy for Rural Land.

Two of the key objectives of this policy update are to protect good quality agricultural land, to ensure that it is retained for framing, and to strengthen ‘right to farm’ legislation and minimise rural land use conflict.

The recommended draft LEP provision (above) is consistent with this approach in that it includes:

· a requirement in relation to RU1 land (i.e. ‘best’ farm land), that a rural events approval can only be considered where the property is actively being used, and will continue to be used, for farming/ agriculture; and

· a provision to ensure that a rural events use will not result in unacceptable amenity impacts or other land use conflicts, particularly in relation to adjoining and nearby farming activities.

These provisions ensure that the recommended approach will be consistent with a new Rural SEPP.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.15

Report No. 13.15 PLANNING - 26.2017.5.1 and 26.2017.6.1 Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan Implementation - Planning Proposals

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Patricia Docherty, Planner

File No: I2017/1499

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

This report presents two draft Planning Proposals to amend the Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP 2014). The attached Planning Proposals are the result of a review of planning controls undertaken in response to the Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan (Masterplan).

It was identified during the Masterplan process that Byron Bay’s Town Centre Planning controls need to be updated to reflect the outcomes of the Masterplan to respond to the unique characteristics and location of the Town Centre.

The draft amendments to LEP 2014 comprise two Planning Proposals that can progress separately, based on complexity, urgency and risk of delay:

· Planning Proposal 26.2017.5.1 relates primarily to temporary uses on land zoned RE1 Public Recreation and SP2 Infrastructure (Rail Corridor and Car Park); and

· Planning Proposal 26.2017.6.1 relates to a comprehensive review of planning objectives and development standards on land currently zoned B2 Local Centre within Byron Bay Town Centre.

Further Planning Proposals will be prepared in 2018, relating to permissibility and development standards affecting land zoned R3 Medium Density and heritage conservation areas within land zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

Proposed amendment to Byron Development Control Plan 2014 (DCP) is necessary to support Planning Proposal 26.2017.6.1 (Byron Bay Commercial Core). Draft amendment to the DCP is enclosed for consideration.

The purpose of this report is to recommend that both Planning Proposals 26.2017.5.1 and 26.2017.6.1 be approved by Council to proceed to Gateway determination and for public exhibition.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

RECOMMENDATION:

That Planning Proposal 26.2017.5.1 and Planning Proposal 26.2017.6.1 be approved by Council to proceed to Gateway determination and for public exhibition.

Attachments:

1 26.2017.5.1 Planning Proposal #1 Additional and temporary uses, E2017/104985 ⇨

2 26.2017.6.1 Planning Proposal #2 Byron Bay Town Centre Core(2), E2017/104991 ⇨

3 Draft DCP Controls - Byron Bay Town Centre, E2017/104992 ⇨

4 property_owners (names redacted)_B2_BBTC, E2017/104940 ⇨

5 Template - Form of Special Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest, E2017/104993 ⇨

Report

The attached Planning Proposals are the result of a review of planning controls, undertaken in response to the Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan, as noted at a meeting of Council on 2 February 2017 (Resolution No. 17-005).

Draft amendments to Byron Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 comprise two Planning Proposals that can progress separately, based on complexity, urgency and risk of delay:

· Planning Proposal 26.2017.5.1 relates primarily to temporary uses on land zoned RE1 Public Recreation and SP2 Infrastructure (Rail Corridor and Car Park); and

· Planning Proposal 26.2017.6.1 relates to a comprehensive review of planning objectives and development standards on land currently zoned B2 Local Centre within Byron Bay Town Centre.

Planning Proposal 26.2017.5.1

The objective of Planning Proposal 26.2017.5.1 (Attachment 1) is to amend Byron Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 to introduce various planning provisions applicable to the subject land in parts of Byron Bay Town Centre.

The intended outcomes of the amendments to the LEP are:

1. To specify additional permitted uses with consent under Schedule 1 on land at:

a. Butler Street Reserve (Zone RE1 Public Recreation) to permit Car Parks and Passenger Transport Facilities and facilitate the reduction of traffic congestion within Byron Bay Town Centre;

b. Byron Bay Rail Corridor State Heritage land (Zone SP2 Infrastructure- Rail Corridor) to permit Markets and other temporary, creative pop-up activities that cannot otherwise be approved as Exempt Development; and

c. Lawson Street South Car Park (Zone SP2 Infrastructure - Car Park) to permit Markets.

2. To permit Single Temporary Events and Ceremonies in Schedule 2 as Exempt Development in public reserves, public roads, car parks, community land, showgrounds, church grounds, Crown land or other appropriate outdoor areas.

3. To amend the maximum period under Clause 2.8 Temporary use of land from 14 days to 52 days in any period of up to 12 months to permit temporary events.

Planning Proposal 26.2017.05.1 relates specifically to land currently zoned RE1 Public Recreation and SP2 Infrastructure, located within the following area of the Byron Bay Town Centre on Figure 1 and described in Table 1:

Figure 1 – Subject Land Planning Proposal 26.2017.5.1

Table 1 – Subject Land Property details

Site Name	Zone	Legal Description	Owner
Butler Street Reserve	RE1 Public Recreation	Part of Lot 389 in DP 728537 Lot 390 DP 728538 Part of Lot 391 in DP 728539 Part of Lot 392 in DP 728539 Part of Lot PT 393 in DP 728539	Crown Land / Byron Shire Council
Byron Bay Rail Corridor	Zone SP2 Infrastructure (Rail corridor)	Lot 4729 in DP 1228104 Lot 1 in DP 1001454	County Rail Infrastructure Authority
Lawson Street South Car Park	Zone SP2 (Car Park)	Lot 3 in DP 827049	Byron Shire Council

Planning Proposal 26.2017.06.1

The objective of Planning Proposal 26.2017.06.1 (Attachment 2) is to amend Byron Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 to introduce various planning provisions, applicable to the subject land in parts of Byron Bay Town Centre.

The intended outcomes of the amendments to the LEP are:

1. To rezone all Zone B2 Local Centre land in Byron Bay Town Centre to Zone B3 Commercial Core to differentiate Byron Bay from other smaller Centres in Byron Shire.

2. To ensure the Height of Building control, in metres, accurately represents Council’s and the community’s strongly held vision to limit development to 3 storeys to preserve Byron Bay’s character and streetscape.

3. To ensure that Floor Space Ratio controls accurately represents the underlying land use zone and intended configuration of compact development within the proposed B3 Commercial Core Zone in Byron Bay Town Centre.

4. To require Active Street Frontages for all development with frontages to key streets and laneways; to encourage commercial activity as part of a mixed use development within the proposed B3 Commercial Core Zone.

5. To minimise the amount of vehicular traffic generated by development within Byron Bay Town Centre and identify the maximum number of ancillary car parking spaces that may be provided to service particular land uses as part of a mixed use development the proposed B3 Commercial Core Zone.

6. To ensure new development of a significant scale in Byron Bay Town Centre achieves principles of Design Excellence and through the highest standard of architectural, urban and landscape design; to deliver ecologically sustainable and resilient buildings and public places.

Byron Development Control Plan 2014

These amendments will be supported by proposed changes to Byron Development Control Plan 2014 (Attachment 3) to include controls that cannot be included in the LEP, to address:

· The number of storeys compatible with the character of the town centre and minimum floor to ceiling heights specific to permissible land uses;

· Fine grain architecture to reduce bulky development and restrict building lengths relative to street widths; and

· Reduction of cars by introducing alternative vehicle arrangements for residential component of mixed use buildings and certain types of tourist and visitor accommodation.

This Planning Proposal relates to land currently zoned B2 Local Centre, located at Byron Bay Town Centre within the following area: Figure 2 – Subject Land Planning Proposal 26.2017.6.1

A complete list of property descriptions are included in Attachment 4.

Byron LEP 2014 mapping

The Planning Proposals affect an area of land that spans multiple LEP maps. On that basis Council will need to prepare spatial data to amend the following maps in accordance with the NSW Standard Technical Requirements for spatial datasets and maps.

Planning Proposal 26.2017.5.1 will require amendment to Byron LEP 2014 Additional Permitted Uses Map - Sheet APU_003CC.

Planning Proposal 26.2017.6.1 will require amendments to the following LEP maps:

1. Amend map sheet LZN - Land Zoning_003CC

2. Amend map sheet HOB – Height of Building Map_ 003CC

3. Amend map sheet FSR – Floor Space Ratio Map _003CC

4. Add map sheet ASF –Active Street Frontage Map_003CC

Consultation

Council will commence community consultation in accordance with the Gateway Determination.

For the purposes of public notification, the Planning Proposals are not considered to be low impact as outlined in the Department of Planning and Environment’s A guide to preparing local environmental plans. A 28 day public exhibition period is recommended.

Notification of the exhibited Planning Proposal will include:

· a newspaper advertisement that circulates in the Byron LGA, which is the area affected by the Planning Proposal.

· the web sites of Byron Shire Council and the Department of Planning and Environment.

The proposed timeline for the completion of the exhibition and amendment process is detailed in Part 6 of both Planning Proposals.

Summary and conclusions

The Planning Proposals seek to rezone land and introduce permissible uses, development standards and other local planning provisions to implement the strategic objectives in the Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan.

This Planning Proposals will not impact on environmental areas and are serviced by urban infrastructure. The Planning Proposals will have positive social and economic effects; offering additional employment and trading opportunities for local people and businesses. Numerous social and economic benefits are likely through increasing the efficient use of developable lands for jobs and mixed used development including housing in an existing centre.

The proposed zoning changes are consistent with the North Coast Regional Plan 2036 and Council’s Community Strategic Plan 2027. The land is identified as an existing urban area. An assessment of the planning proposal indicates that it is consistent with relevant SEPPs. It is consistent with all relevant s117 Directions.

There is sufficient information to enable Council to support the planning proposal and forward it to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway determination.

Financial Implications

Should Council resolve to progress the Planning Proposal, it would require Council commitment of staff resources and any costs associated with public exhibition and additional studies, if required by Gateway.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The relevant policy considerations are addressed above and would be further assessed in consideration of the Planning Proposal should Council resolve to proceed to Gateway.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.17

Report No. 13.17 PLANNING - 26.2017.4.1 - Planning Proposal for Rezoning and Reclassifying Part Lot 22 DP 1073165 Mullumbimby

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Shannon Burt, Director Sustainable Environment and Economy

File No: I2017/1528

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

This report presents a planning proposal for part Lot 22 DP 1073165, which seeks to alter the land use zone to permit residential development with an emphasis on affordable housing. It is also intended that the land be reclassified from Community land to Operational land in this planning proposal. It is also intended that provisions to encourage diverse and affordable housing on key sites be inserted into Byron LEP 2014. The land is entirely owned by Byron Shire Council.

The planning proposal (Attachment 1) will:

§ Insert R1 General Residential as a new zone in Byron LEP 2014

§ Rezone approximately 22 hectares of the existing RE1 Public Recreation zone to R1 General Residential

§ Apply a minimum lot size of 200 m² to the R1 General Residential zone area on Lot 22 DP 1073165

§ Reclassify part Lot 22 DP 1073165 from Community to Operational to reflect the changes to the zoning of the land and prospective change of land use

§ Insert a Key Sites Map in Byron LEP 2014 and identify part Lot 22 DP 1073165 on that map

§ Insert new local provisions into Byron LEP 2014 to encourage diverse and affordable housing on key sites identified on the Key Sites Map.

The balance of the site, including the Mullumbimby community gardens, a small freshwater wetland, a riparian strip near Saltwater Creek and an area east of the railway line, will remain in its current mix of zones. A site analysis showing the key features of the site, constraints and opportunities is at Attachment 2.

The planning proposal will increase the opportunity for affordable residential development (up to 200 dwellings) in response to a documented demand and inadequate long-term supplies. The land has been subject to a range of studies and reports that support the extension of the residential zoned area. Some additional studies and consultation are required.

It is an area that can be economically serviced with urban infrastructure, and will allow innovative and diverse housing that contributes to the local economy without creating concern regarding social services. It will have no adverse impact on significant agricultural lands. The flood hazard affected lands can be dealt with at the development stage through land filling and floor levels.

The planning proposal is consistent with relevant SEPPs. It is consistent with most of the relevant s117 Directions, and where inconsistencies occur they can be justified. It is consistent with the North Coast Regional Plan as the site is identified as an existing urban area.

It is a relatively minor expansion of an existing urban area that can provide land for innovative, affordable housing to meet short-term market demand while Council continues to investigate other options.

There is sufficient information to enable Council to support the amended planning proposal and forward it to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway determination.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1. Agree to initiate the planning proposal to amend Byron LEP 2014 (Attachment 1) for the reasons outlined in this report.

2. Forward the planning proposal to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway determination.

3. Agree that staff can proceed to public exhibition of the planning proposal and government agency consultation based on the Gateway determination issued by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment, and report back to Council as part of post-exhibition reporting.

Attachments:

1 Planning Proposal Draft Gateway Version, E2017/103293 ⇨

2 Site Analysis , E2017/103182 ⇨

3 Extract from Draft Byron Recreation Needs Assessment, E2017/103307 ⇨

4 Ecological Assessment prepared by Mark Fitgerald July 2017, E2017/103344 ⇨

5 Land use Conflict Risk Assessment (LUCRA), E2017/103183 ⇨

6 Flood Assessment prepared by BMT WBM, E2017/103396 ⇨

7 SEPP 55 prepared by Greg Alderson & Assoc , E2017/103333 ⇨

8 Infrastructure Plans , E2017/103215 ⇨

Report

The Planning Proposal

This planning proposal relates to Council owned land located at the southern edge of Mullumbimby, described as part Lot 22 DP 1073165. Lot 22 is an irregular shaped lot that is split by a railway line and has part of its boundary to Saltwater Creek. It includes Mullumbimby community gardens. It has a total area of approximately 29.2 hectares. Approximately 22 hectares is affected by zone changes in this planning proposal. The balance of the zones within the subject land will remain unchanged.

Lot 22 DP 1073165 – The parent lot

Part Lot 22 DP 1073165 as affected by this planning proposal – The subject land

Current Zones and Controls

Lot 22 DP 1073165 is zoned part RE1 Public Recreation and part Deferred Matter under Byron LEP 2014. The small area of Deferred Matter is zoned 7(B) Coastal Habitat under LEP 1988. The land zoned RE1 has no Minimum Lot Size or Floor Space Ratio but has a Building Height of 9 metres. The land is classified as Community land under the Local Government Act, 1993.

Current Byron LEP 2014 zoning

Proposed Zones and Controls

The planning proposal (Attachment 1) will:

§ Insert R1 General Residential as a new zone in Byron LEP 2014

§ Rezone approximately 22 hectares of the existing RE1 Public Recreation zone to R1 General Residential

§ Apply a minimum lot size of 200 m² to the R1 General Residential zone area on Lot 22 DP 1073165

§ Reclassify part Lot 22 DP 1073165 from Community to Operational to reflect the changes to the zoning of the land and prospective change of land use

§ Insert a Key Sites Map in Byron LEP 2014 and identify part Lot 22 DP 1073165 on that map

§ Insert new local provisions into Byron LEP 2014 to encourage diverse and affordable housing on key sites identified on the Key Sites Map.

The balance of Lot 22 will remain in its current mix of zones. The small area of Deferred Matter cannot be amended by this planning proposal as it is not subject to Byron LEP 2014. It can only be amended by also amending Byron LEP 1988. It is not practicable that this be done as part of this planning proposal and this area will remain as Deferred Matter for the time being.

The land use table for the proposed R1 General Residential zone and the proposed local provisions for diverse housing and affordable housing are included as annexures to the planning proposal in Attachment 1 to this report.

Part Lot 22 DP 1073165 to be rezoned from RE1 Public Recreation zone to R1 General Residential.
Same area to be changed from Community to Operational

Part Lot 22 DP 1073165 to have a Minimum Lot Size of 200 m²

Past Council Resolutions on this Planning Proposal

Council resolved on 22 June 2017 as follows:

1. Note the Housing Issues Plan developed the result of the Byron Affordable Housing Summit and support its use to inform part of the Residential Land Use Strategy recommendations currently under preparation.

2. Support further discussions with landowners of land in Attachment 1, and progression of work necessary to establish the feasibility of the sites in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 for affordable housing; ……..; and where appropriate, invite lodgement of Planning Proposals to rezone the land for this purpose.

Lot 22 DP 1073165 was identified (in the report of 22 June) as Council land that should be considered for affordable housing purposes through a planning proposal and subsequent development.

Key Issues

§ North Coast Regional Plan

§ Mullumbimby Settlement Strategy, 2003

§ Draft Residential Strategy

§ Draft Byron Recreation Needs Assessment

§ Ecology

§ Regional farmland and LUCRA

§ Flood prone land

§ Contaminated land

§ Infrastructure

§ State policy and planning controls

§ Reclassification of Council land

§ Mullumbimby community gardens

§ A new residential zone

§ Diverse and affordable housing provisions

§ Key sites map

North Coast Regional Plan

The subject site is located within the Urban Growth Area boundary under the North Coast Regional Plan 2036. This reflects that it was zoned for an urban use (RE1 Public Recreation) at the time the NCRP was finalised. On this basis, the planning proposal is consistent with the NCRP.

Analysis of the site against the Urban Growth Area Variation Principles was undertaken as part of the supporting information in the planning proposal (Attachment 1). The site is consistent with these principles.

Mullumbimby Settlement Strategy, 2003

The Mullumbimby Settlement Strategy was prepared in 2003 and is now well out of date. It does not identify the subject land as an existing or future urban area. The land was purchased by Council in 2004, and zoned for open space after that.

Byron Shire Preliminary Draft Residential Strategy

The subject land was included in the 2016 exhibited draft Byron residential strategy as Area 13, even though it is already in an urban zone. Its proximity to the urban area and potential for affordable housing is noted, subject to resolution of flooding and proximity to farmland and the railway corridor. These issues have been addressed in supporting information to this planning proposal. The fact that the land is already in an urban zone (and therefore does not need to be in the strategy), combined with the need for affordable housing is the basis for the subject land preceding the final revision of the Shire-wide residential strategy. A revised draft strategy is proposed for exhibition in late 2017, and the subject land is to be included in that strategy.

Draft Byron Recreation Needs Assessment

In 2017, Council engaged consultants to prepare a recreation needs assessment to increase its knowledge and understanding of the community’s recreation and sporting needs, existing opportunities and relevant trends impacting on recreation services or facility provision. The assessment aims to provide Council a clear planning framework to 2036, which considers the community’s current and future recreation and sporting demands, existing options for meeting those demands, the nature of spaces required for particular activities, and the types of services that support particular activities. The draft assessment is due to be reported to Council by the end of 2017. A draft document included a precinct analysis for Mullumbimby, which concluded that Lot 22 was surplus to Council’s needs for sporting or recreation (other than the area occupied by the Mullumbimby community gardens), and that embellishment of other existing parks and reserves was a better option than new areas such as Lot 22 (Attachment 3). If Council is successful in reclassifying and rezoning part of Lot 22 then section 94 funds that were used to acquire it could be returned and spent on embellishment of other parks.

Ecology

An ecological assessment carried out for the subject land in July 2017 described it as a low-lying area of largely cleared land currently used for cattle grazing and much modified by historical land uses (Attachment 4). Vegetation is dominated by exotic pasture species and weeds of pasture. Tree cover includes dense stands of Camphor Laurel along Saltwater Creek and clumps of Camphor Laurel trees at scattered locations. No threatened flora was present during targeted surveys in July 2017, but a summer survey is recommended for the threatened species Hairy-joint Grass and Missionary Nutgrass. No Endangered Ecological Communities are currently present. The probability of threatened fauna species being dependent upon the site in its current condition is low. A survey of the site is recommended to determine if the threatened Common Planigale is present. Three small wetlands with associated stream channels are located near Saltwater and Kings Creeks. These wetlands are areas with potential for rehabilitation and recovery of the freshwater wetland and floodplain forest habitats. The larger one is in better condition than the others and is recommended to remain in the RE1 zone (in lieu of any environmental zones being available). On balance, the site does not have high ecological values.

Regional farmland and LUCRA

The site is mapped on the BSAL maps as significant land but the Northern Rivers Farmland Mapping Project identifies it as a committed urban area. The land has been grazed under agistment since it was purchased by Council (in 2004) and zoned for Open Space. It is not important farmland, and its use for residential development will not fragment contiguous farmland. It does not have a history of sugar cane production and will not impact on the viability of the sugar industry or beef cattle industry on a local or regional basis.

A Land Use Conflict Risk Assessment (LUCRA) has been undertaken (Attachment 5) which assessed the potential for conflict between future residential land use and neighbouring agriculture and the railway line. The imposition of suitable vegetated buffers as part of future residential land use should ameliorate any issues. The site is large enough to accommodate such buffers without impacting on neighbouring land uses. This can be dealt with at the development stage.

Flood prone land

The land is flood prone, however a flood assessment indicates that parts of it can be filled to the flood planning level without major impacts on surrounding land (Attachment 6).

This planning proposal affects land that is mostly flood affected in a 100 year ARI event and totally affected in a PMF event. It is a relatively low velocity area during flood events, other than in the small watercourses that occur on the site. It is not a floodway.

The land could be developed for residential purposes if it is filled. Three fill scenarios were modelled and design option 3, which has three fill pads and drainage reserves between them, was modelled as having small but acceptable impacts on surrounding rural land. It is the preferred fill option for this site.

On balance, the preferred fill option would not cause significant flood impacts to other properties; would not result in increased spending on flood mitigation, infrastructure or services; and would not permit excessive development without consent.

When development in flood prone areas is being contemplated, the provisions of existing clause 6.3 of Byron LEP 2014 will apply at the development application stage.

Contaminated land

A Preliminary Contamination Report (Alderson and Associates, 2017) has been prepared for the subject site (Attachment 7). There is no recorded dip site on the land. The nearest dip site is north of Saltwater Creek (Mullumbimby Museum site), which is about 200 metres north-west of the subject land. Contamination testing on the community gardens site (located between the proposed rezoning and the old dip site) found no evidence of hazardous material from the dip site. The report did not identify any likelihood of contamination arising from the dominant past use of the subject site for cattle grazing. However, some parts of it may have been cropped in the 1970s, and further testing of these areas is warranted at the development application stage. Soil tests should also be undertaken in proximity to the disused rail line to check for pesticides related to termite control and asbestos from train brakes. The Preliminary Contamination Report confirms that the subject site has a low likelihood of contamination and that further soil testing at the development application stage is an appropriate response.

Infrastructure

Reticulated water supply is possible via the existing Mullumbimby water supply system and the associated Laverty’s Gap Weir storage. Reticulated water mains are close to the site, at Jubilee Avenue and Stuart Street.

Sewerage service is possible via the Mullumbimby sewerage system and the associated Brunswick Valley Sewage Treatment Plant (Vallances Road). The sewerage reticulation system is close to the site at Station Street. A larger pump and larger pipeline capacity will be needed to get sewage from early stages to the STP. An additional sewage pump station is likely to be required as development continues because the site is quite flat.

Road access to the site is via Byron Street and Stuart Street. The Stuart Street access has a causeway crossing over Saltwater Creek that is suitable for pedestrian and bicycles but would need upgrading for vehicles. Byron Street has an awkward intersection with Jubilee Avenue. A better option in the longer term may be to negotiate an access to Jubilee Avenue via the neighbouring land to the west. This could be located to enable a roundabout inclusive of Azalea Street, which could improve traffic movements generally in this location.

Reticulated power and telecommunications are adjacent to the site and can be extended to it.

State infrastructure such as schools and hospitals will be able to deal with the additional population if the site is rezoned. Mullumbimby High School is 300 metres from the site, and Mullumbimby Primary School is 1,000 metres away.

On balance, public infrastructure is available or can be augmented to incorporate the proposed residential development of the subject land. A series of infrastructure plans are included in (Attachment 8).

State policy and planning controls

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

The planning proposal is generally consistent with relevant Section 117 Directions. It is justifiably inconsistent with Direction 1.3 Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries; Direction 4.2 Mine Subsidence and Unstable Land; Direction 4.3 Flood Prone Land; and Direction 6.2 Reserving Land for Public Purposes. In all cases the inconsistency is reasonable and should not inhibit the planning proposal from receiving a Gateway determination.

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

Reclassification of Council land

The subject land is entirely owned by Byron Shire Council and was purchased using section 94 funds for future active (or passive) open space in 2004. In order to sell or lease it for residential purposes (or other purposes permitted in the R1 zone), Council needs to change its classification under the Local Government Act 1993 from Community to Operational. This planning proposal can achieve that by including the land in the appropriate part of Schedule 4 of Byron LEP 2014. An information sheet summarising the circumstances of the reclassification is an annexure to the planning proposal at Attachment 1.

Mullumbimby community gardens

Approximately 2.7 hectares of Lot 22 was licensed to a group called Mullum SEED on 1 September 2014 for a five year period. The land was to be used for a community garden. The garden was established and is active to this day. This is an appropriate use of public open space, and the draft recreation needs assessment acknowledged this area as part of the current supply of developed recreation land available to the community. This planning proposal will leave this area zoned RE1 under LEP 2014 and classified as Community land under the Local Government Act 1993. The land is effectively excluded from this planning proposal.

A new residential zone

A key reason for rezoning the subject land is to permit affordable residential development that is well located in terms of access to services and infrastructure. None of the existing residential zones include objectives that relate to affordable housing. By using the previously unused R1 General Residential zone, Council is able to shape a zone that includes objectives such as:

§ To provide a secure supply of affordable housing stock that meets the needs of low to middle income residents.

§ To enable the provision of non-residential land uses that are compatible with, and do not place demands on services beyond the level reasonably required for, residential use.

§ To encourage adaptable housing that supports ageing in place.

Another reason is to provide a broad range of dwelling options, including caravan parks. By including caravan parks, Council can trigger “manufactured home estates” pursuant to SEPP 36. This provides an opportunity to use low cost (but not low quality) structures such as “tiny homes” that can be used as affordable housing.

A new zone also permits Council to provide a broad range of employment related land uses that are still compatible with residential areas. This will allow future residents a reasonable range of live/work opportunities that are often not available in “traditional” residential neighbourhoods.

With the land being owned by Council, it is able to further influence its ultimate development.

Diverse and affordable housing provisions

Council has been keen to pursue provisions in its LEP to promote diverse and affordable housing for some time. In its draft Residential Strategy, Council stated it wanted “Model controls that require affordable housing to be included in developments”.

This planning proposal provides an ideal opportunity to introduce these provisions into Byron LEP 2014. They are based on similar provisions in other NSW LEPs, although in this case they are not linked to development incentives. The logic is that if the land is zoned R1 General Residential with a minimum lot size of 200 m² and there is a full range of residential accommodation options available then that is an incentive in itself. The key limitation to density (other than lot size) would be building height and site design issues such as parking and setbacks.

The diverse housing clauses require at least 25% of dwellings to be one bedroom and not more than 25% of dwellings can exceed three bedrooms. This emphasis on smaller sized homes is consistent with Family and Community Housing advice (Expected Waiting Times for Social Housing, 2015) that social housing waiting times in Byron LGA are greater than ten years for dwellings with one, two or three bedrooms. There is an identifiable pent up demand for affordable, smaller size dwellings.

The requirement that 50% of new dwellings be dedicated for 30 years to a registered community housing provider is to ensure that a large proportion of new dwellings on key sites are retained as affordable rental housing over the expected life of the dwelling.

The diverse and affordable housing provisions apply only to land shown on the “key sites map”. This means that if Council chooses to apply a residential zone and not identify the land on the key sites map then the new clauses do not apply and there is less opportunity to achieve affordable and diverse housing outcomes.

Key sites map

Introducing the “key sites map” allows Council to target localities that it considers are appropriate for affordable and diverse housing. In the first instance, the only land on the map will be Council’s part Lot 22. Other land owners may be willing to be included on the key sites map if they have land that is suitable for affordable and diverse housing and are willing to pursue that option. However, this land would have to be in an urban zone already or be in an adopted residential strategy so that it could be rezoned. It would also have to be able to be able to be serviced with infrastructure. It could then be subject to a planning proposal and considered on its merits.

Options to Move Forward

There are a number of options open to Council on this matter:

1. Proceed to a Gateway determination with the attached planning proposal (Attachment 1).

2. Amend the planning proposal and proceed to a Gateway determination.

3. Not proceed with the planning proposal.

Conclusion

The planning proposal attached to this report is consistent or justifiably inconsistent with State policies and directions and the North Coast Regional Plan. It has sufficient merit to be supported.

Council should proceed with this planning proposal to amend Byron LEP 2014 to apply the new R1 General Residential zone to part of Lot 22 DP 1073165 as shown in Attachment 1. It should also amend the Minimum Lot Size maps for the same area. It should also insert affordable and diverse housing provisions into LEP 2014, and reference them to a new “key sites map” that includes part Lot 22 DP 1073165.

Council should also proceed with the reclassification of part of Lot 22 DP 1073165 to change that part of the site from Community to Operational land under the Local Government Act 1993. This should be undertaken in accordance with LEP Practice Note PN 09-003.

Further information or specialist reports that are required prior to exhibition of the planning proposal include:

§ further consultation with local Aboriginal groups

§ a preliminary soil and geotechnical assessment of the site

§ a summer survey for the threatened species Hairy-joint Grass and Missionary Nutgrass

§ a survey of the site to determine if the threatened Common Planigale is present.

Financial Implications

If Council chooses to proceed with the planning proposal, it will be at its own expense given that Council owns the land and has initiated the planning proposal. If the planning proposal is successful in changing the zone of the land and reclassifying it to Operational then it will need to repay an amount to section 94 funds. This money can then be spent on open space and recreation needs in accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions plan.

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

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

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

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.19

Report No. 13.19 PLANNING -10.2017.393.1 Detached Dual Occupancy Dwelling at 31 Pinegroves Road Myocum

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Shannon Burt, Director Sustainable Environment and Economy

File No: I2017/1547

Theme: Ecology

Development and Approvals

Proposal:

Proposal:	Dual occupancy (dwelling)
Property description:	Lot: 15 DP: 1030574 31 Pinegroves Road MYOCUM
Parcel No/s:	237962
Applicant:	Newton Denny Chapelle
Owner:	W and J Hunter
Zoning:	Zone No. RU1 Primary Production (actual dwelling site)
Date received:	21 July 2017
Integrated Development:	No
Public notification or exhibition:	- Level 1, advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications - Exhibition period: 3 August 2017 to 16 August 2017 - Submissions: For = 0 Against = 0 Neutral/Other = 1
Other approvals (S68/138):	On site waste management system - new installation of septic tank and reed bed
Planning Review Committee:	N/A
Delegation to determination:	Council
Issues:	· Unauthorised structure · Bushfire APZs · Relinquish previous consents · No further subdivision restriction on user

Summary:

The application proposes a dual occupancy (detached) development on the subject land. The land is 48.89 hectares in area, accessed off the end of Pinegroves Road, Myocum.

The proposed new dwelling is within Zone RU1 – Primary Production Zone, and dual occupancy (detached) is permitted with Council consent if the lot exceeds 4000 m².

The Statement of Environmental Effects accompanying the DA adequately addresses the LEP and DCP requirements and demonstrates that the dual occupancy (detached) development of this site is appropriate, subject to conditions.

Council’s Procedure No: 63. “Development Applications – Conflict of Interests” requires that

development applications submitted by a Councillor of Byron Shire Council to be assessed 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 completed by Mike Svikis, being an independent consultant.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

RECOMMENDATION:

That pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, development application 10.2017.393.1 detached dual occupancy dwelling development be granted consent subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 2 #E2017/104997.

Attachments:

1 Proposed Plans prepared by Steve Lampe designs , E2017/102789 ⇨

2 Proposed Conditions, E2017/104997 ⇨

3 Confidential - submission received 10.2017.393.1, S2017/16222

Assessment:

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 History/Background

Lot 15 DP 1030574 is a 48.89 hectare lot that has a history of use for cattle grazing. More recently the Land and Environment court issued an approval for three farm buildings and 12 self-storage units as self-storage premises. An approval was issued in 2001 for a small dwelling that has been constructed. In 2005 a further approval was issued for a dwelling to replace the original dwelling (DA 10.2005.367.1). Council records show a private certifier issued a construction certificate on 15 November 2010 for commencement of the 2005 consent so that it still applies to the subject land. The only works that have taken place are a slab for a garage and a separate electricity connection.

At the site inspection of 10 August 2017 it was noted that a “studio” is located east of the proposed dual occupancy dwelling. This studio appears to be occupied as a separate domicile and has a water tank and wastewater disposal area marked on plans included with this DA. Council has no record of approving this structure or its wastewater disposal system. There is no record of compliance action in relation to the occupation of the studio as a dwelling.

The land on which the dual occupancy dwelling is proposed is zoned RU1 Primary Production under Byron LEP 2014 (Figure 1). Dual occupancy (detached) is permitted with Council consent if the lot exceeds 4000 m². Parts of the land are also zoned RU2 Rural Landscape, R5 large Lot Residential and Deferred Matter but they are not directly affected by this proposal.

LEP 2014 zones

Figure 1: The land on which the dwelling is located is zoned RU1 under Byron LEP 2014 (star marks location)

1.2 Description of the site

The subject land is a 48.89 hectare rural lot (Lot 15 DP 1030574) located end of Pinegroves Road on the south side of a broader rural residential area at Myocum. The lot includes an unmade road reserve. The proposed dwelling site is accessed by a 4 metre wide bitumen sealed driveway that also services the existing dwelling (that is located 27 metres away to the south west). The driveway has a concrete culvert and causeway over a small waterway that traverses the land. It is an all weather access to the subject land.

air photo lot 15

Figure 2: The land is a small farm with an approved dwelling and multiple small farm buildings.

The majority of the property is open grazing land. It also contains scattered areas of native vegetation including some forested wetlands (#9001), rainforest (#9009), and wet sclerophyll (#2195) (Figure 3).

coastla veg map

Figure 3: The land contains scattered areas of native vegetation

Electricity and telephone are connected to the subject land. Water is collected on site (tanks and dams). Wastewater is disposed of on site. It is supplied with a Council solid waste and recycling service.

The proposed dwelling site is generally free from physical constraints as it is on a cleared, elevated knoll above the flood planning level. Lower parts of the subject land between the dual occupancy dwellings and Pinegroves Road are flood affected. It is mapped as regionally significant farmland.

NR farmalnd map

Figure 4: The land is regionally significant farm land (brown colour)

1.3 Description of the proposed development

The applicant wants to keep the existing original approved (and constructed) dwelling and build a new five bedroom dwelling 27 metres away to be used as a separate domicile. This additional dwelling is the detached dual occupancy dwelling. The 2005 development consent for a dwelling is to be forfeited and the existing studio made non inhabitable or removed.

A new on site waste water treatment system is proposed with a 5000 litre septic tank and reed bed system. No native vegetation is to be removed. The existing driveway will be used to access the detached dual occupancy dwelling. The dwelling will be a single storey constructed with a slab on ground, with weatherboard cladding and colourbond roof. It will have an internal floor area of 326m², and a roof area of 750m². A swimming pool is also proposed. The dwelling is to be occupied by relatives of the owner.

2. SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENT/EXTERNAL REFERRALS

	Summary of Issues
Environmental Health Officer	Supported conditionally. Comments included in relevant report sections.
Government Authorities –Rural Fire Service	Proposal referred to the Rural Fire Service under S79BA of the EPA Act 1979. The proposal supported subject to conditions of consent addressing the bushfire hazard as suggested by BCA Check.

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.

State/Regional Planning Policies and instruments - Issues

3.1. STATE/REGIONAL PLANNING POLICIES AND INSTRUMENTS

Requirement	Requirement	Proposed	Complies
State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Lands	A consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless: (a) it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and (b) if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and (c) if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.	As part of DA 10.2000.383.1 for the subdivision of Lot 10 DP 854406 into 2 allotments Aspect North undertook a SEPP 55 Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) in February 2001. The PSI included a review of Site History and onsite sampling for contaminates at the site of the proposed building envelope. Following review of the aforementioned PSI Council’s Environmental Officer, Simon Smith (2001) determined that the Information regarding the site's history of land usage is sufficient rigorous to conclude that potentially contaminating activities are unlikely to have occurred on this property, especially in the vicinity of the proposed dwelling site. Land ownership and use was tracked back to the1920s and there was no evidence that the site had been used for anything other than grazing. The current owner has lived on the subject land since 2004 and has not undertaken any contaminating uses on this land in that time. No further investigation is warranted	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index:BASIX) 2004	(a) an application for a development consent, complying development certificate or construction certificate in relation to certain kinds of residential development must be accompanied by a list of commitments by the applicant as to the manner in which the development will be carried out, and (b) the carrying out of residential development pursuant to the resulting development consent, complying development certificate or construction certificate will be subject to a condition requiring such commitments to be fulfilled.	A BASIX certificate has been prepared for the new dwelling dated 14 June 2017 (cert # 815796S_02). In each category of water, thermal comfort and energy the proposed dwellings meet or exceed the required targets.	Yes
NSW Coastal Policy 1997	Clause 7 requires Council to consider certain matters in determining a DA in the coastal zone. These are set out in Clause 8 of the SEPP.	The subject land is set back approximately 4.5 km from the high water mark at the nearest beach and it therefore not in the coastal zone.	N/A
Building Code of Australia	N/A	N/A
Demolition	N/A	N/A
Disability Access (DDA)	Access for persons with disabilities and integration into surrounding streetscapes without creating barriers. (Council Res.10-1118)	No impact is anticipated from the development on disability access in the surrounding streetscape.	Yes

* Non-complying issues discussed below

3.2. BYRON LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2014

Zone: Zone No. RU1 – Primary Production

Definition: Dual occupancy (detached) dwelling

LEP Requirement	Summary of Requirement	Proposed	Complies
Meets zone objectives	1. To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base. 2. To encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises and systems appropriate for the area. 3. To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands. 4. To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones. 5. To encourage consolidation of lots for the purposes of primary industry production. 6. 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. 7. To protect significant scenic landscapes and to minimise impacts on the scenic quality of the locality.	The objectives of the RU1 zone apply most appropriately to sites that are actively involved in primary production of some sort. In this case a second dwelling will not encourage primary production (1) or diversity in primary industry (2) because the land is already being grazed commercially. It will allow relatives of the owner to live on the land and this will assist with its maintenance. The second dwelling will not fragment the land as no subdivision is proposed (3). It will have a neutral effect on the conflict between land uses in adjacent zones (4) as the land is close to the existing dwelling and well separated from neighbouring boundaries. It will not encourage consolidation of lots as it is only one lot (5), but it will not fragment lots either. Tourism uses are not proposed (6). The dwelling is well hidden behind vegetation and will be difficult to see from outside of the property (7). Scenic impact will be minimal.	Yes
Permissible use	Dual occupancy (detached or attached)	Dual occupancy (detached)	Yes
4.1E Minimum lot sizes for dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings	This clause prescribes a minimum lot size for the RU1 Primary Production zone for a detached dual occupancy development of 4000m².	The subject land in this case is 48.89 hectares.	Yes
4.2A Erection of dwelling houses and dual occupancies on land in certain rural zones	This clause sets out criteria for land zoned RU1 and RU2 that must be met if a dwelling or dual occupancy is to be permitted. Sub clause (3) states that “Development consent must not be granted for the erection of a dwelling house or a dual occupancy on land to which this clause applies unless the land: (a) is a lot that is at least the minimum lot size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land, or (b) is a lot created under this Plan (other than under clause 4.2 (3)), or (c) is a lot created before this Plan commenced and on which the erection of a dwelling house or a dual occupancy was permissible immediately before that commencement, or (d) is a lot resulting from a subdivision for which development consent (or equivalent) was granted before this Plan commenced and on which the erection of a dwelling house or a dual occupancy would have been permissible if the plan of subdivision had been registered before that commencement, or (e) would have been a lot referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) had it not been affected by: (i) a minor realignment of its boundaries that did not create an additional lot, or (ii) a subdivision creating or widening a public road or public reserve or for another public purpose, or (iii) a consolidation with an adjoining public road or public reserve or for another public purpose.”	In this case the subject land is larger than the minimum lot size shown on the Lot Size Map. It therefore complies with 3(a).	Yes
4.2D Erection of dual occupancies (detached) and secondary dwellings in Zones RU1 and RU2	(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows: (a) to provide alternative accommodation for rural families and workers, (b) to ensure that development is of a scale and nature that is compatible with the primary production potential, rural character and environmental capabilities of the land, (c) to set out consent considerations for development of dual occupancies (detached) and secondary dwellings to address matters such as access, siting, land suitability and potential impacts. (2) Development consent must not be granted to development for the purpose of a dual occupancy (detached) or secondary dwelling on land in Zone RU1 Primary Production or Zone RU2 Rural Landscape unless the consent authority is satisfied that: (a) the development will not impair the use of the land for agriculture or rural industries, and (b) each dwelling will use the same vehicular access to and from a public road, and (c) any dwellings will be situated within 100 metres of each other, and (d) the land is physically suitable for the development, and (e) the land is capable of accommodating the on-site disposal and management of sewage for the development, and (f) the development will not have an adverse impact on the scenic amenity or character of the rural environment.	In this case the development is to provide accommodation for the landowners daughter and family (1)(a). It is a large single storey dwelling that is consistent with the rural character of the locality and wont imping on the grazing capacity of the land (1)(b). It is consistent with the siting and other issues as follows: (a) The subject land is used for grazing (and a self-storage facility). The second dwelling is located away from both these uses. The location on an elevated knoll near the existing dwelling is appropriate. (b) both dwellings will use the same driveway which accesses Pinegroves Road at its termination. (c) The second dwelling is to be located 27 metres north east of the existing dwelling. This is well inside the 100 metre maximum distance. (d) The elevated knoll is physically suitable for a dwelling as it is above flood levels, has no history of land contamination and limited native vegetation. (e) An onsite wastewater management report accompanying the DA confirms that the site is capable of dealing with the wastewater from the proposed dwelling. (f) The nearest dwelling on Pinegroves Road is more than 500 metres away and patches of vegetation will limit any visual impacts. The nearest dwellings along Kennedys Lane to the south are more than 600 metres away and are visually separated by the undulating topography. The second dwelling will not impact on the rural character of the locality.	Yes
4.3 Height of buildings	This clause requires that buildings not exceed the height shown on the Height of Buildings map. In this case the prescribed maximum height is 9 metres.	The height of the proposed dwelling is approximately 7 metres above ground level at its highest. Most of the dwelling is approximately 5 metres above ground level.	Yes
6.1 Acid Sulfate Soils	This clause requires ASS assessment if ASS are likely to be disturbed on the site.	Part of the subject land that is low lying and classified as ASS Class 3. However the elevated land on which the dwelling is to be located in not mapped as ASS and is red volcanic soil.	Yes
6.2 Earthworks	Earthworks that require consent should have minimal impact on environmental functions, neighbouring uses, cultural heritage and surrounding land.	Earthworks are proposed to create a level site suitable for a slab. The small amount f cut and fill will not affect the environment or impact on neighbours or surrounding land.	Yes
6.3 Flood Planning	This clause requires that Council consider a range of issues for any development at or below the flood planning level. The subject land is partly below the flood planning level (1:100 ARI flood event plus 0.5 m freeboard).	The land on which the dual occupancy is proposed is approximately 20 metres AHD. The floor level proposed is between 19.85 metres and 20.45 metres AHD. None of this land is flood affected. The driveway back to Pinegroves Road is flood affected and the site would be cut off for short periods during floods. However the waterway is small and towards the upper end of a small coastal catchment that drains to Simpsons Creek. Flood isolation is likely to be short duration.	Yes
6.6 Essential services	The development should have adequate · water · sewer · electricity · stormwater · vehicle access	The land is not connected to a reticulated water supply or sewerage. A 112,000 litre water tank will be used to meet BASIX requirements. A new OSMS is proposed for wastewater. This has been approved by Council’s EHO. Reticulated electricity is connected to the site. Stormwater can be dealt with on site and a separate report has been provided. Vehicle access is off Pinegroves Road. Internal driveways are already in place.	Yes

* Non-complying issues discussed below

Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 - Issues

There are no issues of non-compliance with LEP 2014 that raise any concerns.

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

There are no issues that relate to draft LEPs that have been placed on public exhibition.

3.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

Development Control Plan 2014

Chapter B3 – Services

The purpose of this Chapter is to identify the minimum requirements necessary to adequately service development for water, sewer, stormwater management, on-site effluent disposal and other necessary infrastructure. The site does not have reticulated town water supply or sewerage. Reticulated power is connected to the site already as a result of a previous approval for a dwelling.

An Onsite Wastewater Management Report dated 18 June 2017 has been prepared by Greg Devine Plumbing for the proposed 5 bedroom dwelling. The proposed OSMS comprises a 5,000 litre septic tank with outlet filter, 3, 3.0m long x 2.4m wide x 0.75m deep subsurface reed beds and 3, 20.0m long x 2.0m wide x 0.450m deep Evapo Transpiration beds. Councils EHO has agreed to this information subject to conditions.

The proposed OSMS is deemed to be satisfactory for the proposed development. Further details are to be supplied as part of a formal section 68 application required prior to the issue of construction certificate.

Stormwater and drainage can be dealt with on this large site. The application complies with the requirements in this chapter.

Chapter B4 – Traffic Planning, Vehicle Parking Circulation and Access

The purpose of this Chapter is to provide guidelines, controls and standards for traffic planning, vehicle access, circulation and parking for developments. The application provides for a shared bitumen and gravel driveway access to each dwelling with the new dwelling having a double garage and double car port. The shared driveway is in good condition and has a concrete culvert over the waterway. The junction with Pinegroves Road is at the termination of the road so traffic is light and slow and sight lines are adequate. The dual occupancy dwelling exceeds the two space requirement for a dwelling of three or more bedrooms. This complies with the parking requirements of the DCP.

Chapter B6 – Buffers and Minimising Land Use Conflicts

The purpose of this Chapter is to provide advice and guidance on planning for land use compatibility, avoiding land use conflict and the use of buffers. The application is located on a grazing property and conflict with grazing is not anticipated. The nearest sugar cane production area is approximately 185 metres to the north which slightly less than the recommended 200 metre buffer. However, there is a substantial stand of vegetation separating the land uses and the subject land is also well elevated above the sugar cane area. The proposed dwelling is located 100 metres from the north eastern boundary of the subject land and 70 metres from the southern boundary of the subject land. They are the two closest boundaries. Conflict with neighbouring land uses is not anticipated.

A detailed bushfire hazard assessment has been undertaken (BCA Check) and supplied with the SEE. It was referred to RFS who support its recommendations. It concludes that the closest vegetation is regrowth rainforest and that in combination with the slope of the land the new dwelling can be erected without native vegetation removal. It will have adequate buffers to be protected from bushfire hazard.

It recommends (and RFS agrees):

· APZ of 8 m to North East and 12 metres is all other directions

· Minimum 20,000 litres of water to be retained in a non-combustible tank (with appropriate fittings, etc)

· Electricity and gas supplies in accordance with PBP 2006

· Construction standard to BAL 29 AS 3959-2009

· Landscaping to comply with App 5 of PBP 2006

· Access is compliant but reversing bay or turning area required

· Occupants to have a bushfire survival plan

Chapter B8 – Waste Minimisation and Management

Council requires a Site Waste Minimisation and Management Plan for dual occupancy development. No plan has been provided with the statement of environmental effects. It should be provided as a condition of approval prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

Chapter C2 – Areas Affected by Flood

The purpose of this chapter is to identify development requirements for flood liable lands that are appropriate for the degree of flood hazard on that land.

The land on which the dual occupancy is proposed is approximately 20 metres AHD. The floor level proposed is between 19.85 metres and 20.45 metres AHD. None of this land is flood affected.

The driveway back to Pinegroves Road is flood affected and the site would be cut off for short periods during floods. However the waterway is small and towards the upper end of a small coastal catchment that drains to Simpsons Creek. Flood isolation is likely to be short duration.

Chapter C3 - Visually Prominent Sites, Visually Prominent Development and View Sharing

The subject land is not in the coastal zone and is not above 60 metres AHD. Therefore it is not a visually prominent site and this chapter does not apply.

Chapter D2 – Residential Accommodation and Ancillary Development in Rural Zones

The purpose of this chapter is to promote development outcomes consistent with the character of the Shire and its rural lands. It also requires that building forms need to be related to each other and to their surroundings by careful attention to design, orientation, form, scale, materials and landscaping.

Council agreed to modify this DCP chapter on 8^th October 2015 so it applies to detached dual occupancy and these changes commenced on 29^th October 2015.

D2.1 - Location and Siting of Residential Accommodation and other Buildings

The proposed creation of a detached dual occupancy is generally consistent with the aims and principles, etc of Byron Rural Settlement Strategy 1998.

D2.2.2 - Setbacks from Boundaries

The dual occupancy will be set back approximately 500 metres from Pinegroves Road (set back standard is 15 metres). It will be set back approximately 650 metres from the north western boundary of the subject land separated from it by a dense stand of windbreak trees. It will be about 100 metres from the north eastern lot boundary and 70 metres from the south eastern boundary (side setback standard is on merit). The nearest neighbouring dwelling is located about 500 metres to the north west on Pinegroves Road. The application complies with the setback requirements of the DCP.

D2.2.3 - Character and Visual Impact

The dual occupancy is a large family dwelling with a swimming pool. It is a single storey with corrugated iron roof and timber weatherboard cladding. It is approximately 366 m² in area. Verandahs and extended eaves will assist in climate control. Materials will be earth tones. It will blend in with its surroundings. The application complies with the character requirements of the DCP.

D 2.5 - Dual Occupancies and Secondary Dwellings

Dual occupancy development in rural areas must be located so that it does not create potential for conflict with adjoining land uses.

The major land use on surrounding land is grazing, with some areas used to sugar cane production. The nearest sugar cane area is 185 metres north of the subject land. The dwelling will be set back more than 50 metres from the nearest neighbours grazing land use. The buffer distance listed in Chapter B6 of the DCP is 200 m for sugar cane and “not an issue” for grazing. The location meets the objectives of the DCP requirements. Conflict is not anticipated with neighbouring land use. Access arrangements to the dual occupancy are unlikely to generate conflict with adjoining land uses.

Dual occupancies in rural areas must be located and retained on the same legal title as the principal dwelling house on the property, and may not be excised by subdivision.

The dual occupancy is proposed on the same lot as the original dwelling and no subdivision is proposed. A condition will be used to restrict further subdivision.

D2.5.1 – On site car parking

Driveways must be located and designed to minimise danger to pedestrians and cyclists using the public road and to ensure that vehicles do not need to reverse into or out of the driveway.

The existing driveway is sealed and has adequate sight lines to the public road. Danger to pedestrians and cyclists will be minimal. Vehicles can easily exit the subject land in a forward direction. The application complies with the requirements of the DCP.

Car parking shall satisfy the requirements for on-site car parking for dual occupancy development as set out in Chapter B4 Traffic Planning, Vehicle Parking, Circulation and Access.

The prescribed car parking (from B4) is two spaces for the dual occupancy dwelling of which at least one shall be a covered space. In this case four covered spaces are proposed. The property is relatively flat and could easily park dozens of cars. The application complies with the requirements of the DCP for car spaces.

D2.5.2 - Character and Siting of Dwellings

To ensure that dual occupancy development is compatible in character with development in the locality, provides adequate private open space and addresses environmental, slope and drainage issues.

The dual occupancy will blend in easily with the locality and will not be easily seen from Pinegroves Road or Tyagarah Road or the nearest house due to vegetation and topography. Drainage issues can be addressed on site with conditions. There are no slope issues as the dwelling site is fairly flat. No vegetation is to be removed. Private open space is defined by the north facing courtyard which includes a swimming pool.

To minimise the footprint of dual occupancy development through location of dwellings and the use of shared services and common areas.

The new dwelling is located approximately 27 metres from the existing dwelling (not more than 100 metres is prescribed). It occupies approximately 900 m² of the site but the majority of this is already affected by an approved dwelling that was to be a replacement dwelling for the original dwelling. The consent for the replacement dwelling will be forfeited as a condition of any approval. The two dwellings share a driveway. The application complies with the requirements of the DCP.

D2.5.4 - Private Open Space

To ensure that adequate accessible and useable open space is provided to meet the recreational, gardening and landscape needs of residents. The minimum private open space area will be

30m² and will have a minimum length and width each of 4m, excluding any area used for vehicle

circulation or parking or onsite waste disposal.

The applicant has identified an area of private open space on the site plans that includes a lawn area, a pool and a series of decks. All up the area is approximately 300 m² of private open space. The application complies with the requirements of the DCP.

D2.5.5 - Adjoining and Nearby Development

Dual occupancy development must be located so that it does not create potential conflict with adjoining agricultural activities or other legitimate land uses.

Dual occupancy development must be compatible with the bulk, scale, height and character of the locality and nearby development.

Buildings in the locality are typically single storey dwellings or farm sheds. Dwellings are often associated with outbuildings including sheds and garages and animal shelters. The proposed dual occupancy will use earth tones and will be well hidden behind existing vegetation. It will be compatible with nearby development and complies with this aspect of the DCP.

Dual occupancies must be compatible with the scenic amenity of the locality.

The amenity of the locality is undulating partly open grazing land and sugar cane land on low lying areas. There are scattered areas of vegetation and private buildings throughout the landscape. Although a substantial dwelling this dual occupancy proposed is compatible with the amenity of this locality.

Adequate provision must be made for:

a) solar access and privacy of the proposed dwelling(s) and any adjacent dwellings.

No adjacent dwellings will be affected by privacy or overshadowing due to the separation distances and vegetation. The solar access to the proposed dwelling is adequate with the heaviest vegetation to the west where it will be shaded from the late afternoon sun. Solar panels are shown on the building plans and are already installed on the existing dwelling.

b) reasonable protection of existing views and privacy from neighbouring houses.

The views of adjacent dwellings will not be impacted by the dual occupancy.

c) access to natural light and solar access for the proposed dwelling(s)and any adjacent dwelling(s).

The site has good access to natural light and the dual occupancy will face the north and east. Solar access to the adjacent dwelling will remain unaffected.

The development complies with this aspect of the DCP.

Other Development Control Plan/s - Issues

N/A

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

Subject to consent conditions the proposed detached dual occupancy is not likely to result in any negative impacts on the natural and built environment nor is it likely to negatively impact socially or economically on the locale.

It is important that the existing consent for a replacement dwelling (DA 10.2005.367.1) be surrendered to ensure that the subject land has consent for only two dwellings.

It is also important that a dwelling located on the subject land and marked on plans as a “studio” be rendered uninhabitable or removed as a condition of consent for this dual occupancy dwelling. If it is to remain as a non habitable structure then appropriate approvals will be required including an approval for the onsite wastewater system attached to it.

3.5 The suitability of the site for the development

The site has an adequate size and shape (and frontage) for a detached dual occupancy development. It has a suitable elevated location for a second dwelling that is still close to the original dwelling. No significant native vegetation needs to be removed to enable the proposed dual occupancy. A bushfire assessment has been undertaken and suitable buffers can be established without vegetation removal. Internal and external access is adequate. It is suitable for a detached dual occupancy development as proposed.

3.6 Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

There was one submission made on the development application from a resident of Pinegroves Road. The submission neither objects nor supports the development but makes the following points:

1. It is preferable to have a 5 bedroom dwelling at the above address than a Transport Terminal or an industrial Self Storage business.

Planning Response: Preference noted.

2. The dwelling should be not more than 100 metre from the existing dwelling to discourage subdivision.

Planning Response: The dwelling is to be located 27 metres form the existing dwelling.

3. No trees should be removed to enable the dual occupancy dwelling.

Planning Response: No native vegetation is required to be removed to enable the proposed dual occupancy dwelling to be built.

3.7 Public interest

This development does not raise significant issues of public interest. In amending its LEP and DCP in July 2015 Council expected it would receive such applications.

4. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

4.1 Water & Sewer Levies

The proposed dual occupancy (detached) will not be connected to reticulated water or sewerage and no levies apply.

4.2 Section 94 Contributions

As there is an increase in the load on services and facilities the following contributions will be required.

1) Developer Contributions to be paid

Contributions set out in the schedule at the end of this consent are to be paid to Council prior to the release of a construction certificate. Contributions are levied in accordance with the Byron Shire Developer Contributions Plan 2012 (as amended).

The Plan may be viewed on line at http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/ or during office hours at the Council Offices located at Station Street, Mullumbimby. These contributions are to fund public amenities and services as listed in the schedule. Additional details on the specific amenities are to be found in the Byron Shire Developer Contributions Plan 2012 (as amended).

The contributions in the schedule are current at the date of this consent. The contributions payable will be adjusted in accordance with the relevant plan and the amount payable will be calculated on the basis of the contribution rates that are applicable at the time of payment. The schedule contains a date for which the schedule remains valid, after this date you will have to contact Council for an updated schedule.

PAYMENTS WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTED BY CASH OR BANK CHEQUE.

5. CONCLUSION

Council recognises the role of detached rural dual occupancy development in allowing rural families to make better use of their land to house family and rural workers, adding to the stock of rental accommodation and widening the range of housing options in Byron Shire. Council wishes to encourage dual occupancy developments which suit the differing needs of the community and which enhance (or don’t degrade) the rural character of the Shire and don’t cause conflicts with neighbouring land uses.

This proposal meets the Council’s requirements. Conditional approval is appropriate.

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: Nil

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.21

Report No. 13.21 PLANNING - Resolution 17-260 Expression of Interest Land for Affordable Housing Update

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Natalie Hancock, Senior Planner

File No: I2017/1569

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

Council resolved in June 2017 (Resolution 17-260) to progress a number of actions to support affordable housing. This report provides an update against items 2 and 5 of this Resolution:

2. Support further discussions with landowners of land in Attachment 1, and progression of work necessary to establish the feasibility of the sites in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 for affordable housing; and also site ‘17’ Saddle Road land identified in the Draft Preliminary Residential Housing Strategy; and where appropriate, invite lodgement of Planning Proposals to rezone the land for this purpose.

5. Request staff to progress an expression of interest process (with a prepared set of guidelines) that will invite land owners to submit affordable housing proposals for other land in the Byron Shire for the consideration of Council as part of an early implementation program to supplement Council’s Residential Lands Strategy

In relation to item 2, the meeting with the landowners was held and subsequent to this meeting a Planning Proposal to rezone the Saddle Road land was lodged for the purpose of housing, which included a component of affordable housing. A report on the Planning Proposal is being prepared for Council’s next meeting.

In relation to item 5, an expression of interest (EOI) process was conducted and a total of 31 submissions were received. The EOI submissions have been organised into three categories:

· Category 1: Private land owners (excluding Saddle Road locality)

· Category 2: Saddle Road locality land owners

· Category 3: Council or Crown land

An assessment of the potential suitability of lands under Category 1 for affordable housing has been undertaken and recommendations for each site are provided in this report.

For consistency this assessment process was also applied to item 2 of Resolution 17-260 - private landowners sites at: 3 Poplar Street and 71 Main Arm Road for which an EOI was not received; and 2219 Coolamon Scenic Drive for which a further late submission was received under the EOI process.

Category 2 is pending further consideration of a planning proposal for Saddle Rd.

Category 3 Council or Crown land sites will be subject to a further report to council.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council adopt recommendations 1.(a) – 1.(p) for the Expression of Interest sites and Resolution 17-260 ‘Attachment 1’ sites, as contained in Table 1 of this report;

2. That Council require any further work to establish the feasibility of the supported sites in Table 1 of this report to be consistent with the Supporting Partnership Policy, as adopted by Council;

3. That Council in relation to the Saddle Road EOI sites, no further action is to be taken under Res 17-260 (Item 5) until the Planning Proposal assessment for this locality has been completed and considered by Council;

4. That in relation to the Council and Crown land EOI sites a further report will be presented to Council on their potential for affordable housing against the assessment criteria and methodology outlined in this report and any current Council resolutions pertaining to the land.

Attachments:

1 Presentation Saddle Road Landowners Meeting 30 Aug 2017, E2017/102145 ⇨

2 Expression of Interest Land for Affordable Housing Submissions Assessment Report , E2017/103317 ⇨

Report

The purpose of this report is to:

· Update Council on Council Resolution 17-260 Item 2

· Update Council on Expressions of Interest (EOIs) for affordable housing proposals in Byron Shire under Council Resolution 17-260 Item 5.

· Provide an overview of the assessment process guidelines used to determine suitable affordable housing sites

· Obtain feedback from the Council on how to proceed with EOIs on private lands

· Advise on a number of EOIs related to land in the ownership/management of Byron Shire Council.

Information/Background:

Council at its 22 June 2017 Ordinary Meeting considered a report on affordable housing options and resolved the following:

Resolution 17-260

2. Support further discussions with landowners of land in Attachment 1, and progression of work necessary to establish the feasibility of the sites in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 for affordable housing; and also site ‘17’ Saddle Road land identified in the Draft Preliminary Residential Housing Strategy; and where appropriate, invite lodgement of Planning Proposals to rezone the land for this purpose.

3. Request staff to progress, in consultation with the community, work necessary to support a possible Planning Proposal or any possible rezoning of land at the Mullum Hospital Site.

4. Review the mechanisms available to guide Council involvement in any public / private housing development with respect to probity and process.

6. Receive a further report on points 2,3 and 5 above.

Resolution 17-260 Item 2: Saddle Road update

A meeting was held with landowners on 30 August of ‘17’ Saddle Road land identified in the Draft Preliminary Residential Housing Strategy. A copy of the presentation to the land owners is provided in Attachment 1. Subsequent to this meeting a Planning Proposal to rezone the land in the Saddle Road area was lodged in October for the purpose of housing which included a component of affordable housing. A report on the Planning Proposal is being prepared for Council’s 14 December 2017 meeting.

Resolution 17-260 Item 2: Attachment 1 & 2 (private landowners outside the Saddle Rd area) update

There were 3 private land owners identified in the 2 attachments to Council Report 13.16: 3 Poplar Street, 71 Main Arm Road and 2219 Coolamon Scenic Drive Mullumbimby. The Poplar Avenue and Main Arm Road sites were shown to Council as part the draft Residential Strategy Councillor site inspection day on 19 October 2017. For consistency in process all three sites have been evaluated against the EOI site assessment criteria explained below. Recommendations for these sites are contained in Table 1 of this report as to their appropriateness to progress with a rezoning for the purpose of affordable housing.

An ‘Expression of Interest: Land for Affordable Housing - Submissions Assessment Report’ has been prepared for Council’s consideration, Attachment 2 of this report. It contains further details on the assessment of these sites as well as the other sites put forward through the EOI submission process.

Resolution 17-260 Item 5: EOI

In relation to item 5 of the above resolution an EOI process for affordable housing proposals in Byron Shire was open from 12 August to 12 September 2017. The EOI was designed to seek proposals for small, medium and large-scale project ideas in both existing and potential future urban areas. Respondents were encouraged to consider partnership opportunities with land owners, private sector or community housing providers to deliver long term affordable housing solutions in Byron Shire.

A total of 31 EOIs have been received, with 5 relating to Byron Shire Council and/or Crown land (under Council management) and 11 for the Saddle Road locality. One EOI was from a housing provider offering their services for later in the process should the need arise.

Assessment criteria

Assessment criteria have been developed as a set of guidelines to determine the strategic suitability of a given EOI site for affordable housing. The criteria reflect relevant strategic considerations regardless of land tenure and incorporate three Performance Objectives:

Performance objective 1: The site should be functionally suited to residential development ¾ both from land capability and infrastructure servicing standpoint

Performance objective 2: The site should be located close to other residential development to enable integration with local community

Performance objective 3: Aligns with Council priorities for delivering ‘affordable housing’.

In support of the above performance objectives the relevant site assessment criteria included:

· located within or in close proximity to a Mixed Use, Residential or Village Zone (excluding R5 Large Lot Residential Zone)

· safe and unconstrained land generally unencumbered by:

- areas of high or environmental, extractive resource or heritage value or areas mapped as regionally significant farmland

- hazards or risks such as 100yr flooding, coastal erosion, tidal inundation, slip, dunal movement, extreme bushfire and slopes greater than 20%

· already connected, or capable of being connected, to water and sewerage infrastructure that can accommodate projected demand, at no additional cost to Council/community

· good access to town centres offering the following opportunities:

- mixing with a community

- employment

- essential services, schools, shops,

- recreation, parks and community space

- getting around including cycle/walkways and public transport

- proximity to social, family and other established support systems

- benefiting those in housing and rental stress

- improved housing choice and diversity

- permanently secured housing stock for low to moderate income residents

The criteria accord with the site suitability and mapping criteria applied to identify potential residential land in both the adopted Rural Land Use Strategy and the draft Residential Strategy.

An ‘Expression of Interest: Land for Affordable Housing - Submissions Assessment Report’ (Attachment 2 of this report) provides a detailed assessment of the EOI submissions received. For consideration purposes the EOI submissions have been organised into three categories:

· Category 1: Private land owners (excluding Saddle Road locality)

· Category 2: Saddle Road locality land owners (subject to consideration under Res. 17-260 Item 2 process)

· Category 3: Council or Crown land

A summary of the recommendations for Category 1 sites is provided in Table 1 below. Table 1 also includes a summary of the recommendations for the 3 private landowners outside the Saddle Road Area identified in Attachments 1 & 2 from item 2 of Resolution 17-260.

Category 2 is pending further consideration of a planning proposal for Saddle Rd.

Table 2 below lists the Category 3 Council or Crown land sites that were identified through the EOI process. These sites will be subject to a further report to council on their potential for affordable housing against the assessment criteria and methodology outlined in this report and any current Council resolutions pertaining to the land.

Maps showing the location of Category 2 and 3 sites are provided in the Expression of Interest: Land for Affordable Housing - Submissions Assessment Report (Attachment 2).

The progression of work necessary to establish the feasibility of the supported sites in Table 1 should be consistent with Council’s Supporting Partnership Policy or similar to ensure the opportunity to harness the innovation and capital of the non-government sectors on private land to deliver better housing outcomes for the community is compliant with Statutory requirements.

Table 1: Category 1 Site Recommendations:

Site Address

Recommendation

11 Main Arm Road

Mullumbimby

1. (a)

That staff continue further discussions with the landowner of 11 Main Arm Road and progression of work necessary to confirm the feasibility of the site for affordable housing, and where appropriate invite lodgement of a development application and/or planning proposal for this purpose.

1660 Coolamon Scenic Drive

Mullumbimby

1. (b)

That staff continue further discussions with the landowner of 1660 Coolamon Scenic Drive and progression of work necessary to confirm the feasibility of the site for affordable housing, and where appropriate invite lodgement of a planning proposal for this purpose.

1B Ann

Mullumbimby

1. (c)

That staff continue further discussions with the landowner of 1B Ann and progression of work necessary to confirm the feasibility of the site for affordable housing, and where appropriate invite lodgement of a planning proposal for this purpose.

75 Mullumbimby Road

Mullumbimby

1. (d)

That staff continue further discussions with the landowner of 75 Mullumbimby Road and progression of work necessary to confirm the feasibility of the site for affordable housing, and where appropriate invite lodgement of a planning proposal for this purpose.

1897 Coolamon Scenic Drive

Mullumbimby

1. (e)

That the proponent for 1897 Coolamon Scenic Drive be advised that their proposal is excluded from further consideration as part of an early implementation program to supplement Council’s Residential Strategy for affordable housing for the reasons that the access, flooding and terrain constraints of the site do not render it suitable for affordable housing.

2219 Coolamon Scenic Drive

Mullumbimby

1. (f)

That the proponent for 2219 Coolamon Scenic Drive be advised that their proposal for large lot community title affordable housing is excluded from further consideration as part of an early implementation program to supplement Council’s Residential Strategy for the key reasons that part of the site has urban potential in the long term, subject to adequate infrastructure servicing and it not located close to other residential development to enable integration with local community.

168 Rankin Drive

Bangalow

1. (g)

That staff continue further discussions with the landowner of 168 Rankin Drive and progression of work necessary to confirm the feasibility of the site for affordable housing, and where appropriate invite lodgement of a development application and /or planning proposal for this purpose.

76 Dudgeons Lane

Bangalow

1. (h)

That the proponent for 76 Dudgeons Lane be advised that their proposal is excluded from further consideration as part of an early implementation program to supplement Council’s Residential Strategy for affordable housing for the key reasons that the land is regionally significant farmland, within the buffer area for the sewerage treatment plant, situated outside a preferred catchment area for urban expansion and not located close to other residential development to enable integration with local community.

239 - 245 Skinners

Shoot Road

Skinners Shoot

1. (i)

That the proponent for 239 - 245 Skinners Shoot Road be advised that their proposal is excluded from further consideration as part of an early implementation program to supplement Council’s Residential Strategy for affordable housing for the key reasons that the land is situated outside a preferred catchment area for urban expansion and not located close to other residential development to enable integration with local community.

282 Skinners Shoot Road

Skinners Shoot

1. (j)

That the proponent for 282 Skinners Shoot Road be advised that their proposal is excluded from further consideration as part of an early implementation program to supplement Council’s Residential Strategy for affordable housing key reasons that the land is situated outside a preferred catchment area for urban expansion and not located close to other residential development to enable integration with local community.

454 Middle Pocket Road

Middle Pocket

1. (k)

That the proponent for 454 Middle Pocket Road be advised that their proposal is excluded from further consideration as part of an early implementation program to supplement Council’s Residential Strategy for affordable housing for the key reasons that the land is situated outside a preferred catchment area for urban expansion and not located close to other residential development to enable integration with local community.

919 Binna Burra Road

Federal

1. (l)

That the proponent for 919 Binna Burra Road be advised that their proposal is excluded from further consideration as part of an early implementation program to supplement Council’s Residential Strategy for affordable housing for the key reasons that the land is State significant farmland, not capable of being connected to sewer, situated outside a preferred catchment area for urban expansion and not identified in the Rural Land Use Strategy as a rural village expansion area.

137 Taylors Road

Eureka

1. (m)

That the proponent for 137 Taylors Road be advised that their proposal is excluded from further consideration as part of an early implementation program to supplement Council’s Residential Strategy for affordable housing for the key reasons that the land is regionally significant farmland, situated outside a preferred catchment area for urban expansion and not located close to other residential development to enable integration with local community.

188 Waltons Road

Eureka

1. (n)

That the proponent for 188 Waltons Road be advised that their proposal is excluded from further consideration as part of an early implementation program to supplement Council’s Residential Strategy for affordable housing for the key reasons that the land is State and regionally significant farmland, situated outside a preferred catchment area for urban expansion and not located close to other residential development to enable integration with local community.

71 Main Arm Road

Mullumbimby

1. (o)

That staff continue further discussions with the landowner of 71 Main Arm Road and progression of work necessary to confirm the feasibility of the site for affordable housing, and where appropriate invite lodgement of a planning proposal application for this purpose.

3 Poplar Avenue

Mullumbimby

1.(p)

That the proponent for 3 Poplar Avenue be advised that their proposal is excluded from further consideration as part of an early implementation program to supplement Council’s Residential Strategy for affordable housing for the reasons that the flooding constraints of the site do not render it suitable for affordable housing.

Table 2: EOI submissions pertaining to Council and/or Crown Land

EOI Ref	Sites	Tenure
BSC 1	3 lots at Federal:
	(i) Lot 7 DP 263974 Roses Road	Byron Shire Council Community Land
	(ii) Lot 90A DP374765 Coorabell Rd	Byron Shire Council & Crown Land
	(iii) Lot 89 755697 898 Binna Burra Rd	Byron Shire Council & Crown Land
BSC 2	Mixed lots:
	(i) Lot 12 DP1189646 Bayshore Drive Site	Byron Shire Council
	(ii) Lot 4 DP841846 "Leaf Land"	Byron Shire Council
	(iii) Lot 188 DP728535 Old Mullumbimby Hospital site	Byron Shire Council (Health Administration Corporation)
	(iv) Valances Road Land	Byron Shire Council
BSC 3	Lot 22 DP10731765 Mullumbimby Sporting Fields	Byron Shire Council
BSC 4	Lot 1 & 2 DP 573835 Old Suffolk Park Sewerage Plant Broken Head Road Byron Bay	Byron Shire Council
BSC 5	Lot 4 DP 841856 "Leaf Land" Mullumbimby	Byron Shire Council

Financial Implications

None from adoption of the recommendations in this report.

The progression of particular sites may require the entering of a partnership or an agreement with Council to enable a secure supply of affordable housing for the community and Council. Any financial implications associated with completing such arrangements will be reported back to Council.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The assessment criteria applied for the expression of interest sites is consistent with the relevant Commonwealth, State and Regional policy frameworks.

The requirement for any progression of work on Council land must be consistent with the draft Supporting Partnership Policy, which has been prepared having regard to the statutory requirements of the Local Government Act and Regulations.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.22

Report No. 13.22 PLANNING - 10.2017.360.1 Rural Tourist Accommodation Comprising Four (4) Cabins at 75 Rifle Range Road, Bangalow

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Simone Reeves, Planner

File No: I2017/1660

Theme: Ecology

Development and Approvals

Proposal:

Proposal description:	Tourist and Visitor Accommodation Comprising Four (4) Cabins
Property description:	LOT: 39 DP: 625255
Property description:	75 Rifle Range Road BANGALOW
Parcel No/s:	76780
Applicant:	Balanced Systems Planning Consultants
Owner:	Legate Pty Ltd
Zoning:	RU1 Primary Production/1B1 Agricultural Protection
Date received:	7 July 2017
Integrated Development:	Yes
Public notification or exhibition:	- Level 2 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications - Exhibition period: 27/07/17 to 09/08/17 - Submissions received: Nineteen (19)
Planning Review Committee:	28 September 2017 – Council to determine
Issues:	- Koalas - Bushfire Prone land; - Small Scale

Summary:

Development approval is sought for tourist and visitor accommodation comprising four cabins at 75 Rifle Range Road. The subject property is zoned RU1 Primary Production and 1B1 Agricultural Protection pursuant to Byron LEP 2014 and 1988 Respectively. The property has an area of 39.15 hectares and historically has been utilised for farming purposes with limited grazing of livestock currently undertaken on the land. The property still retains paddocks of pasture, but also contains large vegetated areas dominated by camphor laurel.

The four cabins are proposed in the vicinity of the existing dwelling with access provided from Rifle Range Road via the existing driveway. The cabins are single storey with one single bedroom disabled cabin, with the remaining cabins comprising 2 bedrooms each. Each cabin comprises bathroom facilities and a small kitchen/living area opening onto a small deck area.

The proposed development is consistent with the relevant environmental planning instruments and planning controls applicable to the site including the LEP and DCP provisions for this type of development. Concern was raised in relation to koalas in the area and on the property. In this regard the land is not considered to be Core Koala Habitat under SEPP 44, however the applicant has proposed to remove camphor laurel on the land and plant some 3600 native trees and further enhance habitat for Koalas and other native fauna in the Bangalow area. Appropriate conditions of consent are recommended including measures to controls cats and dogs and vehicle speeds within the development. It is considered the proposal raises no significant issues in terms of environmental impacts which cannot be managed through reasonable and relevant conditions of approval, and the site is considered suitable for the development. As such the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

RECOMMENDATION:

That pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, development application no. 10.2017.360.1 for Tourist and Visitor Accommodation Comprising Four (4) Cabins, be granted consent subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 2 #2017/103454.

Attachments:

1 Proposed Plans 10.2017.360.1Rifle Range Rd Bangalow, E2017/102018 ⇨

2 proposed conditions of consent 10.2017.360.1 Rifle Range Rd Bangalow, E2017/103454 ⇨

3 SEPP 44 Report, E2017/102023 ⇨

4 Confidential - submissions received, E2017/102286

Assessment:

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. History/Background

The subject allotment was registered 08 July 1982. The existing dwelling on the site was approved 26 November 1981 under Development Consent BA81/2722.

A planning proposal for Seniors Housing under State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 did not proceed as a Site Suitability Certificate was refused by the New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment in June 2016.

No further development application history applies to the site.

1.2. Description of the proposed development

This application seeks approval for Tourist and Visitor Accommodation Comprising Four (4) Cabins as detailed within plans enclosed at Attachment 1

Cabin 1 has been identified as being suitable for persons with a disability with access via a 1:14 ramp and contains a single bedroom, bathroom and combined kitchenette, dining and living room and deck area.

Cabins 2, 3 and 4 are identical to each other and contains two (2) bedrooms each bathroom and combined kitchenette, dining and living room and deck area.

Vehicular access for the proposed cabins will utilise a proposed extension of the existing driveway access road located off Rifle Range Road.

Environmental works are also proposed i.e. clearing of some camphor laurel and planting of 3600 koala food source trees.

1.3. Description of the site

2. SUMMARY OF EXTERNAL REFERRALS

NSW Rural Fire Service

Under section 79BA of the Act, Council must be satisfied prior to making a determination for development on bush fire prone land, that the development complies with the document ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’. The site is bush fire prone land. The development application was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service for approval under Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1993. The RFS have issued general terms of approval which have been incorporated into the conditions of consent. .

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

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

3.1 State Environmental Planning Instruments

	Satisfactory	Unsatisfactory
State Environmental Planning Policy No 44—Koala Habitat Protection	☒	☐
Consideration: No native vegetation removal proposed. The applicant undertook an extensive site survey of the site that identified less than 15% of the site as containing koala food trees. As such, a Koala Plan of Management cannot be requested. Notwithstanding, the applicant proposes the planting of 900 koala food trees per cabin which will likely create koala habitat for those specimens recorded on adjoining allotments. It is considered the proposal complies with this Policy.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land	☒	☐
Consideration: The Decommissioned Rifle Range Cattle Dip Site is located on the subject site approximately between 200 and 250m south west of the proposed cabins. The dip site is downslope of the proposed cabins. The dip site lease lapsed on 30/06/2001 and has been capped and decommissioned. A Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) was undertaken by Balanced Systems Planning Consultants (June 2017). The PSI included an assessment of site history and soil sampling and analyses for metals, organochlorins and organophoshates. The PSI found no evidence of contamination and conduced that the site for the proposed cabins is suitable for the proposed use. No further investigation is warranted. Note: Decommissioned means all the standing structures, shed, fencing and roof have been dismantled. The bath itself, if present, is emptied of all chemical fluid and may have contaminated timbers from the roof and draining pen put into it and then is capped with concrete lids. The bath may have already been demolished prior to decommissioning in which case it is usually smashed and buried. An information plaque is attached to one of the concrete lids to indicate its Departmental file number, dip name and direction of the dipping. Clean soil may be spread around the bath to run flush with the bath edge and then grassed. The draining pen concrete floor is usually left intact so as not to disturb the possibly contaminated soil.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008	☒	☐
Consideration: The subject site is a large rural block (39.15ha), currently used for a residence pin addition to cattle grazing. Surrounding land uses include, residential development to the south and rural activities to the west, north and east. Of some significance in terms of potential land use conflicts is the intensive horticulture i.e. macadamia plantation located on lower land to the east. The proposed cabins are to be the located on a ridge some 264m from the macadamia plantation and therefore outside the nominal 200m buffer in Byron Shire Council Development Control Plan (BSDCP) 2014. It is not envisaged that the proposed development will result in significant land use conflicts with surrounding land uses and is considered to achieve the Principles as stipulate in Section 7 of this Policy.

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 1979 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:

Note: The proposed structures are wholly located within the portion of land mapped as RU1 Primary Production. As such, an assessment against BLEP 1988 or BSDCP 2010 is not applicable.

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

(a) The proposed development is defined in the LEP 2014 Dictionary as ‘tourist and visitor accommodation which means a building or place that provides temporary or short-term accommodation on a commercial basis, and includes any of the following:

(a) backpackers’ accommodation,

(b) bed and breakfast accommodation,

(c) farm stay accommodation,

(d) hotel or motel accommodation,

(e) serviced apartments,

but does not include:

(f) camping grounds, or

(g) caravan parks, or

(h) eco-tourist facilities’.

(b) The land is within the RU1 Primary Production according to the Land Zoning Map;

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

RU1 Primary Production

The objectives of the RU1 Primary Production zone are:

· ‘To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base;

· To encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises and systems appropriate for the area;

· To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands;

· To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones;

· To encourage consolidation of lots for the purposes of primary industry production;

· 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; and

· To protect significant scenic landscapes and to minimise impacts on the scenic quality of the locality’.

The proposal provides small scale tourist accommodation that is consistent with the rural use and character of the allotment. The proposed cabins being located within an existing cleared portion of the site and ensures that the rural and environmental qualities of the site are preserved and do not conflict with the primary use of the subject site i.e. agriculture or adjacent and adjoining rural land uses. The proposal can be conditioned to ensure that the scenic landscape of the site is enhanced.

4.3 Height of buildings

Council’s Height of buildings map stipulates a maximum height of 9m from natural ground level. The proposed maximum height for the cabins is 4.5 metres.

5.9 Preservation of Trees or Vegetation

Whilst this development standard has since been repealed, the provision still applies as the development application was lodged prior to its being repealed. Notwithstanding, the applicant does not propose the clearing of any native vegetation. As such, it is considered to comply with the standard and associated development control chapter i.e. B2 Preservation of Trees and Other Vegetation.

6.2 Earthworks

The proposal requires minimal earthworks that with conditions of approval relating to soil and erosion measures, should not have an adverse impact on the environment.

6.3 Flood planning

The proposed cabins are located on a portion of the site that is not flood prone. In addition Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the proposal and has deemed the proposal as having suitable access.

6.5 Drinking water catchments

Whilst being located within a drinking water catchment area, the proposed on site wastewater system is of a sufficient distance away from any watercourse, with the system being compliant with Council’s requirements.

6.6 Essential services

Each cabin will be provided with harvested rainwater, electricity and telecommunications. An onsite wastewater management system solution will be utilised and has been considered acceptable by Council’s Environmental Health Officer.

6.8 Rural and nature-based tourism development

‘Small scale’ means a scale that is small enough to be generally managed and operated by the principal owner living on the property. As such, conditions of approval will be imposed pertaining to the management of the cabins by the principal owner living on the property. It is noted that the present development controls permit additional cabins given the size of the size allotment and the proposal of four (4) cabins is considered to be small. In this regard the applicant could have sought approval for up to 6 cabins with 2 bedrooms each.

The proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on agricultural production, amenity or significant features of the natural environment of the site and is considered complementary to the rural or environmental attributes of the land and its surrounds.

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

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2016 (CM SEPP). The proposal is unlikely to conflict with this Policy as the site is not within the coastal zone.

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 1979 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:

B2 Preservation of trees and other vegetation

The proposal does not include the removal of native vegetation. Some camphor laurels will be removed and their removal is considered as exempt from requiring development consent.

Note: The applicant proposes to plant 3600 koala food trees wholly within the site as per the Byron Rural Settlement Strategy 1988. As such, it is considered

B3 Services

The proposal provides for essential services in the form of harvest water and an onsite sewerage management system that was deemed acceptable by Council’s Environmental Health Officer.

B6 Buffers and Land Use Conflict

Given the distance between the proposed cabins and adjoining rural land uses in excess of 200 metres as well as more than 140 metres to adjacent residential activities, it is considered that the proposal will not result in land use conflicts.

B8 Waste Minimisation and Management

A Site Waste Minimisation and Management Plan was submitted by the applicant and considered to be satisfactory. Conditions of approval will be imposed with regards to the implementation of this plan.

C3 Visually Prominent Sites, Visually Prominent Development and View Sharing

The proposal is of small-scale that and unlikely to generate adverse impacts on visual quality and scenic quality of the Shire. The tourist and visitor accommodation is single storey and will not obstruct views from another property or disrupt the skyline.

C4 Development in a Drinking Water Catchment

The site is considered suitable for an onsite wastewater management system that has been assessed and considered satisfactory with Council requirements.

The proposal includes principles of water sensitive urban design with regards to the harvesting of rainwater whilst the proposed accessway/driveway extension minimises the amount of cut and fill required to provide suitable access and stormwater management that will not have an adverse impact on the drinking water catchment.

D2 Residential Accommodation and Ancillary Development in Rural Zones

Chapter D3 Tourist Accommodation requires the development to be consistent with the character and design of the rural zone with boundary setbacks being observed. The proposal provides in excess of 100 metres to Rifle Range Road with 141 metres to the southern adjoining boundary and 262 metres to the eastern closest side boundaries.

D3 Tourist Accommodation

The proposed facility is considered ‘small-scale’ and will not conflict with the high ecological value vegetation located along the northern boundary of the site. The applicant proposes the planting of 3600 koala food trees and the proposed operational regime has been considered so as to ensure it does not adversely affect agricultural productivity or create land use conflict issues. As such, it is considered that the proposal achieves the objectives of the Byron Rural Settlement Strategy 1988.

The proposed structures are single storey and are compatible with the character and amenity of the locality.

The proposed cabins have a gross floor area of 58.91m² each and a combined bedroom number of seven (7) bedrooms with development controls permitting a maximum of twelve (12) bedrooms for allotments that in in excess of 20 hectares.

The cabins are clustered approximately 30 metres apart with the first cabin being 37.35 metres from the existing primary dwelling. This cabin also caters for persons with a disability with disabled access being provided.

All weather access and car parking arrangements have also been provided.

4.5 Any Planning Agreement or Draft Planning Agreement?

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

4.6 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 Considerations

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

4.7 Any coastal zone management plan?

	Satisfactory	Unsatisfactory	N/A
Is there any applicable coastal zone management plan?	☐	☐	☒

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

Impact on:	Likely significant impact/s?
Natural environment	No. The proposal will not have a significantly adverse impact on the natural environment of the locality. Should the application be approved 3600 native trees will be planted and a number of camphor laurel will be removed providing an environmental benefit for native flora and fauna.
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.

4.9 The suitability of the site for the development

The site is considered suitable for the proposed tourist accommodation as it is located within a relatively isolated area of the site with sufficient separation from adjoining residential zoned allotments with the nearest being approximately 200m away and further away than the existing dwelling contained within the site.

4.10 Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

The proposal was publicly notified from 27 July 2017 to 9 August 2017. A total of nineteen (19) submissions were received during and after this period. An outline of planning concerns raised and often repeated amongst the authors is addressed below. Matters that do not relate to section 79c of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been excluded from this Report.

Land owner is not proposed to be on site

Conditions of approval will be imposed relating to the site owner/leasee/caretaker being on site at such times the property is being utilised by visitors and residing in the main dwelling house

Increased traffic will result in increased noise and dust

The proposal is not considered to create any greater noise or dust levels than would be imposed by exempt agricultural development on the site. The proposal was assessed by Council’s Development Engineer who has considered the proposal is acceptable.

Tourist development close to residences adversely impacts on amenity and privacy and increases noise

The proposal is not considered to be close to residential development. Notwithstanding, conditions of approval pertaining to neighbourhood amenity must be complied with at all times.

Access to the site is in an unsafe location for the number of vehicles

Access to the site is considered suitable for this small scale development. Appropriate conditions to apply.

Does not comply with the North Coast Regional Plan

The North Coast Regional Environmental Plan was repealed. The North Coast Regional Plan 2036 also does not apply to the development as it relates solely to the strategic planning of a locality and applies only to planning proposals to which the application is not.

Inappropriate location

Tourist and visitor accommodation is a permissible use within the RU1 Primary Production zone. The proposed cabins are more than 140 metres from the adjoining boundaries with even further setbacks provided to dwellings within adjacent residential zoned allotments.

Lack of qualifications of person who addressed SEPP 44

The individual who addressed SEPP 44 in the first instance is a qualified Ecologist. Given the submissions raised the applicant was requested to provide further address. It is considered the Consultant who has provided advice on the matter is suitably qualified.

Koala Plan of Management (KPOM) required for site

It is considered that the site does not contain potential or core koala habitat and as such a Koala Plan of Management is not required. Notwithstanding the applicant is proposing remove camphor laurel and plant some 3600 native trees which will provide improved habitat for koalas and other native species of flora.

Site forms a koala corridor with no consideration given to koalas

The applicants in depth survey and willingness to provide 3600 koala food trees within the site, demonstrates the applicants consideration to koalas within the immediate locality. Notwithstanding, conditions of approval have been imposed in relation to koala safety long term i.e. vehicle speeds and the keeping of dogs and cats within the site. The proposal provides a suitable response to the Koala issue

Undesirable precedence to be set

The proposal complies with all relevant SEPP’s, BLEP 2014 and BSDCP 2014. As such, the proposal does not set an undesirable precedent.

4.11 Public interest

The proposed development is unlikely to prejudice or compromise the public interest or create an undesirable precedent.

4.12 Section 5A of the EP&A Act 1979 – Significant effect on threatened species

Having regard to sections 5A, 5C and 5D of the EP&A Act 1979, 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 the cabins will be located wholly within a cleared portion of the site, with the nearest vegetation being identified as camphor laurel. Whilst koalas have been regularly spotted within the camphor laurel located along Rifle Range Road, koalas have not been recorded within the site. Notwithstanding, the applicant has agreed to plant a total of 3600 koala food trees within the subject site. In addition, conditions of approval will also be imposed relating to the keeping of dogs and cats and vehicle speeds within the site.

As such, it is unlikely that the proposal will have a significant adverse affect on threatened species.

4.13 Section 5B of the EP&A Act 1979 – Have regard to register of critical habitat

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

5. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

5.1 Water & Sewer Levies

No Section 64 levies will be required.

5.2 Section 94 Contributions

Section 94 Contributions will be payable.

6. CONCLUSION

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

7. RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, development application no. 10.2017.360.1 for Tourist and Visitor Accommodation Comprising Four (4) Cabins, be granted consent subject to conditions of approval.

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: Nil.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.23

Report No. 13.23 PLANNING - 10.2017.270.1 Multi dwelling housing comprising eight (8) dwellings, Strata Title subdivision to create eight (8) Strata Lots and Common Property and Tree Removal (17 trees) at 6 and 6A Canowindra Court South Golden Beach

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Greg Smith, Team Leader Planning Services

File No: I2017/1672

Theme: Ecology

Development and Approvals

Summary:

Proposal description:	Multi dwelling housing comprising eight (8) dwellings, Strata Title subdivision to create eight (8) Strata Lots and Common Property and Tree Removal (17 trees)
Property description:	LOT: 11 DP: 1225527, LOT: 12 DP: 1225527
Property description:	6 & 6A Canowindra Court SOUTH GOLDEN BEACH
Parcel No/s:	268380, 268381
Applicant:	Ardill Payne & Partners
Owner:	JBPB Holdings Pty Ltd & L & K Burke Holdings Pty Ltd
Zoning:	R2 Low Density Residential
Date received:	29 May 2017
Integrated Development:	Yes
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: 11
Planning Review Committee	28 September 2017
Delegation to determination:	Council
Issues:	· Minimum lot size, with clause 4.6 request for variation · Bush fire prone land, · Acid Sulfate Soils and Flood Prone Land · Building height plane, privacy · Tree removal, compensatory planting
Summary: The DA proposes multi dwelling housing comprising eight (8) dwellings in a two storey configuration with ground level garages and upper level residential areas on land at 6 and 6A Canowindra Court, South Golden Beach. The property has an area of 1835.8m² and is zoned R2 Low Density Residential pursuant to Byron LEP 2014. The dwellings are modest in area with seven units comprising 3 bedrooms and 1 unit being a two bedroom unit. Upper level decks and open space are orientated to the north. The proposed development is permissible with consent in the R2 zone and satisfies the minimum lot area on 1000m² for multi dwelling housing development as prescribed under Clause 4.1E. The proposal also includes a Strata Title subdivision to create eight (8) lots, with the lots ranging in areas from approximately 111.9m² to 185.5m² and do not comply with the minimum lot size development standard of 600m². The DA is supported by a written request for a variation pursuant to clause 4.6 of the LEP. The circumstances of the case warrant a more flexible approach to the application of the minimum lot size development standard having regards to the permissibility of the primary use, and the Applicant’s variation request is supported in this instance. The development includes the removal of 17 trees however these are to be compensated by additional plantings and landscaping of the site. Conditions of consent are recommended in this regard. Eleven public submissions have been received in relation to this proposal raising a range of issues including flooding, sewer capacity, traffic impacts, parking, density and privacy. The site is alos constrained by acid sulphate soils and bushfire. Having regard to the size of the site and the design of the development these matters have been adequately dealt with. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

RECOMMENDATION:

That pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Development Application 10.2017.270.1 for multi dwelling housing comprising eight (8) dwellings, Strata Title subdivision to create eight (8) Strata Lots and Common Property and Tree Removal (17 trees), be granted consent subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 2 #E2017/101883.

Attachments:

1 Proposed Plans prepared by Ardill Payne , E2017/101880 ⇨

2 conditions of consent , E2017/104959 ⇨

3 Confidential - submisisons received, E2017/102270

Report

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. History/Background

DA 10.2013.575.1 for Three lot Torrens Title subdivision of one existing lot, construction of a six car carport, Strata Title subdivision of existing units and tree removal (6 trees) was approved on 15/4/2014, and modified by way of section 96 Application No. 10.2013.575.2 on 17/10/2014. The approved subdivision was registered by way of DP 1225527 on 25/10/2016, creating Lots 11 and 12 upon which the development under DA 10.2017.270.1 is proposed to be carried out.

1.2. Description of the proposed development

This application seeks approval for multi dwelling housing comprising 8 dwellings, Strata Title subdivision to create 8 Strata Lots and Common Property and tree removal (17 trees). There are 4 proposed two storey buildings with each accommodating 2 attached dwellings. Each proposed dwelling has 3 bedrooms except for proposed Unit 1 which has 2 bedrooms. Each dwelling is provided with a double garage and laundry space at ground floor level, and habitable rooms at the first floor level. Each dwelling is provided with ground floor open space, and other than Unit 1, a first floor level north facing deck. The dwellings are accessed via a common driveway adjacent to the southern boundary of the site.

The application also proposes Strata Title subdivision of the development, comprising 8 Lots accommodating one of the proposed units, and Common Property. The area of each proposed lot is as follows:

Lot	Size
1	111.9m²
2	155.3m²
3	155.3m²
4	155.3m²
5	155.3m²
6	155.3m²
7	155.3m²
8	185.5m²
Common Property	606.6m² (by deduction from the total site area)

The application also includes the removal of garden and native vegetation including four lilly pillys, three paperbarks, two swamp oaks and a pandanus palm.

1.3. Description of the site

Land is legally described as	LOT: 11 DP: 1225527, LOT: 12 DP: 1225527
Property address is	6 and 6A Canowindra Court, South Golden Beach
Land is zoned:	R2 Low Density Residential
Land area is:	1835.8m²
Other constraints include:	Flood liable Land, Bush fire prone land, Acid sulfate soils

20170622_103659 20170622_103559

2. SUMMARY OF REFERRALS

Referral	Issue
Rural Fire Service (100B)	No objections subject to conditions. Refer to Doc #E2017/72020 and see below.

3. SECTION 79BA – BUSH FIRE PRONE LAND

The DA proposes subdivision of bush fire prone land and was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service as integrated development. The RFS provided its general terms of approval and bush fire safety authority which are included in the recommendation of this Report to be imposed on the development consent.

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 55—Remediation of Land	ý	☐
Consideration: Council’s Environmental Health Officer confirmed that SEPP 55 was considered for the above mentioned DA 10.2013.575.1.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 71—Coastal Protection	ý	☐
Consideration: The proposed development is satisfactory having regard to the relevant considerations under SEPP 71.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007	ý	☐
Consideration: The proposed development is satisfactory having regard to the provisions of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007.

4.2A Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP 2014)

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

Part 1	ý1.1\| ý1.1AA\| ý1.2\| ý1.3\| ý1.4\| ýDictionary\| ý1.5\| ý1.6\| ý1.7\| ý1.8\| ☐1.8A\| ý1.9\| ☐1.9A
Part 2	ý2.1\| ý2.2 \| ý2.3 \|ýLand Use Table \| ☐2.4 \| ☐2.5 \| ý2.6 \| ☐2.7 \| ☐2.8
Part 3	☐3.1\| ☐3.2\| ☐3.3
Part 4	ý4.1\| ☐4.1A\| ☐4.1AA\| ☐4.1B \|☐4.1C\| ☐4.1D\| ý4.1E\| ☐4.2\| ☐4.2A\| ☐4.2B\| ☐4.2C\| ☐4.2\|ý4.3\|ý4.4 \|☐4.5 \|ý4.6
Part 5	☐5.1\| ☐5.2\| ☐5.3\| ☐5.4\| ý5.5\| ☐5.6\| ☐5.7\| ☐5.8\| ☐5.9\| ☐5.9AA\| ý5.10\| ☐5.11\| ☐5.12\| ☐5.13
Part 6	ý6.1\| ☐6.2\| ý6.3\| ☐6.4\| ☐6.5\| ý6.6\| ý6.7\| ☐6.8\| ☐6.9

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

(a) The proposed development is defined in the LEP 2014 Dictionary as multi dwelling housing with ancillary demolition and tree removal, and subdivision of land;

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

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

Zone Objective	Consideration
To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.	The proposed development provides 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 proposal is not a land use other than housing, and would not hinder but would instead support any other land use that provides facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

The remaining checked clauses have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP&A Act.

LEP Summary of Requirement

Proposed

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 proposed Strata Title lots do not comply with the Lot Size Map, and this is addressed below.

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

(1) The objective of this clause is to achieve planned residential density in certain zones.

(2) Development consent may be granted to development on a lot in a zone shown in Column 2 of the table to this clause for a purpose shown in Column 1 of the table opposite that zone, if the area of the lot is equal to or greater than the area specified for that purpose and shown in Column 3 of the table.

Column 1	Column 2	Column 3
Multi dwelling housing	Zone R2 Low Density Residential	1,000 square metres

The site area of 1835.8m² complies with the 1000m² minimum requirement for multi-dwelling housing

4.3 Height of buildings

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

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

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

(2) The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map.

The proposed height of approximately 7.2m complies with the 9m maximum height requirement.

4.4 Floor space ratio

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

(a) to ensure that new buildings are appropriate in relation to the character, amenity and environment of the locality,

(b) to enable a diversity of housing types by encouraging low scale medium density housing in suitable locations,

(d) to regulate density of development and generation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic,

(e) to set out maximum floor space ratios for dual occupancy in certain areas.

(2) The maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map.

(2A) Despite subclause (2), the maximum floor space ratio for dual occupancies on land in Zone R2 Low Density Residential is 0.5:1.

The proposed floor space ratio of approximately 0.40:1 complies with the 0.5:1 maximum floor space ratio requirement.

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. The property is also landward of the defined coastal erosion zones.

5.10 Heritage conservation

…

(2) Requirement for consent Development consent is required for any of the following:

(a) demolishing or moving any of the following or altering the exterior of any of the following (including, in the case of a building, making changes to its detail, fabric, finish or appearance):

(i) a heritage item,

(ii) an Aboriginal object,

(iii) a building, work, relic or tree within a heritage conservation area,

(b) altering a heritage item that is a building by making structural changes to its interior or by making changes to anything inside the item that is specified in Schedule 5 in relation to the item,

(c) disturbing or excavating an archaeological site while knowing, or having reasonable cause to suspect, that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed,

(d) disturbing or excavating an Aboriginal place of heritage significance,

(e) erecting a building on land:

(i) on which a heritage item is located or that is within a heritage conservation area, or

(ii) on which an Aboriginal object is located or that is within an Aboriginal place of heritage significance,

(f) subdividing land:

(i) on which a heritage item is located or that is within a heritage conservation area, or

(ii) on which an Aboriginal object is located or that is within an Aboriginal place of heritage significance.

…

(7) Archaeological sites The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause to the carrying out of development on an archaeological site (other than land listed on the State Heritage Register or to which an interim heritage order under the Heritage Act 1977 applies):

(a) notify the Heritage Council of its intention to grant consent, and

(b) take into consideration any response received from the Heritage Council within 28 days after the notice is sent.

(8) Aboriginal places of heritage significance The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause to the carrying out of development in an Aboriginal place of heritage significance:

(a) consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the place and any Aboriginal object known or reasonably likely to be located at the place by means of an adequate investigation and assessment (which may involve consideration of a heritage impact statement), and

(b) notify the local Aboriginal communities, in writing or in such other manner as may be appropriate, about the application and take into consideration any response received within 28 days after the notice is sent.

The site does not contain a heritage item. There is no indication of the site containing an archaeological site or Aboriginal place of heritage significance.

6.1 Acid sulfate soils

Development consent must not be granted under this clause for the carrying out of works unless an acid sulfate soils management plan has been prepared for the proposed works in accordance with the Acid Sulfate Soils Manual and has been provided to the consent authority.

The site is class 2 for potential acid sulfate soils. The DA was accompanied by an acid sulphate soils management plan which was considered by Council’s Environmental Health Officer who recommended conditions accordingly.

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,

(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.

Development consent is sought for the proposed earthworks as required by this clause.

Minor works are proposed for footings and services.

6.3 Flood planning

Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development:

(a) is compatible with the flood hazard of the land, and

(b) will not significantly adversely affect flood behaviour resulting in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties, and

(d) will not significantly adversely affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of river banks or watercourses, and

(e) is not likely to result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community as a consequence of flooding.

The site is flood liable land.

The applicant has proposed to locate all habitable areas at the first floor level above the minimum floor level for this area of South Golden Beach/ North Ocean Shores.

Conditions of Consent recommended in term of the minimum floor level and services located below this level.

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,

(d) stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,

(e) suitable vehicular access.

The subject allotments are capable of being provided with the essential services including water, electricity, sewage disposal, stormwater drainage and suitable vehicular access, to the satisfaction of relevant Council Engineers, and subject to conditions.

4.1 Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

The Lot Size Map shows a minimum lot size of 600m² for this site. Proposed Strata Lots 11 to 14 comply with the minimum lot size planning control. Proposed Strata Lots 1 to 10 do not comply, with lot sizes as follows:

Lot	Size	Variation
1	111.9m²	81.4%
2	155.3m²	74.1%
3	155.3m²	74.1%
4	155.3m²	74.1%
5	155.3m²	74.1%
6	155.3m²	74.1%
7	155.3m²	74.1%
8	185.5m²	69.1%

The Applicant has submitted a written clause 4.6 variation request as follows:

1. Introduction – Summary of proposed development

The development application proposes multi dwelling housing comprising eight (8) dwellings, Strata Title subdivision to create eight (8) Strata Lots and Common Property and Tree Removal (17 trees).

2. Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards

LEP 2014 clause 4.6 allows the granting of a development consent, even though the development would contravene a development standard. However Council must first consider a written request from the Applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

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

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

Council must be satisfied that the Applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated and that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (noting that the concurrence of the Secretary is not required to be obtained in this instance).

3. The Development Standard to be varied

The development standard to be varied is the minimum lot size planning control of 600m² applicable to this site under LEP 2014 clause 4.1 as described above.

The minimum lot size planning control is a development standard in accordance with the applicable definition in section 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 because it is a provision of an environmental planning instrument in relation to the carrying out of development, being a provision by or under which requirements are specified or standards are fixed in respect of any aspect of that development, being the area of land.

4. Extent of Variation to the Development Standard

The extent of the variation ranges from 69.1% to 81.4% as indicated in the table above.

5. Objective of the Development Standard

The objectives of the development standard, as outlined in subclause 4.1(1) are:

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

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

6. Objectives of the Zone

The objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone are stated and have been addressed in this section above.

7. Assessment – the specific questions to be addressed:

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

The clause 4.6 written request submitted in support of the DA advises as follows in this regard:

“· compliance with the minimum lot size standard for the proposed Strata Title subdivision of the proposed multi dwelling housing development is unreasonable and unnecessary due to the fact that the wording of Clause 4.1(4) was clearly not intended to restrict the minimum lot sizes for Strata Title lots

· prior to the court case, Councils were routinely approving Strata Title subdivisions of multi dwelling housing developments on the basis that the mapped minimum lot size map did not apply to such – in fact, if it were not for the court case, Councils would be continuing to grant consent to such”.

Requiring compliance with the development standard would result in the proposed Strata Lots being inconsistent with the proposed built form and site layout. The proposed subdivision does not have any visible component and has no impact upon the environment of the locality. Requiring compliance with the development standard would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

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

The clause 4.6 written request submitted in support of the DA advises as follows in this regard:

“· as detailed below, if not for the fact that the subject land is mapped as being bushfire prone, the proposed Strata Title subdivision of the multi dwelling housing development would comprise “exempt development” pursuant to Clause 3.1 and Schedule 2 of the BLEP 2014 – there is no rational planning reason as to how or why Strata subdivision can be prohibited if it does not comply with the mapped minimum lot size on land that is mapped as being bushfire prone, but is then permitted as exempt development if the land is not mapped as being bushfire prone”.

The environmental planning grounds are particular to the site and sufficient to justify contravening the development standard. These include that the buildings to be Strata subdivided are the subject of the same development assessment which is the component of the development that would cause environmental impacts if any, there are no required site works or landscape disturbance associated with the subdivision, and the proposed variation does not create any significantly adverse social, environmental or economic impacts in the locality.

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

The clause 4.6 written request submitted in support of the DA advises as follows in this regard:

“· there will not be any adverse impacts on the public interest and no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance – it is actually submitted that it is an ideal mechanism to allow the continued Strata Title subdivision of multi dwelling housing developments on residential zoned land in accordance with the original intent of Clause 4.1(4)”.

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the zone for site specific reasons as follows:

(a) Objectives of the Standard

· The proposed lot sizes are compatible with local environmental values and constraints. The proposed lot sizes will not cause any adverse environmental impacts and are in keeping with the proposed built form and site layout.

· The proposed lot sizes support the efficient use of land resources for residential purposes.

(b) Objectives of the R2 Zone

· The proposed Strata Title subdivision supports the development to provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

· The proposal is not a land use other than housing, and would not hinder but would instead support any other land use that provides facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

The proposal produces a better planning outcome than one that strictly complies with the development standard because requiring strict compliance would result in lot sizes that are not in keeping with the proposed built form and site layout. The proposed Strata Title subdivision is in the public interest. The circumstances of the case warrant a more flexible approach to application of the lot size development standard, and the Applicant’s variation request is supported in this instance.

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

Yes

Is there any applicable planning agreement or draft planning agreement?

☐

Consideration: Draft SEPP (Coastal Management) 2016 applies to the site, which is within the proposed Coastal Environment Area and Coastal Use Area.

In relation to the proposed Coastal Environment Area, the proposal is satisfactory having regard to clause 14 of the draft SEPP because the proposal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In relation to the proposed Coastal Use Area, the proposal is satisfactory having regard to clause 15 of the draft SEPP because:

(a) the proposed development:

(i) maintains existing, safe public access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform;

(ii) minimises overshadowing, wind funnelling and the loss of views from public places to foreshores;

(iii) will not adversely impact on the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands;

(iv) will not adversely impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage and places; and

(v) will not adversely impact on use of the surf zone, and

(b) Council has taken into account the type and location of the proposed development, and the bulk, scale and size of the proposed development.

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

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

Part A	ý
Part B Chapters:	ýB2\| ýB3\| ýB4\| ýB5\| ýB6\| ýB7\| ýB8\| ýB9\| ☐B10\| ýB11\| ýB12\| ýB13\| ýB14
Part C Chapters:	☐C1\| ýC2\| ýC3\| ☐C4
Part D Chapters	ýD1\| ☐D2\| ☐D3\| ☐D4\| ☐D5\| ýD6\| ☐D7\| ☐D8
Part E Chapters	☐ E1\| ☐E2\| ☐E3\| ☐E4\| ☐E5\| ☐E6\| ☐ E7

Chapter B2 – Preservation of Trees and Other Vegetation

The application proposes tree removal as follows:

Tree ID No.	Common Name	Scientific Name	DBH (cm)	~Canopy Spread (m²)	~Height (m)
1.	Pandanus	Pandanus tectorius	19	12.6	10
4.	Golden Penda	Xanthostemon chrysanthus	29	19.6	11
5.	Lilly Pilly	Acmena smithii	17	12.6	10
6.	Swamp Oak	Casuarina glauca	35	28.3	15
8.	Swamp Oak	Casuarina glauca	6	4.9	3
9.	Red Apple	Acmena ingens	17	12.6	12
10.	Paperbark	Melaleuca quinquenervia	35	19.6	12
11.	Riberry	Syzygium luehmannii	14	12.6	8
12.	Paperbark	Melaleuca quinquenervia	30	15.7	12
13.	Paperbark	Melaleuca quinquenervia	27	12.6	12
14.	Lilly Pilly	Acmena smithii	20	12.6	7
15.	Water Gum	Tristaniopsis laurina	30	19.6	11
16.	Lilly Pilly	Acmena smithii	16	12.6	7
17.	Lilly Pilly	Acmena smithii	18	12.6	7
25.	Creek Sandpaper Fig	Ficus coronata	9	9.6	7
26.	Red Apple	Acmena ingens	19	9.6	6
30.	Brush Cherry	Syzygium australe	9	9.6	6

No species of conservation significance were recorded. The >10m high Swamp Oak, Paperbarks and Water Gum (5 trees in total) are considered to be of medium ecological/aesthetic value requiring the provision of 5 compensatory plants per removed tree. The other 12 trees are considered to be of low ecological/aesthetic value requiring the provision of 1 compensatory plant per removed tree. This requires a minimum of 5 x 5 + 12 x 1 = 37 compensatory plants and a condition requiring a landscaping plan is included in the Recommendation of this Report below accordingly. The DA is accompanied by an indicative landscape plan which indicates the provision of more than 37 plants.

Chapter B3 – Services

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

Each dwelling is required to be provided with 2 car parking spaces. Each dwelling is provided with a double garage. 2 visitor parking spaces are also required, and these are provided at the western end of the site, visible from the road frontage. The proposal complies in relation to provision of parking facilities and Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection n the basis of circulation and access.

Chapter B9 – Landscaping

Prescriptive measure 2 of B9.4.1 Landscape Principles requires the provision of 90m² of landscaped area per large dwelling (ie. 8 large dwellings x 90m² per dwelling = 720m²) less the totals of the approved private courtyards. That is, the area of the landscaped area for the development is able to include the approved private courtyards as long as the total of approved private courtyards and common landscaped area is 720m². The development provides for approximately 710m² which is only slightly less than the requirement. The application demonstrates that the proposal will provide for a reasonable level of landscaped area through plantings with each property containing small but functional courtyards area for residents needs. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory having regards to the applicable objectives and performance criteria under B9.4.1. Conditions to apply for landscaping to be completed.

Chapter C2 – Areas Affected by Flood

A flood planning level for this development is 3.4m AHD applies to the site. The residential areas of each dwelling are set at a minimum of 4.94m AHD which complies with Councils flood requirements. The plans indicate that only garage / storage and laundry internal uses are to occur at the ground floor level which is below the flood planning level.

Chapter D1 – Residential Accommodation in urban, Village & Special Purpose Zones

The proposal does not comply with D1.2.2 Setbacks from Boundaries, Prescriptive Measure 3 – minimum setbacks for multi dwelling house, requiring 3m between buildings on a site. The proposed setback between buildings is 2m.

However the proposed development complies with the Objectives and Performance Criteria underpinning this design element for the following reasons:

1. The proposal minimises impacts upon the existing streetscapes and development in the locality due to the properties location.

2. The proposal achieves good orientation and spacing of residential developments to achieve high quality living environments relative to sunlight, shade, wind and weather protection, residential amenity and proximity of neighbouring development.

3. The proposal achieves effective use of the site to create useable and liveable private open space and courtyards.

4. The proposal represents appropriate siting and design in the surrounding urban residential area.

5. Private open space and common landscaped areas of the site are useable as part of the living environment available for the occupants of the development. Landscaped areas are

provided in the visually prominent part of the site to the west of the building to visually soften the built form from the public perspective.

6. The proposed front setback complies with the minimum of 4.5m/5.5m. The proposed development is appropriately designed for vehicular safety and visibility. The dwellings are oriented to take advantage of the open northerly aspect, including open space and decking. The proposed 2m setback areas are not readily visible in the streetscape. Car parking is either incorporated into each dwelling or visitor parking that is visually softened by landscaping.

7. The variation will not have a significant impact in terms of streetscape, amenity, privacy, views and access of surrounding properties, road status, traffic impacts, sight lines or BCA compliance.

In relation to D1.2.1 Building Height Plane, the development encroaches into the building height plane as projected from the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. The northern boundary adjoins land in the same ownership as the site, however the encroachment still needs to be considered with reference to the applicable DCP 2014 provisions. In accordance with Prescriptive Measure 2, given that the site is flood liable land, Council is able to consider an exemption to the building height plane in relation to one or more boundaries because the floor level is required to be above ground level to comply with Council’s requirement’s for flood protection. This exemption is applicable to a point, however the development could have been designed to comply with both flood protection and building height plane requirements. However, having regard to the Dual Path Assessment, the non-compliance meets the D1.2.1 Objectives and Performance criteria for the following reasons:

Performance Criteria

1. The proposed development has been design to minimise overshadowing, privacy and view impacts;

2. The development is designed to promote energy efficiency and to optimise use of winter sunlight and summer shade; and

3. The development is designed to ensure that the windows of living areas (decks, living rooms, bedrooms, kitchens, etc.) of development on adjoining properties will retain full solar access between the hours of 9.00am to 3.00pm on any day;

and hence:

Objectives

1. The proposal will not have a significant impact in terms of solar access on adjoining properties to the north and east, or on the views from adjacent existing buildings. The proposal incorporates privacy screens to the upper floor level balconies, and the east facing windows are highlight windows, to ensure that the development does not have significant privacy impacts on neighbouring properties; and

2. The occupants of the development will enjoy the optimum use of winter sunlight and summer shade. The privacy screens are to be designed so as to allow sunlight penetration and minimise privacy impacts to northern and eastern neighbouring properties.

In relation to D1.2.4 Character & Visual Impact:

Performance Criteria

1. Site, building and landscaping design appropriately addresses the climate;

2. The street face of the eastern most building, together with the space between it and the street, contribute to the general attractiveness of the streetscape by means of good design, appropriate materials and landscaping, noting that the view of the site north along Canowindra Court is not of buildings but rather of driveway, visitor parking and landscaping;

3. The development has been designed to minimise loss of privacy for the reasons indicated above;

4. There is a reasonable degree of integration with the existing built and natural environment, balanced with the desirability of providing for variety in the streetscape;

5. Long, straight wall areas have been avoided by visually breaking up the development into separate buildings and wall plane changes, varied setbacks and building material combinations;

6. Decks are provided for visual, climatic and energy efficiency reasons;

7. Well-designed overhanging eaves are provided to protect against heavy rainfall and summer sun, while allowing winter sun penetration; and

8. Building materials are compatible in character with the surrounding environment. The proposed roofs are of a “medium” non-highly reflective colour (ie. not white or light-coloured) and “Colorbond” finish. Details of building materials and surface colours have been submitted for assessment with a DA;

and hence:

Objectives

1. The development appropriately retains and enhances the unique character of this part of the Byron Shire and its distinctive (as applicable) landscapes, ecology, towns, villages and natural areas; and

2. The development appropriately respects and complements those aspects of the area’s natural and built environment that are important to its existing character.

The proposed development is demonstrated to meet the relevant Objectives of DCP 2014.

In relation to D1.6.1, each dwelling has access to an individual courtyard at ground level having a minimum area of 30m² and a minimum length and width each of 4 metres, not including any area used exclusively for the circulation or parking of vehicles. The courtyards include access to winter sunshine and landscaped areas. Upper level decks are provided for solar access, to enable sea breexzes to be captured and for general outdoor living purposes.

4.5 Any Planning Agreement or Draft Planning Agreement?

Yes

Is there any applicable planning agreement or draft planning agreement?

☐

Consideration: Not applicable.

4.6 Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 Considerations

Clause	This control is applicable to the proposal:	I have considered this control as it relates to the proposal:	If this control is applicable, does the proposal comply?
92	Yes	Yes	Yes
93	N/A	N/A	N/A
94	N/A	N/A	N/A
94A	N/A	N/A	N/A

4.7 Any coastal zone management plan?

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Not applicable

Is there any applicable coastal zone management plan?

☐

Consideration: Not applicable.

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

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

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

Council’s ET Engineer has raised no objection to the proposal on the basis of Council’s Policy 4.20: Building over Pipelines and other Underground Structures.

4.9 The suitability of the site for the development

The site is serviced and is suitable for the proposed development.

4.10 Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

The development application was publicly exhibited. There were 11 submissions made on the development application which raised the following matters:

High risk flooding, flood water contamination, emergency service and other inaccessibility due to flooding, stormwater drainage, flood water displacement due to the proposed development

Council’s Development Engineer raised no objections to the proposal on the basis of flood planning, confirming that the development conforms to the requirements of LEP 2014 clauses 6.3 and 6.4, and DCP 2014 Chapter C2 in relation to flood planning, floodplain risk management, flood study requirements, minimum floor levels, flood planning matrix, flood proofing and special provisions. Conditions are recommended in this regard.

The Development Engineer also raised no objections to the proposal on the basis of stormwater management, confirming that the development conforms to the requirements of LEP 2014 clause 6.6, and DCP 2014 Chapter B3 Services in relation to stormwater drainage, development application requirements, properties adjacent to or containing waterways and site drainage. Conditions are recommended in this regard, including provision of on-site stormwater detention.

It is considered stormwater and flooding can be appropriately managed

(a) Sewer impact / overflow

Council’s Water and Sewer Engineers have raised no objection to the proposal on the basis of the capacity of the existing sewerage system, and there is no “moratorium” in place in terms of development in the Ocean Shores area. .

Traffic and road safety impacts, road damage, lack of footpath, garbage collection in Redgate Road, Garbage bin storage in Redgate Road amenity impacts, On-site bin storage

The proposal has access to the local road networks which is considered capable of handling the additional traffic generated by this development. The parent allotment which was subdivided to create the subject allotments and Lot 10 to the north had frontage to both Helen Street and Canowindra Court. The subdivision resulted in Lot 10 gaining access off Helen Street and the subject Lots 11 and 12 gaining access off Canowindra Court. The proposed development complies with that approved access arrangement. Conditions to apply in terms of constructing driveways and internal access roads and parking areas. In terms of bin storage, adequate area is provided onsite for land owners to store garbage bins within the confines of each property.

Access and visitor parking inadequacy, Overflow parking to be in Canowindra Court

The proposal complies with the number of parking spaces as required under DCP 2014 Chapter B4.2.5 including visitor spaces.

Traffic and occupant noise impacts

The use of the site for normal domestic purposes is not expected to cause significant noise impacts, including vehicle movement noise, in the locality. No objections were raised by Council’s Environmental Health Officer in relation to noise impacts.

Loss of privacy, visual and amenity impacts, no screening trees, vehicle headlight impacts to neighbouring properties

The development complies with the building height plane as projected from the southern boundary and appropriately addresses privacy impacts to the southern neighbouring property. Proposed Unit 1 is set well back from the western side boundary. Unit 8 encroaches into the building height plane as projected from the eastern boundary however the dwelling incorporates appropriate privacy measures such as screening the eastern side of the proposed rear verandah and highlight (1.5m high sill) east facing windows.

The proposed development is provided with landscaping for visual softening, and a 1.8m high fence is required to all neighbouring property boundaries for general privacy, security purposes and to block out headlights.

Removal of vegetation screening loss of privacy and a visual eyesore, loss of wildlife corridor, compensatory planting, inadequate proposed landscaping

The development complies with the building height plane as projected from the southern property boundary to ensure that privacy impacts are minimised. Compensatory planting is provided for the proposed tree removal, as described by this Report above. Landscaping, including compensatory planting of the site, is the subject of a recommended condition of consent. The driveway along the southern boundary will be below standard fence level and is not required to be landscaped.

Reduction of the separation between the unit blocks from 3m to 2m

This Report addresses the separation between buildings prescriptive measure non-compliance in section 4.4A above.

High density proposal, possible transient population during festivals, overcrowding, undesirable precedent and change in character of the area

The proposed development is in a low density residential zone, but meets the requirements for multi dwelling housing as specified under Byron LEP 2014. The property is of a reasonable size (over 1800m2), whilst the eight dwellings are modest in area and amenity as opposed to more high end accommodation proposed in other parts of the shire. Conditions of consent are recommended to prohibit the use of the dwellings as tourist and visitor accommodation and holiday letting.

Bush fire prone area, asset protection zone not contained within site

The NSW Rural Fire Service has assessed the proposal with respect to bush fire hazard characteristics of the site and surrounds, and recommends conditions relating to for example, maintaining the entire site as an asset protection (thereby not relying on neighbouring properties).

No construction certificate means plans can be changed

A certifying authority must not issue a construction certificate for building work unless the design and construction of the building (as depicted in the plans and specifications and as described in any other information furnished to the certifying authority) are not inconsistent with the development consent.

Minimum lot size of 600m²

This Report considers a clause 4.6 written request for variation in section 4.2A above.

Impact upon property values

This is not a matter for consideration of such significance as to warrant refusal of the development application.

4.11 Public interest

The proposed development is unlikely to prejudice or compromise the public interest or create an undesirable precedent.

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

Having regard to sections 5A, 5C and 5D of the EP&A Act, there is unlikely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats as a result of the proposed development because the site is not mapped as containing any threatened fauna habitat and no species of conservation significance are proposed to be removed.

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

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

5. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

Water and Sewer and Section 94 Contributions are payable. Conditions to apply.

6. CONCLUSION

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

7. DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL DONATIONS AND GIFTS

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

Provide Disclosure Statement register details here: Not applicable

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.27

Report No. 13.27 Supporting Sustainable Agriculture and Agribusiness in Byron Shire

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Tania Crosbie , Economy and Sustainability Tourism Coordinator

File No: I2017/1717

Theme: Economy

Economic Development

Summary:

Agriculture and value-adding agribusinesses are vital to Byron Shire and the region. Visitors come for the ‘clean and green’ produce for sale on the side of our roads, at our farmers markets and our restaurants. Byron Shire needs to ensure that we have sustainable farms, farmers and their produce in years to come.

We have a diverse and continually changing farming sector, with economic and attitudinal research indicating that our farms and our farmers are under pressure. Our community feels strongly about protecting our farms and their produce.

This report proposes an action plan in order to meet farmers’ needs and the key aims of our economic and land use strategies. This action plan includes research (primary and secondary), engagement, and employment of an agricultural extension office, establishment of an agricultural cluster and then ongoing mentoring and support.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1. Acknowledge the desktop research results and SWOT analysis into agriculture and agribusiness.

2. Support the next steps of the Byron Shire Sustainable Agriculture and Agribusiness Project with further reports provided to Council following project milestone achievements.

3. Note that staff will be applying for grant and sponsorship funding to support the Byron Shire Sustainable Agriculture and Agribusiness Project, and should this grant be successful, Council will need to commit funding of $50,000 in the 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 financial years respectively.

Report

Agriculture and Agribusiness form the basis for many Council and regional plans.

Agriculture and Agribusiness in Byron Shire Council

Council at the 26 October 2017, Ordinary meeting adopted the Byron Shire Rural Land Use Strategy. This Strategy has the following key actions that will be supported by the Sustainable Agriculture and Agribusiness Project These actions are:

Table 1: Relevant actions from the Byron Shire Rural Land Use Strategy

Action No.	Action
35	Provide information and advice on how to: • undertake cost-effective environmental enhancement works • make use of non market and market based incentives for environmental enhancement works. • manage weeds and pests
38	Provide information and advice on how to: • manage weeds, disease and pests • capture and use water sustainably • sustainably farm
39	Investigate opportunities for Council to partner with the community to ensure a long term future of agriculture in the Shire
42	Work with land owners of vacant or underused farm land that want to connect with potential producers.
44	Support community award programs and promotions that encourage sustainable rural land use and management.
49	Promote Byron Shire as a place where small scale food production is a viable lifestyle and business opportunity.

Enterprising Byron clearly identified agriculture and the value-adding provided by agribusinesses one of the vital industry sectors in the strategy.

Table 2: Relevant Strategies from the Enterprising Byron 2025 – Economic Development Strategy

Strategy No.	Strategy	Activity
3 d.	Develop industry access to new and expanding markets	Support agribusiness in rural areas to diversify and grow ‘on farm’ opportunities
4 d.	Develop the full potential and capacity of Byron’s towns, villages and rural lands	Explore rural lands for appropriate enterprise expansion and establishment opportunities recognising the challenge of rural and urban relationships.
5 b.	Facilitate partnerships with Council, Government Agencies and private investors.	Take a leadership role in creating opportunities to showcase the Byron advantage and sustain the brand value.
5 c.	Facilitate partnerships with Council, Government Agencies and private investors.	Develop and promote projects that showcase the synergy between our businesses and our communities.
6 b b.	Accelerate workforce development, skills and training for the future.	Facilitate workforce development strategies in regional farmer succession program.
8 b	Secure the competitive and comparative advantage	Develop and implement the Byron food production and manufacturing cluster supply chain strategy – advancing industry visibility and capability.
8 c.	Secure the competitive and comparative advantage	Identify and develop the critical differentiators that contribute to the comparative advantage for all business/enterprise.
8 d.	Secure the competitive and comparative advantage	Share and utilise knowledge from food economy improvements across all sectors.

Tourism plans clearly articulate the importance of agri-tourism and farm tourism as keys to building a diverse tourism industry.

Table 3: Byron Shire Destination Management Plan (DMP) 2014

Continue to support and foster the key experiences of high quality local artisan, community, and farmers markets in the Shire.

Develop and implement a ‘Investment Opportunity Plan’ including tourism, creative industries, agri-tourism, food and heritage opportunities to attract private and public sector investment.

Table 4: Byron Shire Tourism Management Plan (TMP) 2008-2018

S3.2.6	Ensure LEP and DCP processes encourage rural tourism developments in rural zones that support Farm and Nature Tourism Business Development Program recommendations and consider recommendations regarding rural tourism development outlined in the 2002 Tourism Management Options Paper
S3.2.7	Ensure future plans for rural tourism development are undertaken in consultation with rural communities and assess infrastructure needs to support such development
S8.1.5	Continue to utilise existing programs such as the ST CRC Farm and Nature Tourism program delivered by ARTRC as a means to provide assistance in product development and consider new programs to support other product areas for e.g. health & wellbeing
S8.2.2	Continue to develop and promote exceptional food and wine as part of the visitor experience

Destination NSW and Destination North Coast is developing a Northern Rivers Food and Beverage Strategy from 2018. The first planning meeting for this initiative was held on the 6^th of November 2017.

BYRON SHIRE AGRICULTURE AND AGRIBUSINESS ACTION PLAN

As part of developing the Rural Land Use Strategy and implementation of Enterprising Byron 2025, much of the groundwork has commenced; desktop research and farmer interviews. In order to develop a comprehensive action plan, a three-phased approach has been suggested.

1. Phase 1: Research. Build a psychographic and demographic picture of farming in the Byron Shire.

2. Phase 2: Engagement and Planning – Build relationships and inclusive plans to provide connection and direction.

3. Phase 3: Leading Success and Measuring – Provide support, education and leadership.

The following Phase 1 actions have been completed.

Phase 1: Research. Build a psychographic and demographic picture of farming in the Byron Shire.

a. Undertake desktop research into agricultural economics, agribusiness and opportunities. All charts referred to in the Economic Data Top Facts are contained within the attached appendix 1 at the end of the report.

Economic Data Top Facts:

· From 2010/11 to 2015/16 Byron Shire has dropped $9.6 million dollars worth of agricultural sales (from $112.7 million to $103.1 million).

· Top three industries to lose sales are:

o Nuts – just over $7 million

o Nurseries and cut flowers – almost $3 million

o Other fruit – almost $2 million.

· The only two industries to increase sales were milk and vegetables – almost $1 million each

· More agricultural businesses (19) were lost from 2012 to 2016 from the Shire, making it the most lost of all industries. Construction and Health Care and Social Assistance added 130 businesses for the same period.

· Byron Shire has fewer agricultural workers than our Northern Rivers neighbours 4% versus 7%. With agriculture losing around 50 jobs in the sector between 2010/11 and 2015/16.

· So overall the key economic indicators for agriculture - employment, businesses, sales and dollar value - all indicate a shrinking agricultural sector in Byron Shire.

b. Undertake exploratory interviews with farming exemplars. Over 15 farmers were interviewed. The information from the interviews along with previous research formed the basis for the following SWOT analysis. Farmers ranged from well established mono-producers, small organic farmers, first-generation and young farmers to high-profile value-add agri-businesses.

STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS FOR

AGRICULTURE AND AGRIBUSINESS IN BYRON SHIRE

STRENGTHS (Council & Industry)	WEAKNESSES (Council & Industry)
· Regional strengths - Climate, rainfall, soils, skills & experience · Sub-division of farming land reduced · Strong food production organisations such as SustainFood, Northern Rivers Food and tourism industry · Established community gardens and roadside stall culture · Recognition nationally and globally Byron produce as a ‘clean and green’ food bowl and biosecurity · Known for macadamias and blueberries · Marquee food brands and business models that link to agricultural product and production ie: Brookfarm and Salumi · Leadership in sustainable farming · Examples of biodiversity and bush regeneration management · Recognition that farming is important and key to our region · New entrants into farming profession – the increase in first generation farmer · Council’s Rural Land Use Strategy (RLUS) · Location close to SEQld and regional cities · Proximity to highway and airports	· Increased number of older farmers · Limited suitable agricultural land · Predominantly smaller blocks · Cost of labour · Environmental impacts · Few food processing facilities · Reliance on macadamias, sugar cane and avocadoes · Lack of affordable housing for farm workers · Food security within the region (as demonstrated during the April 2017 flood event) · Lack of direction and leadership in agriculture · Pressure on agricultural land for rural and urban residential and industrial use · High barrier to entry for young farmers to enter the sector · Larger blocks of land being lost to agriculture · Increased land values and cost of land · Lack of research · Planning regulations · More lifestyle farmers and first generation farmers · Closer to Queensland than Sydney · Few productive partnerships, cooperatives or clusters · Limited help from government or funding bodies · No wine or cheese (traditional food trail) industries · High costs transport, energy, fertilizer, seed/plants equipment and infrastructure
OPPORTUNITIES	THREATS
· New techniques in sustainable farming · Native bush foods being promoted and embraced within the BSC region · Improved technology · Introduction of new skills and business techniques and niche products · Emerging emissions reduction opportunities and carbon farming · Increased market demand for clean food from global markets · Boutique and niche markets · Collaborative and cooperative farming approaches and innovative farming models that have worked in other communities and overseas	· Increased demand for housing and industrial land · Poor awareness of economic and social significance · Natural disasters · Disease and pests · Reduced market opportunities for production · Byron region is not a focus for agricultural advocacy groups · Market protection and export issues · Other regions improving their value proposition · Changes to NSW and Federal government regulations and legislation leading to unforseen consequences · Changes in the organic certification process impacting negatively on smaller producers · Loss of knowledge from farmers leaving the sector

Thank you to all the farmers that contributed to this SWOT which was developed with the information provided by farmers during our interviews and the Rural Land Use Discussion Paper submitted by Representatives of the Horticulture, Boutique Agricultural, Tourism, Food Processing Industries, Forest regenerators and Land Use Planning and marketing Consultants 2015.

The following Phase 1 to 3 actions are still to be completed, but have delivery timeframes for 2018.

Phase One:

c. Conduct further primary research to focus on the different types of farmers, their needs, challenges and opportunities – being undertaken by consultant with project delivery early 2018.

Scope of Work – consultant to undertake:

Develop framework for regional collaboration and growth in the agricultural and agribusiness sector and the production to consumption value chain. The consultant will recruit and engage with a cross section of farmers and strategic partners, identify the opportunities, challenges and gaps in terms of achieving the strategic aims as identified in our Council strategies.

Delivery steps include:

· Understanding supply, demand and challenges and opportunities for agriculture and agribusiness sector

· Identifying what we do well and what needs to improve

· Establish clear goals and how to achieve them

· Review options for a provenance framework and its role as a foundation

· Create a framework for collaboration across the region and across the production to consumption value chain.

d. Establish Agribusiness cluster – to be established after the results of the consultant’s recommendation and with input from Councillors for delivery in 2018.

Phase 2: Engagement and Planning – Build relationships and inclusive plans to provide connection and direction.

a. Employ Agriculture (Extension) Officer – This position exists in the Environmental and Economic Planning division structure but is subject to funding. Funding sources being scoped

b. Agriculture and Agribusiness – Production and Promotion Symposium – Being costed and scoped

c. Develop Agriculture and Agribusiness Action Plan – Based on the research, focus groups, symposium and engagement. This would identify aims, targets and actions in order to achieve targets.

Phase 3: Leading Success and Measuring – Provide support, education and leadership for the sector in the long-term and would depend on funding and industry direction.

a. Establish mentoring programs

b. Commence longevity research study of agriculture and agribusiness in Byron Shire.

Financial Implications

There are two funding sources that will require support from Council to pursue:

1. Australian Government, Department of Agriculture and Water – Small Farms, Small Grants

Grant information: Projects are sought that support local on-ground projects across Australia that deliver against the priority outcome of increasing the knowledge and capacity of farmers and fishers and facilitating the adoption of tools, technologies and improved land management practices to effectively, sustainably and productively manage Australia’s natural resources and adapt to significant changes in climate, weather and markets. Amount being applied for is $50,000 for two years (total $100,000) which will require matched funds over 2018/19 and 2019/20 financial years.

This grant application is subject to the 2018/19 Forward Budget Process and Council endorsement. Submission due: 7 December 2017.

If Council resolves to submit the grant application for the purpose outlined in this report and should the grant application be successful, it will need to ensure its funding contribution of $50,000 per annum for the 2018/2019 and 2019/202 financial years is committed before the budgets relevant for those two financial years are determined. This commitment will in 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 reduce the ability of Council to allocate $50,000 to any other purpose in those two financial years.

2. Sponsorship from agricultural industry

Companies that gain support from the local agricultural industry will be targeted and those who participate will be provided recognition and the capacity to participate in the stakeholder engagement. The sponsorships will comply with Council’s Sponsorship Policy.

Policy Implications:

Delivery Program 2017-2021 EC1.2.1

Facilitate growth and development of our business community including increasing access to new and existing markets.

Appendix 1:

CHART ONE:

Change in Agriculture Sales in Byron Shire from 2010/11 to 2015/16

	2015/16		2010/11
Industry	$m	% total sales of all industries	$m	% total sales of all industries	Change from 2010/11 to 2015/16 - $m
Aquaculture	1.1	0	1.3	0.1	-.0.3
Forestry & Logging	1.6	0.1	1.5	0.1	+0.1
Fishing, Hunting & Trapping	1.8	0.1	1.2	0.1	+0.5
Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing Support Services	10.4	0.5	11.9	0.6	-1.6
Agricultural production	88.3	3.9	96.6	4.8	-8.4
Agricultural Industry TOTAL	103.1	4.5%	112.7	5.6%	-9.6

Clearly there has been a reduction in the two largest sectors of agriculture (production and support), and overall a total decrease of $9.6m, as the above table demonstrates.

CHART TWO:

The table above clearly shows the change in values of production within the Shire over the previous census period, with the only two industries to grow being vegetables and milk production. New data will be available in November 2017.

CHART THREE:

This table demonstrates that 20 agricultural businesses de-registered in the four year period from 2012 to 2016.

CHART FOUR:

The above table demonstrates that as a region, compared with the rest of NSW, we have a higher percentage of our workforce employed in agriculture.

CHART FIVE:

However this chart clearly shows that we have fewer employed in agriculture than in the northern rivers area but with a higher percentage employed in the accommodation and food services industry.

CHART SIX:

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 13.32

Report No. 13.32 Brunswick Heads Parking Strategy

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Joshua Winter, Civil Engineer

Evan Elford, Team Leader Infrastructure Planning

Tony Nash, Manager Works

File No: I2017/1556

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Local Roads and Drainage

Summary:

Council resolved on 24 August 2017 under Resolution 17-329 to undertake investigation and community consultation regarding the possible implementation of a revised parking management strategy and/or a pay parking scheme in the Brunswick Heads Town Centre.

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

Council staff consulted with the community regarding the possible changes. The consultation period closed on 20 October 2017 and included an online survey (235 responses) and a random Micromex phone survey (200 surveys) as well as a number of drop in sessions and notifications to residents and businesses to complete the surveys and/or provide a submission to Council. 71 submissions were received. Late submissions were received up to 27 October 2017.

Based on the survey and consultation feedback, it is proposed that the majority of the Brunswick Heads community would be supportive of the parking time limits changing to better manage parking in Brunswick Heads, however contradictory to the Micromex survey; the online survey and submissions were clearly against the introduction of pay parking, even if Council was to dedicate all generated funds to projects in the Brunswick Heads locality. There is an overwhelming fear that pay parking would “ruin” Brunswick Heads and reduce business activity by up to 40%. However these same points were raised when introducing pay parking in Byron Bay. Pay parking in Byron Bay has been a success for Council, residents, property owners and business operators.

This report recommends the implementation of time limit changes in Brunswick Heads.

Following the proposed time limit changes staff would closely monitor parking demands, durations and infringements, undertake additional number plate recognition surveys to determine tourist and visitor impacts as a result of the changes and undertake further community consultation, investigate and estimate costs associated with any identified infrastructure upgrades to improve the parking scheme.

On completion of this work, staff prepare a detailed report on outcomes with recommendations regarding the potential implementation of Pay Parking in Brunswick Heads, including results of community consultation on the dedication of revenue derived from a pay parking scheme in Brunswick Heads.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council endorse the implementation steps recommended in the Brunswick Heads Parking Management Strategy as modified to;

a) Implement revised time limits in the town centre immediately (as per point 2 below);

b) Closely monitor parking demands, durations and infringements in the Town Centre Area in particular with the objective to continuously quantify the appropriateness of duration limits and to ‘track’ trends in the level of infringement; and

c) Assess the compliance with the revised time limits and associated infringements in the management of parking turnover, following the implementation of the revised time limits, in conjunction with any future consideration by Council of the implementation of a pay parking scheme in Brunswick Heads.

2. That Council endorse the implementation of the changes to the parking time limits in Brunswick Heads, using the layout provided by the Brunswick Heads Chamber of Commerce shown at Figure 2, incorporating the amendments identified in Table 2.

3. That Council seek Local Traffic Committee (LTC) endorsement of the parking time limit changes.

4. That Council negotiate any necessary agreement with Crown Lands to implement parking schemes.

5. That prior to the consideration of any Pay Parking Scheme for Brunswick Heads, staff undertake further investigations and consultation and report to Council in mid 2018 on revised parking arrangements and the cost of infrastructure upgrade requirements in the following areas;

a) Booyun Street, east of Park Street, in order to implement a Kiss and Ride School drop off zone in this area;

b) Park Street, between Fingal Street and Slessor Lane, to formalise parking whilst maintaining the existing bus zone;

c) Parking arrangements on South Beach Road, including dedicated parking for up to four (4) Horse floats at the end of South Beach Road; and

d) Parking arrangements in South Beach Lane

6. That Council approve;

a) an allocation of $115,000 to be funded from Section 94 Car Parking Brunswick Heads to undertake the investigation works in items 5a) to 5d), inclusive; and

b) the allocation of $25,000 for the implementation or revised time limits (including line marking) be funded from the existing signage program.

Attachments:

1 24 August 2017 Council Report Brunswick Heads Parking Management Strategy, E2017/103137 ⇨

2 Detailed Report Brunswick Heads Parking Review Survey, E2017/103138 ⇨

3 Brunswick Heads Parking Estimated Revenue, E2017/103136 ⇨

4 Text Responses to Brunswick Heads Parking Review Survey, E2017/103141 ⇨

5 Confidential - Submissions to Brunswick Heads Parking Review, E2017/103147

6 Brunswick Heads Chamber Submission Final 20 10 17, E2017/103143 ⇨

7 Brunswick Heads Chamber Submission Parking layout-20-10-17, E2017/103142 ⇨

8 Brunswick Heads School PC Submission Oct 2017, E2017/103144 ⇨

9 Brunswick Heads Submission Ocean Shores Tidy Town Committee, E2017/103145 ⇨

10 Brunswick Heads Submission Easy Riders, E2017/103146 ⇨

11 Micromex Brunswick Heads Parking Study - 20171003, E2017/103148 ⇨

12 Brunswick Heads Submission Progress Association, E2017/103151 ⇨

13 Confidential - Brunswick Heads Submission Declan Curran, S2017/19024

14 Confidential - Brunswick Heads Submission Brunswick Valley Woodchop & Entertainment Committee, S2017/19031

15 Confidential - Brunswick Heads Submission John Armstrong, S2017/18356

16 Confidential - Brunswick Heads Submission Joan Ajala, S2017/19135

17 Confidential - Brunswick Heads Submission Carolyn Armstrong, S2017/19223

18 Confidential - Brunswick Heads Submission Margaret Thurecht, S2017/19221

19 Concerns Raised in Submissions to Brunswick Heads Parking Strategy, E2017/103424 ⇨

20 Confidential - Brunswick Heads Submission Kevin Thompson, E2017/103493

Report

Council Resolution 17-329 dated 24 August 2017 resolved as follows:-

17-329 Resolved

1. That Council endorse the Brunswick Heads Town Centre Parking Management Strategy

(E2016/80884) prepared by Traffic and Parking Systems Group (TPS) as a basis for

community engagement.

2. That consultation be undertaken with the Brunswick Heads community regarding the possible implementation of a revised parking layout and pay parking scheme in the town centre.

3. That a budget of $15,000 is allocated from the Pay Parking Reserve to perform the

investigation and community consultation with the Brunswick Heads community regarding the possible implementation of a revised parking layout and pay parking scheme in the town centre.

4. That Council consider the results of the investigation and community consultation at the 23

November 2017 meeting in determining its adoption of a possible revised parking

management strategy and pay parking scheme.

In accordance with resolution item numbers 1 and 2, the TPS Group report was used to consult with the community regarding the proposed parking changes with submissions being received up to 27 October 2017.

Figure 1 – TPS Consultant Proposed Brunswick Heads Parking Management Plan

In accordance with resolution item numbers 2 and 3, Council staff consulted with the community regarding the proposed changes. The following community consultations were held:-

· Drop in to businesses in Brunswick Heads to discuss changes and providing submissions

Tuesday 26 September from 8:30am – 4:00pm

· Drop in Session at the Brunswick Heads Library

Tuesday 10 October from 8:30am – 5:00pm

· Brunswick Heads market

Saturday 7 October from 7:00am – 1:00pm

· New Brighton farmers market

Tuesday 17 October from 7:00am – 11:00am

· Public Exhibition open for submissions

Wednesday 20 September to Friday 20 October

· Online information portal and survey

Thursday 21 September to Friday 20 October

· Meeting and open discussions with the following

Ø Brunswick Heads Chamber of Commerce

Ø Brunswick Heads Progress Association

Ø Brunswick Heads Public School

Ø Rotary Club members

Results of Consultation

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

A summary of community engagement and the online survey is provided in the report attachments, being;

· Submissions received during the exhibition period;

· Survey results from online survey; and

· Micromex random survey report.

Survey Results

The following key points have been extracted from the online survey - Attachment 2

· 83.8% of respondents generally travel to Brunswick Heads town centre using their car (Q7);

· 64.8% of respondents are at least somewhat satisfied generally with parking availability (Q12);

· 60.9% of respondents reported as 9:30AM to 2:30PM being the most difficult time to park (Q14);

· 64.7% would at least somewhat support the time limit changes to better manage parking (Q15);

· 73.6% would not support a pay parking scheme in Brunswick Heads (Q16);

· This dropped to 57% if Council were to dedicate all revenue to Brunswick Heads projects (Q18);

The following key points have been extracted from the Micromex random survey - Attachment 11:

· 73% of respondents generally travel to Brunswick Heads town centre using their car (Q2);

· 53% of respondents are at least somewhat satisfied generally with parking availability (Q4d);

· 70-72% reported that 9:30AM to 2:30PM was the most difficult time to park (Q6);

· 68% would at least somewhat support the time limit changes to better manage parking (Q8a);

· 58% would not support a pay parking scheme in Brunswick Heads (Q8b);

· This dropped to 34% if Council were to dedicate all revenue to Brunswick Heads projects (Q8d);

Submissions

A significant number of submissions were received throughout the exhibition period including a submission from the Brunswick Heads Chamber of Commerce that provided a copy of their Fig 7.1 – Desirable Parking Duration Management Plan, that had been developed in co-operation with the Brunswick Head Progress Association (Figure 2).

Figure 2 – Chamber of Commerce Proposed Brunswick Heads Parking Layout

Table 1 provides a summary of the key issues that were raised by the community during consultation and staff commentary pertinent to Council’s consideration of this matter:

Table 1 – Submissions Issues and Staff Comments

Item	Submission Issue	Staff Comment
1	There is the general feeling that Brunswick Heads should not be compared to Byron Bay and that the economic fragility of business in Brunswick Heads could not sustain a financial downturn such that pay parking has the potential to inflict on the town.	This is a entirely valid concern that Council needs to consider prior to making a decision for or against pay parking in Brunswick Heads
2	A large majority of the respondents indicated that they would support the changing of the time limits, with an increase in enforcement to change the behaviour of parking users in Brunswick Heads.	Whilst this is a valid point and would certainly change the behaviour of the majority of users, it would also not be sustainable long term if parking infringements dropped significantly. This would result in the cost of enforcement not being sustainable for Council, to effectively enforce the time limits and maintain correct behaviour. Then it is likely that as enforcement would slowly drop as infringement revenue dropped, users would revert to not abiding by the posted time limits.
3	There is concern regarding the validity of the data collected throughout the online and random phone surveys and that respondents were forced to answer questions even if they didn’t want to.	Council staff that worked with Micromex to write the questions had no intention to skew the results either way, and there was still every opportunity to either agree or disagree with the proposal. The results have been presented as-is, with no attempt to cherry pick data in any of the questions. All questions were required to be answered in order to receive the most accurate data, and some of the data collated will be valuable for future project identification.
4	An issue was raised that Council has not fulfilled the requirements to implement a pay parking scheme according to RMS guidelines and that the TPS strategy suggests trialling a change in time limits and enforcement prior to a pay parking scheme.	Council, as the roads authority, may introduce a pay parking scheme without RMS approval, concurrence must be sought through the Local Traffic Committee only. However as Council is using an electronic type permit system for locals and businesses, RMS approval is required for this scheme. The RMS requirement for pay parking is for it to be used to manage a parking demand issue. There was a clear indication that there is a parking demand issue in Brunswick Heads and although respondents indicated that they would rather see this managed through changes to time limits and enforcement, Council is within its power to proceed directly to a pay parking scheme if it resolves to do so, with RMS approving the electronic permit scheme proposed for locals and businesses
5	Lack of 15 minute parking, disability access parking and loading zones in key areas throughout the town centre	Council have recommended the Brunswick Heads Chamber of Commerce layout with minor amendments be adopted as the final time limit layout, which has considered and located these at key points.
6	Amendment to all day parking on South Beach Road to allow different options for beach users.	This issue can be reviewed in detail further however the Brunswick Heads Chamber of Commerce layout does address the matter.
7	Lack of motorbike parking in Brunswick Heads.	This issue can be reviewed in detail further however the Brunswick Heads Chamber of Commerce layout does address the matter.
8	Amendment to laneway parking.	This issue can be reviewed in detail prior to posting time limits however it is anticipated that the issue can be addressed by adopting the Chamber of Commerce layout.
9	There is currently no school drop off ‘kiss and go’ area in Brunswick Heads.	Council staff met with school staff to discuss this issue and have identified that a ‘kiss & go’ zone could be implemented on Booyun Street, east of Park Street. This will need to be implemented prior to the pay parking scheme, as this area would become overflow parking if not formalised prior to the pay parking scheme being introduced.
10	There are no standing zones in place on Park Street from Fingal Street to Booyun Street, which appear to remain in place when there was a school crossing at this location previously.	Council will remove these when the time limit signs are installed.
11	School users have requested longer term parking adjacent to the school for events and volunteers as school sessions are 2 hours long.	The kiss and go zone in the car park at the end of Booyun Street could be used as 4 hour parking. This is likely to be the only change to the Chamber of Commerce layout, being that the three hour zone proposed on Fingal Street would remain as two hours, with 4 hour parking available further from the town centre for school attendees.
12	Concerns were raised regarding the impact of pay parking on low income families and residents.	If adopted, there would be a large number of all day (free) parking west of Park Street that can be utilised if users do not wish to pay for parking. Further, if a resident has the correct Centrelink concession card, they can apply for an e-permit at no cost, allowing them to park throughout the shire for free, whilst still abiding by the time limits.
13	Concerns were raised regarding the overflow parking if pay parking is implemented, both east of Simpson Creek and west of Park Street.	This is a valid concern. If pay parking was adopted, Council could consider implementing pay parking east of Simpson Creek, which would alleviate overflow parking there, however streets west of Park Street will need to be monitored and changes implemented as necessary.
14	There are currently no parking signs in place on South Beach Road and South Beach Lane to discourage illegal camping. Local residents have indicated that this puts them at risk if they park their cars outside their house.	Council needs to consider how this can be managed. Although the respondent indicated that the parking rangers stated they were targeting campers, there needs to be some formal instruction on how this can be managed and alternative signage may need to be considered.
15	Suggestions were made to include all parking east of Tweed Street as well as the boat ramp in the pay parking scheme.	If adopted, these areas should be monitored during the first twelve months, with the pay parking area to be extended as required to effectively manage parking throughout Brunswick Heads. It is not recommended to include these areas to begin with.
16	There is the belief that pay parking in Brunswick Heads will impact the tourism industry in Brunswick.	This is a valid concern that needs to be considered. It is difficult to determine what effect it will have without trialling it for a minimum of twelve months.
17	Many locals expressed their anger regarding the required purchase of an e-permit exemption to park in their town.	If adopted, there would be free, all day parking available for all parking users, and the e-permit is available at the current fee of $55 per car, being just over $1 per week.
18	A number of issues regarding existing signage i.e. give way signs and no parking signs.	A full audit will be completed by staff within the parking area to ensure any issues are rectified at the same time as the implementation of time limits and/or pay parking.
19	The Tennis Club is concerned that users will no longer wish to hire the courts if they also have to pay for parking.	There is no easy solution if pay parking was adopted. However if the users are local, they have access to the e-permit, which would allow them to park adjacent to or close to the tennis courts all year round, with all day parking available close by. Tourists staying in Brunswick Heads could walk to use the tennis courts, or park further away to avoid paying for parking.
20	A proposal was introduced to change all laneways to one way, to allow more parking and reduce the cost of formalising these.	Council could consider this proposal as part of any future master plan for Brunswick Heads. It is not within the scope of this report to propose this change as it would have a much larger impact that would need to be consulted with the residents that access these lanes.
21	It was indicated that pay parking may make some essential services more accessible for local residents, in particular the elderly (who usually receive an e-permit at no cost) i.e. doctor, dentist, chemist etc.	This would be the case if pay parking was implemented.
22	It was proposed that large rocks should be used wherever vehicle access is to be restricted.	Council staff will consider the most appropriate method for managing vehicular access when auditing the town centre.
23	The Anglican church on Fingal Street has expressed concern that there may be an effect on parking due to overflow of parking if pay parking is introduced.	This issue would be present with or without pay parking, if time limits are abided by. It will need to be monitored and the church will need to be consulted if the pay parking scheme is implemented to determine if anything can be done to assist.
24	A comment was made regarding the fact that when pay parking was introduced in Byron, it directed tourists to Brunswick Heads and not everyone is happy about this.	Pay parking may or may not have an effect on the number of tourists visiting Brunswick Heads.
25	A number of horse riding businesses that utilise Brunswick Heads for beach riding experiences have expressed their concerns that there are no safe places to park horse floats in the area.	Council could consider providing up to four (4) horse float parks at the end of South Beach Road when the car park is sealed and line marked. An interim solution may be required until such time as this can take place. Staff will consult with the horse riding community to determine an appropriate solution to the current parking arrangements which are causing concerns.
26	Comments were made regarding the relaxation of pay parking around events.	Council could consider this for future events, though events are generally the busiest time in Brunswick Heads when parking demand is at its highest. Irrespective of pay parking, the time limits should be adhered to, with enforcement as required.

The introduction of time limited parking to the town centre alone would potentially see increased pressure from tourist utilising the existing parking in South Beach Road and South Beach Lane if the bulk of that area was to be classified as unrestricted parking as preferred by the Chamber of Commerce rather than parking in the town centre area. This would then impact parking availability along the beachfront. It is considered that this area should be changed to 4hr timed parking. Timed parking limits also need consistency across the shire as this benefits both users and enforcement officers.

Volunteers, those attending school functions that extend beyond 2 hours and parking arrangements generally in Fingal Street will be better served by implementing 2H parking in front of the school and providing 4H parking on Booyun Street, east of Park Street. This area is also suitable for implementing a “Kiss and Go” drop off area.

Whilst generally supported by staff, a number of modifications are recommended to be made to the Chamber of Commerce time limit layout plan in association with time limit changes as detailed above and in table 2.

Table 2 – Amendments to Chamber of Commerce Layout – Time Limit Changes

Chamber of Commerce Proposal	Amendment
Unrestricted Parking South Beach Road and South Beach Lane	4H Parking to ensure parking availability is maintained in this area.
Time limits to apply 9am – 5pm Monday to Friday, 9am-12pm Saturday	Time limits to apply 9am – 6pm, 7 days a week for consistency across Council’s parking areas
3H parking on Fingal Street	2H parking in Fingal Street. Introduce 4H parking on Booyun Street, east of Park Street, which is an ideal location for school attendees and maintains consistency in time limits across Council’s parking areas.

Pay Parking Considerations

In addition to the comments provided on the key issues raised in submissions, staff identified other areas of concern requiring additional consideration and modification to the Chamber of Commerce proposal due to the impacts parking time limit changes may have on peripheral areas should Council also choose to implement pay parking.

Should pay parking be introduced in the town centre the scheme should be extended to include South Beach Road and South Beach Lane.

The operations of bus and parking facilities near the school in Fingal and Park Streets and school event parking and kiss and go drop off arrangements in Booyun Street need to be rationalised.

The interim overflow parking arrangements currently in place and the community requests to cater for more appropriate horse float parking at South Beach Road need further investigation and consultation.

Table 3 outlines a number of suggested modifications to the Chamber of Commerce plan should Council resolves to introduce pay parking.

Table 3 – Amendments to Chamber of Commerce Layout required for Pay Parking

Chamber of Commerce Proposal	Amendment
Unrestricted Parking South Beach Road and South Beach Lane	4H Parking plus meters if pay parking is adopted by Council
Time limits to apply 9am – 5pm Monday to Friday, 9am-12pm Saturday	Time limits to apply 9am – 6pm, 7 days a week for consistency across Council’s parking areas
3H parking on Fingal Street	2H parking in Fingal Street. 4H parking will be provided in the parking area to be formalised on Booyun Street, east of Park Street, which is an ideal location for school attendees and maintains consistency across Council’s parking areas.
Bus zone only on west side of Park Street south of Fingal Street	Implement combination bus zone and staff parking for school staff in this location, with appropriate design and access time limits in place for safety. Supported by the School Principal
No ‘Kiss & Ride’ zone proposed for the Brunswick Heads Public School	Implement ‘Kiss & Ride’ zone on Booyun Street, east of Park Street, which is at the rear access gate of the school and provides direct access and line of sight to school administration area. Supported by the School Principal
No horse float parking proposed	Up to four (4) parks for horse floats to be provided at the end of South Beach Road. Details to be developed in consultation with horse riding community

Implementation Timeframe & Land Tenure

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

· If adopted, notify the Local Traffic Committee.

· If adopted, negotiate agreement with Crown Lands where necessary

· Advise the Brunswick Heads Chamber of Commerce, Progress Association, School and the wider resident and business community of Council’s resolution.

· Implement revised time zones (as per Figure 2 and any amendments identified in table 2 or the adopted recommendations)

· Implement monitoring, further investigations and reporting as identified to inform Council’s future deliberations in determining potential implementation of a paid parking scheme for Brunswick Heads to be reported mid 2018.

It is noted that there are sections within the potential parking area that are partially located on Crown Lands. Council will need to negotiate an agreement with Crown Lands in order to implement time limit modification and pay parking in these areas:-

· Torakina car park on South Beach Road

· Section of Surf Life Saving Club area on South Beach Road

· Longitudinal section of South Beach Road to the east

· Corner of Fingal Street and The Terrace adjacent to the caravan park

· Portion of car park outside the Brunswick Heads Hotel

Financial Implications

Should Council adopt proposed time limit changes, it is estimated that a budget of $25,000 will be required to implement the revised parking layout, consisting of new and revised signage to clearly identify revised parking time limits. This simply allows for modifying the existing signs designating the time zones.

Staff have identified the need for further detailed investigation and consultation in relation to bus zone and parking arrangements in Park Street, parking and kiss and go drop-off in Booyun Street and parking generally in South Beach Road and South Beach Lane to determine the final scope of and costs for infrastructure works to be reported to Council.

Further, and generally in accordance with the recommendations contained within the TPS report, a budget of $10,000 is required to monitor parking demands, durations and infringements, undertake additional number plate recognition surveys to determine tourist and visitor impacts and report to Council.

Table 4 provides budget requirements to complete these tasks noting that formalisation of a number of areas throughout Brunswick Heads in conjunction with the implementation of a revised limited scheme or a pay parking scheme is considered necessary to avoid negatively affecting the surrounding areas.

Table 4 – PRELIMINARY budget requirements to implement Brunswick Heads Parking Strategy

Item	Estimate	Description
Revised time limits	$25,000	Line marking and signs
Monitor Parking Demands etc	$10,000	Report on time limit change performance for further consideration of pay parking
Park Street b/n Fingal Street and Booyun Street	$20,000	Investigate, consult and report on the implementation of combination bus and parking zone, including survey, design, and associated works
Booyun Street east of Park Street	$25,000	Investigate, consult and report on the implementation ‘Kiss & Ride’ zone and 3H parking, including survey, design and associated works
South Beach Road & South Beach Lane	$60,000	Investigate, consult and report on the implementation and Formalisation of parking east of Simpson Creek including Torakina Park and Surf Club. Includes survey, design and associated works
TOTAL	$140,000

This estimate is proposed to be funded in the following way:-

· $115,000 to be funded from Section 94 Car Parking Brunswick Heads (which has a current balance of approximately $200,000)

· $25,000 (Line marking and Signs from existing Operating budget)

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Pay Parking

As reported in Council report 13.17 (attached); the following information details the requirements for Council to implement a pay parking scheme.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 13.33

Report No. 13.33 Tree Removals Railway Park Byron Bay

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Michael Matthews, Manager Open Space and Resource Recovery

File No: I2017/1687

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Open Space and Recreation

Summary:

This report outlines the decision making process and background to the undertaking of recent works within Railway Park and process used in obtaining all relevant approvals and requirements prior to works (including tree removal). These works included the removal of the garden beds fronting Jonson street within Railway Park, whilst retaining all vegetation over 2m within these beds and the removal of three (3) trees described by staff as:-

1. Eucalyptus Dunnii approximately 12m tall estimated 30 years old

2. Archontophoenix cunninghamiana approximately 12m tall estimated 30 years old and

3. Sterculia quadrifida estimated 6m and estimated as 8 years old.

This report also provides background information in relation to the relocation notification issued to Byron Environment Centre (BEC).

This report also provides information specific to the Tourism Demand Driver Infrastructure (TDDI) funded redevelopment of Railway Park and its program interrelationship with Operational Actions performed.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1. Note the report.

2. Finalise concept plans of Railway Square Beatification Plan and report to Council in accordance with resolution 17-555.

Attachments:

1 Tree / Vegetation Removal - Approval Pathways, E2017/104389 ⇨

2 BBTCM Leadership Team Meeting August 2017, E2017/104726 ⇨

3 Letter to BEC in accordance with resolution 17-555, E2017/105004 ⇨

Report

Council at is Extra- Ordinary Meeting of 2 November 2017 resolved an urgency motion in relation to Works in Railway Park, Byron Bay:-

17-555 Resolved that Council:

1. Withdraw the relocation notice to the BEC from the rotunda inside Railway Park.

2. Receive a report at the next Ordinary meeting, outlining the decision making process to

undertake the works and the process in obtaining all relevant approvals and requirements prior to works (including tree removal), and this review be completed and reported back to Council, with any forthcoming recommendations.

3. Do not undertake any further infrastructure or landscaping works in Railway Park until formal adoption of a railway square beautification plan at an Ordinary Council Meeting.

Background

The Better Byron Crew (BBC) is tasked with maintenance, refurbishment, renewal, minor capital works and litter collection within the Byron Town Centre. The BBC delineated service area has recently been reduced to increase levels of service across assets within the town.

The reduced BBC service area was in response to concerns raised with BBC service levels on particular assets such as the town’s garden beds and litter removal performance along foreshore assets.

Detailed review of service levels across assets was undertaken.

This review identified that the level of resourcing for the town centre was insufficient to meet the expected standards. It was identified that the area serviced by the BBC had undergone significant creep since the establishment of the Town dedicated crew without a realistic increased in resource allocation.

From this review, perceived performance matters that directly relate to expected levels of service of highly visual assets were addressed by the General Manager via direction to staff to:-

· Reduce the BBC delineated area;

· Increase litter collection servicing during weekends on the foreshore assets; and

· Divert saved resource into garden bed maintenance.

One area identified as receiving a poor level of service was the garden beds of Railway Park fronting Jonson Street.

Fig 1 - Railway Park, Jonson Street garden Beds (facing north from Exeloos)

Fig 2 - Railway Park, Jonson Street garden Beds (Facing North West)

The review identified a number of reasons why performance of this asset was poor.

These reasons included poor initial design, high adjacent pedestrian traffic, pedestrians short circuiting existing pathways causing damage to garden bed amenity, high number of assets assigned to the BBC relative to team size and change in work practices.

One significant change in work practices was the ceasing of herbicide use within the town and high public use parks.

Traditional maintenance practice within garden was the use of selective herbicide to manage weed growth in garden beds. This practice involved the use of a wick application to control weeds (method consists of a wick soaked in herbicide which the wetted wick is used to wipe or brush selectively onto the weed). This method was ceased in 2015 and replaced with a labour intensive hand weed program of the 151 individual garden beds within the Byron Township.

Throughout the Byron town centre, the BBC has been progressively improving garden bed function and amenity through edging and heavy hardwood chip mulching. This work suppresses weed growth, reducing labour intensive hand weeding and changes pedestrian behaviour through making it more difficult/ less favourable for pedestrians to ‘short cut’ across garden assets.

Fig 3a - Before photo of SW corner of Bay and Jonson Street – simple turf solution

Fig 3b -After photo of SW corner of Bay and Jonson Street – simple turf solution

Fig 4 - Works in progress prior to Mulch being applied, South East corner Jonson and Bay Street

Fig 5 - Completed works, garden bed in front of Fish Heads

In discussions with a Landscape architect in relation to Railway Park, it was agreed that due to pedestrian volumes within this precinct, removal of these beds in there current form was operationally preferred.

On Thursday the 12^th October, direction was given to-

Have BBC remove the garden bed along Jonson Street between the Café and the Exeloos:-

· Remove the designated tree adjacent to the café (with TPO Cert) as agreed at a site meeting with Councils engaged landscape architect and Director of SEE;

· Remove the playground;

· Remove the two large metal barriers in the car park near the Countrylink building; and

· Under the supervision of the arborist and landscape architect have a tree doctor/men with chain saws sculpt the trees in the park to create a play feature.

These directions were given on the basis of routine renewal maintenance activities that aligned with the scope of works that the BBC regularly performed.

Prior to this work, Railway Park was identified, through the development and adoption of the Town Centre Master Plan (BTCMP), as a primary Open Space that is best developed as a common gathering point for leisure and recreation.

With the adoption of the BTCMP, funding was sort under the Tourism Demand Driver Infrastructure (TDDI) Program for redevelopment of Railway Park to that of which meets the vision and spirit of the Master plan. Council was successful in the receipt of $260,000 on a 50/50 basis for the redevelopment of this park on the basis that works are to be complete within the current financial year.

Program management of the TDDI integrated projects was assigned to the Major Projects and Major Projects staff developed the delivery plan and the associated communication and engagement plan.

The communication and engagement plan was reported to the Executive Team on 7 June 2017 and the minutes state: Executive Team endorsed the draft Communication and Engagement Plan for the Railway Precinct TDDI Grant Program.

In conjunction with the grant and more broadly in the context of implementation of the Byron Bay Town Centre Master Plan, a landscape architect was engaged to prepare a concept design for the upgrade of Railway Park.

Railway Park (Railway Square) had been identified as a key catalyst site within the adopted Byron Bay Town Centre Master Plan and had been discussed with the Byron Bay Town Centre Master Plan Leadership Group including a design charrette undertaken in July 2017 by the group.

The concept design for the upgrade of Railway Park envisaged the relocation of the BEC rotunda to another location. It is understood that this was also discussed by the Byron Bay Town Centre Master Plan Leadership Group (Refer Attachment 2)

In association with the implementation of the communication and engagement plan, correspondence was prepared and sent to stakeholders including neighbouring landowners and businesses, community organisations with an interest in the park and internal BSC staff. The correspondence included an initial introductory letter regarding the project, meetings as required and a later letter introducing the concept design.

The email to the Convenor of the Byron Environment Centre Inc records that several attempts were made to contact the Byron Environment Centre. A request was made to work (16 October 2017) together to relocate the rotunda with a target for completion being 13 December 2017.

An extract from Council email (16 October 2017) is as follows:-

As an introduction to the draft concept design, Council has received community feedback via the Byron Bay Town Centre Master Plan Leadership Team that the BEC kiosk in Railway Square would best be located elsewhere. Relocating the kiosk would improve community and visitor use of the park by increasing access and egress through the park and increasing visibility and community safety in line with CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) principles.

I have searched and consulted within Council for a license, lease or other agreement for the kiosk being placed in its current position and cannot find any such document. If you have one on file, could you please provide it so that we can consider the agreement in context of the project.

Council would like to have the kiosk relocated by 13 December 2017.

If you could please advise an alternate site for the kiosk at your earliest convenience that would be much appreciated.

Council is willing to assist BEC with the physical relocation of the kiosk structure to your new location and we're happy to discuss the details of this with you.

The 13 December 2017 date was proposed by staff to incorporate it in the preliminary works program but to allow time to effectively plan for careful relocation with an aim to preserve of the Arakwal Art.

Upon receiving the email of 19 October 2017, the Convenor of the Byron Environment Centre Inc wrote to Councillors on 23 October 2017 claiming an ‘eviction’ notice had been served.

A key part of the consultation for the proposed upgrade of Railway Park was liaison with the Arakwal. A site meeting occurred on 17 October at which Operational staff requested to be in attendance to confirm early works scope.

Council staff was advised by the Arakwal representative that there was support for the park upgrade and a request was made that the cultural artwork on the rotunda be considered for preservation and, at minimum, provision made for incorporating local indigenous art in the new designs.

The concept plan for the Railway Park upgrade was presented by Councils engaged Landscape architect to the BBTCMPLG on 25 October 2017.

It is understood that there was no further contact with Mr Lazarus (Convenor Byron Environment Centre Inc) regarding relocation of the rotunda prior to the Council meeting on 2 November.

At the 2 November 2017 meeting Council resolved 17-555.

In accordance with part 1 of the resolution a letter (#E2017/103282 – Attachment 3) has been sent to the BEC on 6 November 2017.

Tree Removal and Landscape works (works as was performed)

At the August meeting of the Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan (BBTCM) Guidance Group it was agreed that an arborist would be engaged to review trees in Railway Park to inform the planning work being undertaken by the landscape architect in Railway Park.

A botanist was engaged to assess trees in Railway Park in consultation with the landscape Architect and advice on 9 September 2017.

Staff met with the landscape architect to discuss the draft plans being prepared for the park and as a result it was agreed that it would be desirable for trees to be removed as part of the redevelopment and that an arborists report had indicated that at least one tree was potentially dangerous. Both the botanist and landscape architect agreed that the forest gum was a limb shedding species

On the Friday the 13th October 2017, Manager of Open Space and Resource Recovery relayed direction to staff to review and action necessary approvals for removal of the designated tree adjacent to the northern boundary of the reserve.

A Tree Removal for Public Infrastructure Permit Form, Issued under Chapter B2 – Preservation of Trees and other vegetation of the Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2014 was provided to the Manager Open Space and Resource Recovery Manager on the 16th October specifying the removal of three (3) trees, theses tress being:-

1. Eucalyptus Dunnii approximately 12m tall (estimated 30 years old)

2. Archontophoenix cunninghamiana approximately 12m tall (estimated 30 years old); and

3. Sterculia quadrifida estimated 6m (estimated 8 years old).

Additional trees that were sort for removal were identified as trees to be removed as part of the early works program for the parks redevelopment.

The Eucalyptus Dunni, was considered by staff as presenting risk to users of the park through exposed roots and as a future risk of limb shredding as known limb shredding species.

Management staff provided permit form for directorate signature.

This completed permit was provided to operational staff for engagement of a level 5 qualified arborist contractor to undertake the works.

Considerations and steps used by staff in reviewing and actioning the approval included:-

· 14th October - Review of the Infrastructure SEPP guidelines

· Inspection and documenting trees to be removed as above-mentioned.

· Consultation with SEE Directorate on the 16^th October 2017.

· Actioned advice received from SEE that the Infrastructure Services Approval Pathway and Permit form could be used as IS were the approving agency (Refer Attachment 1)

Operational staff installed site fencing on Tuesday 24^th around the garden beds including the Rotunda in preparation to separate the public from the works to ensure public safety. It should be noted that staff provided access to the Rotunda at all times outside of physical works.

On the Wednesday 25^th October 2017 Staff met with Byron Community Centre to relay imminent works and address any possible impacts to the Artesian markets licenced each Saturday night within the park.

Tree Removals Wednesday 25^th October

Due to the vegetation removal scope, operational staff identified the need to engage a qualified arborist to remove the trees, as this type of work falls outside the BBC scope of services.

At the time of the works, operational staff had a contracted service undertaking tree works on a number of Norfolk Pines, including one complete removal for reasons of Dead Dying or Dangerous provisions.

The specifications for these works required the Contractor to hold, as a minimum an AQF 3 in arboriculture with supervision from an arborist qualified to a minimum of AQF 5 in Arboriculture. This contracted engagement was expanded to include these tree removal works in the park.

All works were completed by Friday 27^th October enabling uninterrupted use by the Artisan Markets held on the night of Saturday the 28^th October 2017.

Fig 6 - Completed works, Railway Park garden beds adjacent to Jonson Street

Financial Implications

Works performed funded from town centre upgrades budget.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Trees removed under Removal for Public Infrastructure Permit Form.

No other approvals were identified as being required for the scope of works as performed.

Requested funds from funding bodies	14,794,817
Council cash contribution	9,053,932
Council in-kind Contribution	190,748
Other contributions	10,575,562
Funding applications submitted and awaiting notification (total project value)	34,615,059

Donations to Community Organisations, Other Groups and Persons	$36,200
Assistance for Festivals and Community Functions	$7,000
Donations to Community Groups – Reimbursement of Council Application Fees	$2,000
Sub-Total	$45,200
Resolution 17-381*	-$3,000
TOTAL unallocated amount for 2017/18	$42,200

Milestone	Complete By
Revitalise the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy working group	End Nov 2017
Identify & engage a consultant e.g. environmental economist	End Nov 2017
Review alignments and relevance new Council strategies, master plans and initiatives e.g. Zero Emissions Byron	End Feb 2018
Review and identify cross-sectoral integration of biodiversity conservation in the public and private sector	End Mar 2018
Draft Biodiversity Conservation Strategy in consultation with stakeholders	End Apr 2018
Draft Biodiversity Conservation Strategy placed on public exhibition for a period of six weeks	End Jun 2018
Review submissions	Mid Aug 2018
Biodiversity Conservation Strategy reported to the next available council meeting	Post Aug 2018