Cover page Agenda and Min Ordinary infocouncil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

 

Ordinary Meeting

 

 Thursday, 22 February 2018

 

held at Council Chambers, Station Street, Mullumbimby

commencing at 4.00pm

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Mark Arnold

Acting General Manager

 


CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disclosure and participation in meetings

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

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

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

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

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

Participation in Meetings Despite Pecuniary Interest (S 452 Act)

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

Non-pecuniary Interests - Must be disclosed in meetings.

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

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

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

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

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

RECORDING OF VOTING ON PLANNING MATTERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Ordinary Meeting

 

 

BUSINESS OF Ordinary Meeting

 

1.    Public Access

2.    Apologies

3.    Requests for Leave of Absence

4.    Declarations of Interest – Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary

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

6.    Adoption of Minutes from Previous Meetings

6.1       Byron Shire Reserve Trust Committee held on 1 February 2018

6.2       Ordinary Meeting held on 1 February 2018

7.    Reservation of Items for Debate and Order of Business

8.    Mayoral Minute

8.1       Future Use of the Surplus Transport for NSW land in Mullumbimby............................... 6

9.    Notices of Motion

9.1       Byron Bay Historical Walk - Stage 2................................................................................. 8

9.2       Design Options for Jonson Street Protection Works...................................................... 10

9.3       Submission: North Byron Parklands .............................................................................. 14

10.  Petitions

10.1     Speed Limits and Signage on The Pocket Road............................................................ 17

11.  Submissions and Grants

11.1     Byron Shire Council Submissions and Grants as at 31 January 2018........................... 18

12.  Delegates' Reports  

13.  Staff Reports

Corporate and Community Services

13.1     Operational Plan 2017-2018 - 6-month progress report to 31 December 2017............. 20

13.2     Council Resolutions Quarterly Review - 1 October 2017 to 31 December 2017........... 23

13.3     Draft Community Strategic Plan and Community Solutions Panel ............................... 26

13.4     Update on Resolution 17-585 regarding Adani and the Carmichael mine...................... 35

13.5     Byron Environment Centre............................................................................................. 41

13.6     Council Budget Review - 1 October 2017 to 31 December 2017.................................. 44

13.7     Bangalow A&I Hall - new fee 'community rate'.............................................................. 54

13.8     Council Investments January 2018................................................................................. 56

13.9     Tender Assessment - Legal Services Contract 2017-0054............................................ 63

13.10   Joint Organisation of Councils........................................................................................ 68


 

Sustainable Environment and Economy

13.11   Update on the CZMP for the Eastern Precincts of the Byron Bay Embayment............ 73

13.12   PLANNING - 24.2017.82.1 'Housekeeping' Amendment - Byron DCP 2014 (Various Chapters)......................................................................................................................................... 78

13.13   Draft Constitutions for new Biodiversity Advisory Committee and Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Advisory Committee...................................................................................... 86

13.14   24.2017.81.1 Amendment to DCP 2014 Chapter E5 - Bayshore Drive (Habitat).......... 90

13.15   PLANNING - Development Application No.10.2017.639.1 dual occupancy (detached), alterations and additions to existing dwelling house and two (2) lot strata subdivision of land at 33 Kallaroo Circuit Ocean Shores................................................................................................................. 97

13.16   PLANNING - 24.2018.6.1 - Car Share Policy and Draft Amendments to Byron Development Control Plan 2014 Chapter B4: Traffic Planning, Vehicle Parking, Circulation and Access..... 120

13.17   PLANNING - 26.2017.3.1 - Update on Planning Proposal for rezoning of land at Saddle and Gulgan Roads between Mullumbimby and Brunswick Heads.................................................. 127

13.18   Cities Power Partnership (CPP) Pledge....................................................................... 136

13.19   PLANNING - Development Application 10.2017.402.1 - Subdivision to create eighteen (18) residential allotments, a public reserve, a drainage reserve, a residual allotment, associated roads, earthworks, landscaping and infrastructure at 77 Tuckeroo Avenue Mullumbimby.... 138

13.20   PLANNING - Development Application 10.2017.364.1 - Boundary adjustment/Subdivision to create two lots at 25 Station Street Mullumbimby.................................................................... 155

13.21   Policy: Commercial use of road reserves..................................................................... 168

13.22   PLANNING - Development Application 10.2017.474.1 Multi Dwelling Housing Consisting of Twenty Five (25) 1 Bedrooms 70 - 90 Station Street Mullumbimby......................................... 170

Infrastructure Services

13.23   Mafeking Road and other requests to enact Council Policy 4.17................................. 209

13.24   Contributions for Secondary Dwellings ........................................................................ 218   

14.  Reports of Committees

Infrastructure Services

14.1     Report of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 16 January 2018.................. 223   

15Questions With Notice

15.1     Bangalow Parking Strategy........................................................................................... 227

15.2     Sewer inspection reports............................................................................................... 228

15.3     General Manager delegations....................................................................................... 230

15.4     Sewer Pump Station 5004............................................................................................ 236

15.5     Crown Recreation Reserve 33876 (Lot 407 DP728640).............................................. 237

15.6     Simpsons Creek............................................................................................................ 238

15.7     Ocean Shores STP and Brunswick Valley STP........................................................... 239

15.8     Drain Clearing at Billinudgel.......................................................................................... 240

15.9     Bangalow Paid Parking and the NSW Heritage Register............................................. 241

15.10   Rural Accommodation Figures..................................................................................... 242

15.11   Byron Bay Bypass......................................................................................................... 244

15.12   Council Compliance regarding Tree Removal ............................................................. 245

15.13   Tyagarah Aerodrome.................................................................................................... 246

15.14   Byron Bypass................................................................................................................ 247

15.15   Brunswick Valley STP................................................................................................... 249

15.16   Byron Bay Ballooning ................................................................................................... 250   

 

 

 

 

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

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Mayoral Minute                                                                                                                         8.1

 

 

Mayoral Minute

 

Mayoral Minute No. 8.1       Future Use of the Surplus Transport for NSW land in Mullumbimby

File No:                                  I2018/206

 

  

 

I move that Council:

 

 

1.    Write to the Minister for Transport, requesting time for Council to develop, through a carefully considered, community focused and design led process, preferred future use options for the surplus railway land in Mullumbimby as identified by Transport for NSW (TfNSW). Council also wishes to seek the deferment of any decision or process involved in offering the land for sale prior to any public tender process, so Council in partnership with the community, form and develop a proposal to either purchase the site or pursue a long term Community Title or lease arrangement. 

 

2.    When considering best use options for this site, Council notes:

 

a)   The strategically important position of the surplus railway land in Mullumbimby;

 

b)   The financially and environmentally detrimental impact unsympathetic development at the town’s entrance would have on its heritage character and tourist appeal;

 

c)   The collaborative and effective work recently undertaken by Council and its resident Guidance Group in considering the masterplan design and functionality of the town, its parking and mobility requirements, the urgent need for more diverse, affordable housing, and the potential to encourage small creative and start-up businesses to locate in the town and redress a significant shortfall in employment opportunities; and

 

d)   The rail corridor (either side of the existing rail line) is non-operational (as opposed to closed) and the corridor cannot and will not be declared surplus.

 

e)   The great opportunity for a partnership between TfNSW, Council and the Byron community to develop a mutually beneficial outcome of value to all.

 

3.    Write to Tamara Smith  MLA and Ben Franklin MLC seeking their support and advocacy within NSW Parliament and with TfNSW.

 

 

 

 

 

Background Notes:

 

It has come to light that land within the rail corridor dissecting Mullumbimby has been deemed surplus to the needs of its owner Transport for NSW and is likely to be put on the open market for sale in the near future. 

 

This parcel of land has long been identified as strategically vita. It Is the most visible a gateway to Mullumbimby and sits either side of rail infrastructure that should be maintained as such. It is large enough to address some of the desirable housing and economic outcomes sought by Council and the community. These include housing affordability and diversity, and creating spaces for small enterprises, work from home opportunities and other similar activities. All could contribute to maintaining a healthy town centre economy as well as help meet the need for housing appropriate for contemporary home buyers and renters of all ages.

 

As a first principle, we should acknowledge the great desire the sites do not to become a legacy of bad planning or create soulless development Council, the community and visitors will have to live with and regret for decades to come. Mullumbimby deserves development sympathetic to its character and heritage but is of its time and looks to the future.

 

The sites offer wonderful potential to be an exciting challenge and opportunity to realise best practice planning and environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development.

 

This Mayoral Minute does not commit Council to purchase the land, it simply seeks to enter into a dialogue with TfNSW in order to ensure time can be made available for Council to work with the community to develop design and use options, consider appropriate planning mechanisms to get the best outcome for the site’s future and, if possible, show that commercial sound outcomes that benefit TfNSW and Council can be identified. This is not something that can be properly done in a matter of weeks or a few months.

 

I believe we can get a group of local architects, town and social planners, and other local exerts, to put their collective minds and talents together. They would be fully briefed and charged with generating a range of options that helps the community identify those most suitable Mullumbimby but creates value for TfNSW. Let’s see if Council can assist with this process, work alongside the community to help facilitate the best outcomes, and ensure best practice design and planning approaches reflect the values and needs of the Mullumbimby community. The desirable end result would be LEP and DCP controls that ensure a superior development outcome on these critically important public land holdings.

 

Key connections to the Community Strategic Plan Include:

 

Community Objective CM3: Effective partnerships with all levels of government 

Community Objective EC1: A diverse inclusive economic base and support for local businesses 

Community Objective SC1: Support communities to achieve equitable access to an appropriate range and level of whole of life services such as healthcare, education and housing. 

SC2.4  Create vibrant liveable places and spaces within towns and villages for people of all ages and abilities. 

Community Objective EN2: Sustainable towns, villages and rural settlements that: respect our natural environment; create an inclusive social environment, and 

integrate harmoniously with the character of local areas; and provide more inclusive social environments 

 

Definition of the project/task:

Seeking  State government support for Council and community supported outcomes on the recently identified surplus Transport for NSW land in Mullumbimby

 

Source of Funds (if applicable):

None required at this stage

 

 

Signed:   Cr Simon Richardson

  


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                    9.1

 

 

Notices of Motion

 

Notice of Motion No. 9.1     Byron Bay Historical Walk - Stage 2

File No:                                  I2018/174

 

  

 

I move:

 

That council extend their support to the Byron Bay Historical Society History Trail expressed in Resolution 15-336 and allocate $8,000 plus some additional in-kind costs labour and materials to install QR code points on site.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        BYRON BAY HISTORICAL SOCIETY FORESHORE HISTORY TRAIL, E2018/9406  

 

 

Signed:   Cr Basil Cameron

 

Councillor’s supporting information:

 

The Byron Bay Historical Society have been working on this project since 2014 and have allocated many hundreds of hours setting up the programming as well as investing several thousand’s in hardware and site development.

 

All the stories and the computer links and software is in place and all that is required now are the read points and posts in place to complete the project.

 

The Council did pass a resolution on the 17 July 2015 Res No 15-336

 

The council endorse the two projects outlined in report No 4.11215/554:

 

A) Foreshore History Trail

B) Byron Bay Whale trail

 

And provide permission for signage to be installed along the Byron Bay foreshore.

 

There was to be in-kind support for the history trail with out defining what the in-kind was to be. However some in kind assistance is continuing to be provided through Open Space staff.

 

This is an important project for residents to acknowledge the area’s history and to inform locals and visitors.

 

It is recommended that the requested funding be allocated from an appropriate tourism program as it is consistent with the aims of the Tourism Management Plan and dovetails with efforts to attract visitors interested in experiential tourism and helps to promote Byron Shire as a place to be enjoyed and respected.

 

A summary of the project and its benefits is attached.

 

Recommended priority relative to other Delivery Plan tasks:

 

As an ongoing joint project of the Byron Bay Historical Society and Council, the priority is considered high with significant benefits for the community.

 

Definition of the project/task:

 

Provide in kind support and funding to complete the Byron Bay History Trail in the form of read points and posts for signage.

 

Source of Funds (if applicable):

 

Crown Parking Reserve (for components on Crown Land managed by Council)

 

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

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

 

In-kind support can include:-

·  Dial Before you Dig searches and underground service locations

·  Confirming exact placement in consideration of maintenance, amenity and public safety.

·  Installation

 

The majority of the history trail is within Council managed Crown Land and as such, an appropriate funding source for any Council contribution would be Crown Paid Parking Reserve.

 

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

 

Council as the Trustee has authorisation to support and provide funds to enable this project (within land in which it is Trustee) to be delivered.  It is understood that the BB Historical Society have owners consent for elements of the project that are within National Parks and Wildlife Service Estate.

 

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

 

No

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                    9.2

 

 

Notice of Motion No. 9.2     Design Options for Jonson Street Protection Works

File No:                                  I2018/192

 

  

 

I move:

 

1.    That further options for the design of Jonson St protection works and Main Beach access be canvassed, evaluated and costed prior to any commencement of work.

 

2.    That OEH be invited to attend a future SPW asap to discuss new ideas and suggestions for a revitalized concept plan for the JSPW that meets their requirements of:

 

i.     protecting public assets

ii.    reducing the constructed footprint on the natural environment

iii.   having a positive impact on adjacent and downdrift beaches (Cavanbah, Belongil) i.e. removing the groynes

iv.   where possible, preferencing soft stabilization and the management of social and natural ecosystems.

 

3.    That Council engage a recognized and innovative coastal engineer, to explore and draw up a range of concept plans that meet OEH requirements and fit in with the Byron Bay Masterplan vision for Main Beach.

 

 

 

 

Signed:   Cr Jan Hackett

 

Councillor’s supporting information:

 

Main Beach, Byron Bay, is an international attraction and yet we must have the ugliest and

most dysfunctional beach frontage on the east coast of Australia.

 

Given the failure of the rock wall and groynes now in place, a reworking of this area, known as

Jonson St protection works, was submitted as part of the 2016 CZMP for the Byron Bay

Embayment - since rejected by the State Government Planning Department.

Minister Gabrielle Upton has invited Council to resubmit the eastern half of the rejected 2016

CZMP, of which the Jonson St protection works and beach access forms a major part.

The 2016 CZMP was decried by the community at large, which had no substantive say in its

design.

 

Rushed through by a committee with vested interests in the outcome for the western half of

the Plan (now delayed and to be designed separately under new CMP legislation), the work

to be done at Jonson St was little more than making a few small half baked adjustments and

alterations - eg. Removal of the groynes, securing the failing rockface in front of the degraded

carpark and adding some concrete steps and vehicular access to the beach itself.

It's hardly a plan to improve or beautify the beachfront and will not add any longevity to

protecting built assets over the coming years.

 

From recent coastal conferences, I have noted that marine engineers are now looking at new

and more innovative ways to to approach protecting beach assets from sea rise and storm

impacts. Somewhere between hard rock revetments (which scour the beach of sand - as we

have seen at Main Beach- and have a high failure rate), and retreat (although even that nasty

is now been considered and costed), there are middle ground options being designed and

proposed as alternative and gentler (but just as effective) ways of extending the life of both

the beach and the commercial & residential assets built on the beachfront itself.

 

Byron Shire calls itself an innovative and 'different' community which protects its environment

and lifestyle options. We need to demonstrate this by seeking innovative as well as cost

effective ways of improving our world famous foreshore and make it something we are truly

proud of.

 

Subsequent to the 8 February SPW, Chloe Dowset has approached the OEH and found they would be open to revisit the JSPW as per the 2016 CZMP and consider new concepts for the upgrade.

 

I move therefore that the OEH be invited to attend a future SPW asap to discuss new ideas and suggestions for a revitalized concept plan for the JSPW that meets their requirements of:

 

·   protecting public assets

·   reducing the constructed footprint on the natural environment

·   having a positive impact on adjacent and downdrift beaches (Cavvanbah, Belongil) i.e. removing the groynes for one

·   where possible, preferencing soft stabilization and the management of social and natural ecosystems.

 

Following the EOH workshop, I move that Council engage a recognized and innovative coastal engineer (similar to Angus Gordon for example), to explore and draw up a range of concept plans that meet OEH requirements and fit in with the BB Masterplan vision for Main Beach.

 

Supporting Images

 

 

 

 

../../My%20Pictures/hackettnom/IMG_0156.JPG../../My%20Pictures/hackettnom/IMG_0157.JPG../../My%20Pictures/hackettnom/IMG_0160.JPG


 

 

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

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

 

A Strategic Planning Workshop (SPW) on the draft Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) for the Eastern Precincts of the Byron Bay Embayment was held 8 February.

 

At this SPW, updates on the CZMP delivery, OEH advice and feedback to Council staff to date, proposed management strategies including the Jonson Street protection works (JSPW) were provided to councillors.

 

Councillors expressed concern about the concept plan for JSPW being that tied to the previous resolutions of Council; and asked about the ability to look at alternate options, now that the Masterplan has been adopted.

 

Following the SPW on 8 February, staff had discussions with OEH and they have confirmed:

 

1.    They do not require an adopted concept design for the upgrade of the JSPW for inclusion in the CZMP in order for the CZMP to be certified.

2.    They are supportive of revisiting and reconsidering other concepts for the upgrade of the JSPW.

 

To further discussion with Council, OEH have agreed to attend a future SPW with councillors this is anticipated for 8 March.

 

Noting that any future design for protection works must accord with any legislation applicable and best practice coastal management practice.

 

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

 

Unknown until the CZMP is finalised. Grant funding may be available to Council.

 

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

 

Yes - EN1.3.1 Implement Coastal Zone Management Program


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                    9.3

 

 

Notice of Motion No. 9.3     Submission: North Byron Parklands

File No:                                  I2018/193

 

  

 

I move:

 

1.       Council notes the Final Determination Report (‘determination approval’), Final Concept Approval (‘concept approval’) and Final Project Approvals (‘project approval’) of 24 April 2012 in relation to the Yelgun site (North Byron Parklands).

 

2.       Council notes the statement of the Final Determination Report on page 11 as follows

 

          After the trial period, the Commission considers that a new application should be lodged with Council for events to continue. In considering any future project applications, the Council must take into consideration the performance of events during the trial, the effectiveness of the management plans, the monitoring results of environmental conditions and the completion of Stage 2 works (on-site sewerage and water infrastructure).

 

3.       Council prepares a submission in relation to Cultural Events Site - State Significant Development Application (SSD 8169) (‘the application’) affirming that the environmental and community interests are best served if an application for a permanent events site were to be assessed, considered and determined by Byron Shire Council in accordance with the statement of the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) set out in 2 above.

 

4.       The submission to PAC note with concern that the application is proceeding without the following conditions of the concept approval being met.

 

          B4(3) The stage 2 works must be completed prior to any outdoor event after 2017. C1(2) The stage 2 works must be completed before any outdoor events are held after 2017

 

Note: Stage 2 works include ‘a water treatment facility’ and  ‘a wastewater treatment facility’.

 

5.       The submission notes the unreasonable difficulties that residents and others including community representatives on the Regulatory Working Group (RWG) have experiences in having concerns addressed by DPE and details issues, complaints and submissions, previously raised by Council, residents, businesses and others regarding the application or otherwise of approval conditions during the trial period.

 

6.       The submission states that the proposed increase in numbers or frequency of events is not currently justified given the lack of stage 2 facilities and impacts on the environment, residents and others in the community.

 

7.       The submission notes that the proponents did not meet with Council staff prior to lodgement of the application and details issues raised by staff in meetings with DPE including, but not limited to the following.

 

a) The current events operations and associated on site and off site impacts at its current approved capacity – and how these events are being monitored and PAC conditions enforced as this is critical to how the site or events could be managed at double or triple the number.

 

b) The large volume of documents to be reviewed and the complexity of the proposal and variations to the existing development requiring time and specialist staff for this review to occur - e.g. ecology, noise, infrastructure water and sewer, road, stormwater, flooding, traffic - and what specialist staff did the DPE have to do this.

 

c) The timing and length of exhibition period given the above and Council meeting cycle, noting a community desire for an independent review of the trail period and application as well as and extended exhibition period until at least 2 March.

 

 

 

 

 

Signed:   Cr Basil Cameron/Cr Cate Coorey

 

Councillor’s supporting information:

 

In 2008 Council approved a trial event at the North Byron Parklands site at Yelgun. This approval

was subsequently quashed by the Land and Environment Court due to the proposal to build a road

through the 7k wetlands environmental zone (equivalent E2 zone under the current LEP). The

Court also noted a ‘place of assembly’ was also not permitted in a 7k zone.

 

Although the environmental sensitivity and importance of the land zoned 7k has not changed, an

application to the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) nevertheless approved the creation of

an events site for a five year trial in 2012. The PAC approval stated that Council should be the assessment authority for any application after the trial period.

 

As indicated by the wording of the motion a significant number of issues are outstanding and have

not been satisfactorily resolved and have remained the subject of considerable community concern

and debate during the trial period. These include significant issues such as noise, anti social impacts on surrounding communities as well as concerns about effective safety and evacuation measures and environmental monitoring that has not been as robust as intended by the PAC approval.

 

As noted in the motion key infrastructure including a wastewater treatment facility and water treatment facility required to have been constructed and operational prior to any application for a permanent event site have not been undertaken in accordance with conditions of the PAC approval.

 

As such an increase in the numbers of attendees to 50,000 people for large events can not be

supported.

 

The motion also refers to the numbers and complexity of the documentation and concerns raised

by staff in discussions with DPE regarding sufficient time for effective evaluation of the proposal

and outstanding issues. For this reason, the full extent of matters to be covered in a submission

can not be included by the deadline for submission of this Notice of Motion. Therefore it is intention

of the mover and seconder to continue to compile matters into a single document and distributed

to Councillors as soon as possible prior to the meeting on 22 February. It is proposed that the

document will then be referenced in the motion to be put to Councillors at that meeting.

 

Recommended priority relative to other Delivery Plan tasks:

 

High. Submission due by 2 March 2018

 

Definition of the project/task:

 

Prepare submission regarding ‘the application’ incorporating discussion of issues as stated in the

motion.

 

Source of Funds (if applicable):

 

N/A

 

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

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

 

A staff meeting was recently held with DPE staff regarding the North Byron Parklands applications advising of Council’s intention to lodge a submission, but difficulties to do so due to the timing and length of the exhibition period.

 

In response the DPE has extended the time for Council to lodge a submission to 2 March to enable

consideration of the applications at the 22 February meeting.

 

Staff will incorporate the issues as stated in the motion in the Council submission.

 

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

 

N/A

 

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

 

N/A

  


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Petitions                                                                                                                                      10.1

 

 

Petitions

 

Petition No. 10.1         Speed Limits and Signage on The Pocket Road

Directorate:                 Infrastructure Services

Report Author:           Evan Elford, Team Leader Infrastructure Planning  

File No:                        I2018/107

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Roads and Maritime Services

 

At Council’s Ordinary meeting held on 1 February 2018, Cr Richardson tabled a petition containing 16 signatures which states:

 

…We, the undersigned, petition the Mayor and Councillors of Byron Shire Council to:

 

·    Traffic travelling along this stretch of The Pocket Road should be restricted to a speed of 60 km/hr

 

·    Clearer signs should be placed along The Pocket Road to indicate the intersections with Moffatts Road and Middle Pocket Road.

 

·    Traffic should be warned about the concealed driveways by appropriate signs.”

 

Comments from Director Infrastructure Services:

 

The petition has been listed as an agenda item for the Local Traffic Committee (LTC) for consideration at its meeting on 20 March 2018

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.       That the petition regarding Speed Limits and Signage on The Pocket Road be noted.

 

2.       That the petition be referred to the Director Infrastructure Services.

 

3.       That in accordance with Council Resolution 18-035, Council receive a further report regarding speed limits and signage on The Pocket Road following consideration of the  petition by the Local Traffic Committee.

 

 

 

 

  


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Submissions and Grants                                                                                                     11.1

 

 

Submissions and Grants

 

Report No. 11.1           Byron Shire Council Submissions and Grants as at 31 January 2018

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           Jodi Frawley, Grants Co-ordinator

File No:                        I2018/73

Theme:                         Corporate Management

                                      Governance Services

 

 

Summary:

 

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

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council note the report and Attachment (E2018/6444)

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Byron Shire Council Submissions and Grants as at 31 January 2018, E2018/6444  

 

 


 

Report

 

This report provides an update on grant submissions including funding applications submitted and new potential funding opportunities.

 

Funding Applications – Successful

 

·    Brunswick Heads Boat Harbour Boat Ramp - $500,000

 

Additional information on the grant submissions made and/or pending is provided in Attachment 1 – Submissions and Grants report as at 31 January 2018.

 

Financial Implications

 

If Council is successful in obtaining the identified grants more than $20 million would be achieved which would provide significant funding for Council projects.  Some of the grants require a contribution from Council (either cash or in-kind) and others do not. Council’s contribution is funded. The potential funding and allocation is noted below:

 

Requested funds from funding bodies

20,300,170

Council cash contribution

11,127,343

Council in-kind Contribution

394,280

Other contributions

17,329,960

Funding applications submitted and awaiting notification (total project value)

50,388,891

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

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

 

   


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                          13.1

 

 

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services

 

Report No. 13.1           Operational Plan 2017-2018 - 6-month progress report to 31 December 2017

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           Mila Jones, Corporate Governance Coordinator

File No:                        I2017/1028

Theme:                         Corporate Management

                                      Governance Services

 

 

Summary:

 

Council’s Operational Plan outlines its projects and activities to achieve the commitments in its four-year Delivery Program.

 

This report summarises the Council’s progress towards achieving the annual activities contained in the 2017-2018 Operational Plan.   This report is the six-month progress report as at 31 December 2017.  More than 36 per cent of activities have been completed, 61 per cent substantially completed and 2 per cent yet to commence.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council note the six-month progress report to 31 December 2017 (Attachment 1 E2018/10208) on the Operational Plan 2017-2018.

 

Attachments:

 

1        Delivery Program 2017-2021 Progress Report 01/07/17 to 31/12/17, E2018/10208  

 

 


 

Report

 

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the six month progress report on the annual Activities contained in the Operational Plan 2017-2018, as at 31 December 2017.  The Operational Plan 2017-2018 is the annual activities component of the 2017-2021 Delivery Program adopted by Council on 22 June 2017.

 

The Operational Plan progress report contains üAchieved  lSubstantially achieved  ûNot achieved icons for “at a glance” progress status.  It also includes “exception” reporting explanatory notes where progress indicators have a red status.  A comprehensive progress report is provided at Attachment 1, and a summary is set out here:

 

 

36.5%

completed

 

 

61%

substantially
completed

 

 

2.5%

not achieved

 

 

Achievements

 

Notable achievements (grouped by Community Strategic Plan theme) for the six month period include:

·    Corporate management – Total grant funding won $12,061,092 with an application success rate of 75% (projects won - 21 of 29); a crisis management team has been established to develop Council’s approach to business continuity and improvements to disaster recovery planning with community and authorities; A deliberative, participatory planning process is underway with the Mullumbimby Hospital Site Project Reference Group

·    Economy – The Byron Region Food booklet has been produced; business survey resulted in over 1000 responses; the Chincogan Charge was secured as a new event

·    Society and Culture – Rail Park and Rail Corridor catalyst site projects have commenced

·    Environment – the Flying Fox Management Plan and the Rural Land Use Strategy have been adopted

·    Community infrastructure – Masterplan ready for endorsement on 1 February 2018;

21 heritage style enclosures, were removed and replaced with a combination of 28 waste and 26 recycling bins;

32 bins removed from Byron Bay in 2016 were upcycled for use double/triple enclosures in the main streets and at the netball courts;

12 of the removed heritage bins have been reused in the surrounding parks and cemetery;

Completion of Stage 1 of Byron Resource Recovery Collection Masterplan – Mobile Aerated Floor Composting Facility

 

Financial Implications

 

The Council’s financial performance for the reporting period is addressed in the Quarterly Budget Review, which is subject to a separate report.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

The General Manager is required under Section 404 (5) of the Local Government Act 1993 to provide regular progress reports as to the Council’s progress with respect to the principal activities detailed in the Delivery Program/Operational Plan.  Progress reports must be provided at least every six months.


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                          13.2

 

 

Report No. 13.2           Council Resolutions Quarterly Review - 1 October 2017 to 31 December 2017

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           David Royston-Jennings, Corporate Governance Officer

File No:                        I2018/3

Theme:                         Corporate Management

                                      Governance Services

 

 

Summary:

 

This report provides an update on the status of Council resolutions.

 

Council should note that 104 resolutions were completed during the period 1 October to 31 December 2017, which is an increase from 79 resolutions completed during the previous quarter and 92 resolutions completed during the same period in 2016.

 

There were 131 active resolutions as at 31 December 2017. Of these 131 active resolutions, only 6% had not received any action recorded towards implementation within 30 days as at 31 December 2017.

 

Resolutions could be active or overdue as a result of budget constraints, staff resourcing, extended negotiations with stakeholders, or other reasons.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.       That Council receive and note the information provided in this report on active Council Resolutions in Attachment 1 (#E2018/2576).

 

2.       That Council note the completed Resolutions in Attachment 2 (#E2018/1123).

 

3.       That Council close Resolutions 16-530, 17-121, 17-260, 17-369, 17-386, 17-521 and 17-665, due to them being no longer relevant, superseded by subsequent resolutions, or not resourced.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Active Council Resolutions as at 31 December 2017, E2018/2576  

2        Completed Council Resolutions 1 October 2017 - 31 December 2017, E2018/1123  

 

 


 

Report

 

This report provides a quarterly update on the status of Council Resolutions to 31 December 2017.

As at 31 December 2017:

 

·   104 resolutions were completed since 1 October

·   131 resolutions remained active

 

The active Council resolutions per Council terms are provided below:

 

·   112 active Council Resolutions from current Council (2016-2020)

·     18 active Council Resolutions from previous Council (2012-2016)

·       1 active Council Resolution from prior Council (2008-2012)

 

It is worth noting when considering the increase in active resolutions during this period that between 1 October and 31 December 2017 Council held three Ordinary meetings and two Extraordinary meetings. These five meetings took place within a 49 day period, meaning that Council met once almost every ten days during this time, resulting in an increase of resolutions.

 

Resolutions completed during this reporting period include adoption of the Supporting Partnerships Policy, endorsement of the 2016/17 Annual Report, a review of Mullumbimby Outside of School Hours Care Services, granting of licences for surf schools, adoption of the 2018 meeting schedule and review of paid parking in Bangalow. 

 

Details of completed resolutions for the period are provided at Attachment 2 (E2018/1123). 

 

Table 1 provides a summary of Council resolutions that are no longer relevant or that have been superseded either by other resolutions, legislative change or other matters.

 

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

 

Meeting Date

Resolution No.

Report Title

Staff Comments and Recommendation

16/10/2016

16-530

Review of Policy 15/005 and Procedures for Advertising of Proposed Development and Approvals

Amendments to the NSW Planning Act in effect. New Regulations to be developed to support the changes including requirements for advertising and notification of development applications. A review of Council’s DCP can occur following the release of more  information from DPE.

24/08/2017

17-369

Power Up – Northern Rivers Electric Vehicle Strategy

Strategy has been launched. Follow up work to be incorporated into the Emissions Reduction Strategy program Res 17-639.

21/09/2017

17-386

Byron Energy Action Tank

Superseded by Res 17-640.

26/10/2017

17-521

Update Draft Coastal Zone Management Plan – Byron Bay Embayment

Superseded by Res 17-641.

20/04/2017

17-121

Review of Tyagarah Airstrip Proposal.

Superseded by Res 17-327.

22/06/17

17-260

Byron Affordable Housing Summit Issues Action Plan

Superseded by Res 17-432, Res 17-601 & Res 17 643.

 

Table 2 provides a summary of Council resolutions that cannot be implemented due to resources not being available, allocated, or are allocated to other adopted projects, services, activities or works. Any resulting decisions of Council will be incorporated into the next quarterly review of resolutions.

 

Table 2: Council resolutions that are not resourced

 

Meeting Date

Resolution No.

Report Title

Staff Comments and Recommendation

14/12/2017

17-665

Planning – s96 10.2016.551.2 S96 for Design Amendments to Dwelling House at 70 Kingsley Street

The resolution requires Council to complete a review on heritage conservation areas or precincts in Byron Bay. This project is subject to funding under the Office of Environment and Heritage – NSW Heritage Grants Program which is not open again until late 2018.

 

Financial Implications

 

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

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

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

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

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

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                          13.3

 

 

Report No. 13.3           Draft Community Strategic Plan and Community Solutions Panel

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           Mila Jones, Corporate Governance Coordinator

File No:                        I2017/2082

Theme:                         Corporate Management

                                      Governance Services

 

 

Summary:

 

A new Community Strategic Plan has been drafted and is presented to Council for endorsement for public exhibition.

 

Council undertook a significant engagement program in late 2017 to understand the community’s priorities and aspirations for Byron Shire for the next ten years. More than 2000 people provided feedback through various channels including targeted engagement undertaken by the Mullumbimby and District Neighbourhood Centre.

 

A brief summary of engagement outcomes include:

·     Desire for improvements to infrastructure

·     Managing growth and change

·     Addressing affordability

·     Balancing the benefits and impacts of tourism

·     Need for more community-led decision making

·     Lack of trust in Council decision making and in groups or organisations

·     A feeling of inequitable resource allocation across the Shire

·     Ensuring the natural environment is protected

·     Improving transport

·     Support and promotion of arts and cultural programs

·     Concern about lack of community connectedness, access to housing and safety

 

The Community Strategic Plan has been drafted to explicitly address this feedback – it is essential that the plan reflects community priorities and aspirations.  It is a collective document that needs to be owned by the community, Council and other partners.

 

The draft plan sets out an overarching vision for the next ten years.  The vision will be delivered through five key objectives (as outlined below) and supporting strategies:

1.    We have infrastructure, transport and services which meet our expectations

2.    We celebrate our lifestyle, culture and sense of community

3.    We protect and enhance our environment

4.    We manage growth and change responsibly

5.    We have community-led decision making which is open and inclusive

 

Should Council endorse the draft plan, public exhibition will be undertaken during March.

 

As resolved by Council at its 1 February 2018  meeting (resolution 18-027), a Community Solutions Panel will be administered by research foundation newDemocracy, where a group of 28 randomly selected community members prepare recommendations on Council’s infrastructure priorities.

 

This report details the engagement outcomes from consultation undertaken last year, outlines the key components of the draft Community Strategic Plan and summarises proposed engagement activities moving forwards.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1.    Notes the outcomes from community engagement undertaken in late 2017 (Attachment 1 E2018/10080) and that the report be published.

 

2.    Endorses “Our Byron, Our Future” (draft Community Strategic Plan 2028) (Attachment 2 E2018/10708) for public exhibition and seeks feedback specifically on:

a)    Proposed vision

b)    Proposed strategies

c)    Unique characteristics for each village and township (which will be developed in partnership with masterplan and guidance groups)

 

3.    Should there be no submissions received, adopt “Our Byron, Our Future”, however if submissions are received, a further report will be brought to Council reporting on the submissions with a revised Plan where necessary.

 

Attachments:

 

1        Community Strategic Plan 2028 Engagement Outcomes Report, E2018/10080  

2        Draft Community Strategic Plan 2028 - For Public Exhibition, E2018/10708  

 

 


 

Report

 

The new Community Strategic Plan (CSP) has been developed to guide long term future planning to meet the needs and aspirations of the community.  This latest review is an opportunity for a fresh approach to long term strategic planning, driven by community input following a comprehensive engagement program.

 

On 24 August 2017, Council endorsed the CSP review project plan and engagement strategy.  In keeping with the project plan and engagement strategy, a draft CSP has been developed and informed by the outcomes of the community engagement activities to-date. 

 

A sound CSP can be used by councils and other stakeholders in the community as a lobbying tool, to support funding applications and to confirm strategic priorities.

 

Engagement activities and participation

 

The overall phase one engagement objectives were to:

 

·     Inform the community and stakeholders about the development of a new CSP

·     Provide an opportunity from the outset for the community and stakeholders to be involved in the development of the new CSP

·     Seek input on a long-term vision for Byron Shire

·     Gain a better understanding of local community issues and priorities

·     Hear from as many people across the Shire as possible

·     Hear from a diverse range of individuals and groups

·     Provide opportunities for both face to face and online engagement

 

The first phase of engagement commenced on 3 November 2017 and concluded on 19 December 2017.  The total number of people who actively participated in the engagement process was 2,769 people - 265 people attended a workshop, 883 people engaged online and using social media, 420 people attended an interactive pop up activity and 3 people provided a written submission.

 

The engagement program has included 76 hours of face to face engagement supported by other online activities:

 

·     Community, stakeholder, Progress Association, Masterplan and Village Guidance Group, and Community Roundtable workshops

·     Interactive pop-up activities

·     Councillor workshops and briefings

·     Aboriginal Services Coalition meeting

·     Staff workshop, survey and forum

·     Online survey

·     Online 'Big ideas for Byron Shire' activity

·     Online 'Stories of Byron Shire' activity

·     Social media posts, videos and discussion

·     Survey for local businesses

·     Mullumbimby and District Neighbourhood Centre - Harwood community engagement approach

 

In conjunction with the Our Byron Our Future engagement, activities targeting local businesses and ‘hard to reach’ people were carried out. These activities comprised of a business survey which had 895 participants and a Harwood community engagement approach run by the Mullumbimby and District Neighbourhood Centre which directly engaged 303 people living in the post code 2483.

 

Council staff and Councillors were also consulted during a staff workshop and at two Strategic Planning Workshops.

 

Have your say - Our Byron Our Future
(www.yoursaybyronshire.com.au/ourbyron)

 

Engagement outcomes

 

The key themes that emerged commonly across all types of engagement with the community, and which have been used to inform the draft CSP include:

 

·     Desire for improvements to infrastructure, with an emphasis on fixing local roads

·     Managing growth and change while protecting the lifestyle which makes living in Byron Shire unique

·     Providing strategies to ensure living in Byron Shire is affordable for locals and future generations, and to ensure young people don't have to move from the area due to lack of employment or housing options

·     Balancing the benefits and impacts of tourism in a sustainable manner which provides maximum value for the local community

·     Providing opportunities and support for greater levels of community lead involvement and empowerment in local decision making

·     A lack of trust in Council decision making, and a feeling that past feedback has been ignored or not acted upon by elected Councillors and staff

·     A feeling of inequitable resource allocation across the Shire, with a feeling that the Byron Bay town centre receives more resourcing and service than other parts of the Shire

·     Ensuring the natural environment is protected and that Council supports the community to develop climate friendly initiatives

·     Investigating opportunities and strategies to improve transport across the Shire

·     Greater support and promotion of arts and cultural programs across the Shire

 

Comprehensive details can be read in the Community Engagement Outcomes report at Attachment 1 to this report. 

 

Targeted conversations

 

The Mullumbimby and District Neighbourhood Centre Inc. (MDNC) partnered with Council to carry out targeted engagement of people in the post code of 2483. The purpose of this pilot was to hear from people who may not usually engage with Council on a topic such as the CSP, and to take the engagement process out in to the community as opposed to in a Council meeting room.

 

The main concerns raised included lack of community connectedness, access to housing, safety, a lack of trust in groups or organisations and a desire to see action out of engagement.

Development of the CSP

 

Based on the key engagement outcomes a draft CSP has been developed for public exhibition.  It seeks to provide an overarching vision supported by objectives and strategies.  It is important that there is a clear line of sight between community feedback and the proposed objectives and strategies.   

 

Based on the feedback that emerged from the engagement process, a community vision has been identified as:

 

Our community is empowered to be creative, innovative and listened to as we shape the future way of living that we want.

 

While we strongly protect our Shire; its natural environment, lifestyle, diversity and community spirit, we welcome visitors and the contribution they make to our culture.

 

Our future is sustainable, we have the services and infrastructure we need to thrive, and we encourage and support local business and industry.

 

We foster the arts and cultural activities, respect and acknowledge our first peoples and celebrate and embrace diverse thinking and being.

 

Council is seeking feedback on this draft community vision and a final vision, based on further community input, will be decided following the public exhibition period.

 

The CSP has set the following community objectives and supporting strategies to achieve our vision.

 

Community Objective 1:   We have infrastructure, transport and services which meet our expectations

Supporting Strategies:

1.1     Provide a road network which is safe, accessible and maintained to an acceptable level of service

1.2     Provide essential services and reliable infrastructure which meet an acceptable community standard

1.3     Support, through partnership, a network of integrated sustainable transport options

1.4     Provide a regular and acceptable waste and recycling service

1.5     Provide continuous urban water and sewerage services within the Shire

1.6     Manage traffic and parking in an efficient manner

 

Community Objective 2:   We celebrate our lifestyle, culture and sense of community

 

Supporting Strategies:

2.1     Support and encourage our vibrant culture and creativity

2.2     The community is provided with a wide range of services, by Council and other agencies, that contribute to the wellbeing of the Byron Shire community.

2.3     Provide and facilitate access to local community spaces, facilities and activities

2.4     Support a culture of community safety and respect for local values

 

Community Objective 3:      We protect and enhance our natural environment

 

Supporting Strategies:

3.1     Partner to protect and enhance our biodiversity, ecosystems and ecology

3.2     Strive to become a zero emissions community

3.3     Partner to protect and enhance the health of the Shire’s coastlines, estuaries, waterways and catchments

3.4     Support and future proof our local farmers and our food bowl

 

Community Objective 4:      We manage growth and change responsibly

 

Supporting Strategies:

4.1     Manage development to respect the character of our towns and villages 

4.2     Support affordable housing in appropriate locations across the Shire

4.3     Promote and support local business development, education and employment opportunities

4.4     Support tourism and events that reflect our culture and lifestyle

4.5     Work to improve community resilience in our changing environment

 

Community Objective 5:      We manage growth and change responsibly

 

Supporting Strategies:

5.1     Engage and involve community in Council’s decision making process

5.2     Create a culture of trust with the community by being open, genuine and transparent

5.3     Support Councillors to carry out their duties

5.4     Allocate resources in a fair and holistic manner

5.5     Deliver a high level of customer service

5.6     Manage Council’s finances, assets and workforce sustainably

 

The next level of planning and reporting comes in the form of the four year Delivery Program, which describes how the vision and community outcomes outlined in the CSP are to be translated into actions through specific activities and programs.  To arrive at this next level of planning, further steps are required and are discussed below.

 

Next steps

 

The Community Engagement Outcomes report will be made available to the community, and can be read in conjunction with the Strategic Issues Paper which is available on the “your say Byron Shire” website at www.yoursaybyronshire.com.au/30886/documents/68147.

 

Phase two of the engagement activities, which have already commenced and will continue during the public exhibition phase of the draft CSP 2028 includes:

 

a)      Performance and Wellbeing Indicators Framework

 

As part of phase two of the CSP engagement program a series of high level, overarching performance indicators will be determined. These indicators will provide a way of measuring how Council is progressing to achieving the community vision.

 

 

Council is in the process of developing a community wellbeing indicators framework. The community is currently being asked to provide feedback via our “Happy Byron” Survey (available at www.yoursaybyronshire.com.au/happybyron) on elements of this framework, with a view to help improve wellbeing in our area and to develop a baseline of community wellbeing to enable measurements of success in this field. 

 

b)      Community Solutions Panel

 

As resolved by Council at its 1 February 2018 (RES 18-027) meeting, a Community Solutions Panel will be administered by research foundation newDemocracy, where a group of 28 randomly selected community members prepare recommendations on Council’s infrastructure priorities.

 

To engage even more thoroughly with the community about how resources should be allocated over coming years a project is underway to see if a community deliberation can be designed which delivers an informed voice of everyday people. This informed voice will directly consider resourcing issues which will be at the centre of Council's Delivery Plan. nDF’s intent is to:

 

Undertake a bespoke jury-style process – a Community Solutions Panel – so that a group of randomly-selected local residents with time, free access to information, a clear authority and given the starting point of possible solutions (prepared by active interests and Council), can reach a shared, considered judgement, reflecting the views of everyday people and thus assist councillors to make a more widely-trusted public decision.

 

The aim is to provide a transparent, robust and genuine process with a methodology which all interests can see is fair and can therefore accept the results.

 

The following table outlines the proposed activities and timeline for this process:

 

Date

Activity

End January

Email invitation distributed and targeted face-to-face recruitment

Early February

Recruitment period

February

Solicitation of proposed solutions from stakeholders through community workshops and online

End February

Panel randomly selected, notified and confirmed

End February

Briefing Book sent to panellists

Wednesday, 7 March

Introductory meeting of Panel (Council presentation)

Saturday, 10 March

First meeting (engagement with Councillors and exploration of solutions proposed by stakeholders)

Saturday, 17 March

Second meeting of Panel (exploration)

Saturday, 24 March

Third and final meeting of Panel (deliberation and produce recommendations)

 

Council staff then incorporate into draft Delivery Plan in readiness for exhibition

5 April

Panellists present recommendations to Councillors

19 April

Council meeting to refer draft Delivery Program for exhibition

30 April – 27 May

Formal exhibition of Delivery Program

7 June

SPW on exhibition feedback and any issues arising

21 June

Council meeting to adopt Delivery Program (and all other documents)

 

c)      Delivery Program and Operational Plan

 

Cascading out of the ten year strategies of the CSP come the four year actions in our Delivery Program to meet those strategies and then the annual activities in our Operational Plan to meet the four year actions. Phase two of the community engagement program will assist Council and staff to consider priorities and resourcing for the Delivery Program.

 

As indicated in the activity timeline above, it is proposed that once the final CSP has been endorsed in late March and further consultation has taken place, a draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan will be brought to Council on 19 April for public exhibition.

 

Financial Implications

 

The development of the Community Strategic Plan is included in the 2017/18 budget (account 2052.4). Expenditure includes engagement specialists, research fund contribution, documentation preparation, advertising costs and miscellaneous items including staff overtime, equipment and hall hire of approximately. 

 

An adjustment has been included in the December 2017 Quarterly Budget Review to accommodate the Community Solutions Panel project.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

1.       The Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework is governed by Section 402 of the Local Government Act 1993:

 

402 Community strategic plan

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

2.       The Office of Local Government’s Guidelines list all the mandatory requirements from the Act, the Regulation and the Essential Elements that the Guidelines require that councils follow. Councils must comply with these Essential Elements when planning and reporting to comply with the Local Government Act.

 

With regard to the CSP, the Essential Elements prescribe:

 

What are the general requirements of the Community Strategic Plan?

1.1     The Community Strategic Plan should be developed and delivered as a partnership between the council, state agencies, community groups and individuals. It should address a broad range of issues that are relevant to the whole community.

 

What information must be considered when preparing the Community Strategic Plan?

1.2     Information that identifies key issues and challenges must be presented to the community in an accessible format to assist its participation in the planning process.

1.3     In addition to the legislative requirement to consider State government plans, any relevant State or regional draft plans and strategies that are available at the time of preparing the Community Strategic Plan must also be considered.

1.4     Due consideration must also be given to the expected levels of service expressed by the community when preparing the Community Strategic Plan. Even though the Community Strategic Plan is a high level strategic document, these discussions are important to inform development of this plan and actions within subsequent plans.

 

How should the community be involved in preparing the Community Strategic Plan?

1.5     As a minimum, the Community Engagement Strategy prepared and implemented by the council must identify relevant stakeholder groups within the community and outline methods that will be used to engage each group.

1.6     The council must place the Draft Community Strategic Plan on public exhibition for a period of at least 28 days and comments from the community must be accepted and considered prior to the endorsement of the final Community Strategic Plan.


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                          13.4

 

 

Report No. 13.4           Update on Resolution 17-585 regarding Adani and the Carmichael mine

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           Bronwyn Challis, Strategic Procurement Co-ordinator

Tony Nash, Manager Works

File No:                        I2018/30

Theme:                         Corporate Management

                                      Governance Services

 

 

Summary:

 

On 23 November 2017, Council resolved (Res 17-585) to implement a range of actions in regards to Adani, the Carmichael mine and Byron Shire Council’s use of contractors who are involved in the construction or operation of the Carmichael mine or otherwise have ties to Adani.

 

This report provides an update to Councillors and the Byron Shire community on the implementation of Resolution 17-585.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

 

1.       Notes the work done to date to implement Resolution 17-585.

 

2.       Notes that correspondence received from Downer confirms that they have no intention of pursuing contracts for work on the Carmichael mine and Downer is now listed in the “Who’s Out” section of the Market Forces website Adani list.

 

3.       Resolves to continue Contract 2015-0026 with Downer EDI for the Supply and Delivery of Emulsion.

 

4.       Resolves to continue Contract 2016-0017 with Skilltech Consulting Services (a subsidiary of Downer) for Water Meter Reading.

 

5.      Resolves to continue Contract 2017-0016 NOROC Road Surfacing Services for asphalt supply and lay, pavement stabilisation and bitumen sealing with Downer P/L, RPQ Group and NSW Spray Seal P/L  (a subsidiary of Downer) as panel contractors.

 

6.       Resolves to continue the progressive procurement engagements with GHD for the restoration of landslips funded through the NDRRA Program as detailed in this report.

 

7.      Resolves to continue the existing procurement engagements with GHD for the finalisation of the North Ocean Shores Fire Main Upgrade and Byron STP Odour Control Upgrade Inlet Works Investigation.

 

Attachments:

 

1        Confidential - Council-Downer contract - legal advice, E2018/4709  

2        Downer press release regarding Adani and Carmichael mine, E2018/4369  

3        Letter to Prime Minster regarding procurement with Adani related companies Res 17-585, E2017/114030  

4        Letter to Premier of Queensland regarding procurement with Adani related companies Res 17-585, E2017/114023  

5        PDF version of E2017/113291 Letter to Mayors and Councillors regarding procurement with Adani related companies Res 17-585, E2018/4735  

6        PDF Copy of E2017/109247 Companies that may have ties to Adani - Procurement Toolbox 2017, E2018/5228  

7        Pdf Copy of E2018/4676 Letter (No 2) to Arrium, Cardno, GHD, Komatsu, Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC), QBE, Skilltech Consulting, SMEC, Worley Parsons and WSP Parsons Brickerhoff re involvement with Adani in construction of the Carmichael mine to advise of, E2018/5244  

8        PDF Copy of E2018/4678 Letter (No 3) to Aracdis and Zurich re involvement with Adani in construction of the Carmichael mine to advise of resolution 17-585 - Aradis and Zurich, E2018/5246  

9        PDR Copy Of E2018/3875 Letter (No 1) to Downer re involvement with Adani in construction of the Carmichael mine to advise of resolution 17-585, E2018/5241  

10      Memo to all staff re Procurement from companies with ties to Adani, e2018/4709  

11      Confidential Attachment for Council Report to 22 February 2018 Meeting regarding an update to Councillors re Adani & Res 17-585., E2018/8683  

12      Downer response to BSC - Feb 2018, E2018/10510  

 

 


 

Report

 

On 23 November 2017, Council resolved (Res 17-585) a range of actions in regards to Adani, the Carmichael mine and Byron Shire Council’s procurement from suppliers who are involved in the construction or operation of the Carmichael mine or otherwise have ties to Adani.

 

Below is an update on the implementation of each part of the resolution:

 

1.   Council note 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 wide community’s concerns over this mine.

 

Noted. No other action required.

 

2.   Council resolves not to contract or engage in services under an 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.

 

On 18 December 2017, Downer EDI Limited issued a press release which has been attached to this report announcing that “Adani and Downer have mutually agreed to cancel all Letters of Award relating to the [Carmichael] mine services and related infrastructure. Downer will provide transitional services to Adani until 31 March 2018.”

 

Byron Shire Council currently has three contracts in place with Downer or its subsidiaries for the supply of goods and services:

a)   Contract 2017-0016 NOROC Road Surfacing Services for asphalt supply and lay, pavement stabilisation and bitumen sealing. Downer EDI and NSW Spray Seal are both on the panel of suppliers.

b)   Contract 2015-0026 Supply and Delivery of Emulsion to NOROC Councils with Downer EDI.

c)   Contract 2016-0017 Water Meter Reading with Skilltech Consulting Services who are part of the Spotless Group which is now part of the Downer Group.

 

As Contract 2017-0016 is a panel arrangement, Council are at liberty to use whichever suppliers on the panel they would like. Council staff have stopped engaging NSW Spray Seal under Contract 2017-0016 and were investigating using other suppliers on the panel. However, with the cancellation of the contract to Downer to operate the Carmichael mine, it is recommended that use of Downer EDI or any of its subsidiaries, including the RPQ Group and NSW Spray Seal be allowed.

 

Contract 2015-0026 and Contract 2016-0017 are more problematic as Council has entered into a sole supplier agreement with Downer EDI and Skilltech Consulting Services respectively for the provision of goods/services.

 

Legal advice has been obtained in regard to any possible consequences should Council no longer obtain emulsion from Downer under Contract 2015-0026. The legal advice received is provided in a confidential attachment to this report. It is noted that no longer using 2015-0026 may result in a financial loss to Council.

 

Contract 2015-0026 expires on 31 July 2018 with one twelve-month extension option available.  Since Downer will no longer be involved with the Carmichael mine after March 2018, it is recommended that Council continue to use Contact 2015-0026 to avoid any financial penalties from cancelling the contract.  Both Lismore City and Tweed Shire Councils are continuing to purchase emulsion from Downer under Contract 2015-0026.

 

There is no provision in Contract 2016-0017 for Council to terminate the Contract without cause.  The Contract commits Council to purchase meter reading services from Skilltech Consulting Services for a period of five years from 1 February 2017.  If Council was to terminate the contract early in accordance with Resolution 17-585, Council could be liable to compensate the supplier for the amount which would have ordinarily been payable under the contract.  With four years remaining on the Contract, this could amount to Council paying in excess of $200,000 if it terminated the contract early for no contractual reason.

 

3.   Council 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.

 

Council’s procurement templates have all been updated to request from proponents information regarding any ties they may have to Adani. This information is used in the evaluation process and any proponent that declares involvement with the Carmichael mine or has ties to Adani will be deemed non-compliant, excluded from further evaluation, and ineligible for a contract with Byron Shire Council.

 

Council staff are also maintaining a list of companies that are known to have ties to Adani that staff can reference when engaging suppliers to provide goods or services to Council. Companies that are listed on the Marketforces website (https://www.marketforces.org.au/info/key-issues/theadanilist/) as already connected to Adani as well as other companies identified as having ties to Adani are listed in the staff document.

 

All Council staff have been advised via an internal memo of resolution 17-585 and the resources that are available to assist them to implement the requirements of the resolution. Copy attached.

 

4.   Council 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.

 

As described in #3 above, resources have been made available to staff to assist them in implementing the requirements of this resolution. However, it must be noted that not awarding future contracts with the identified companies may significantly impact Council’s current and future operations.

 

Currently GHD are providing engineering and other associated services to Council for the restoration of landslips resulting from the weather events and declared natural disasters in June 20165 and March 2017.  These restoration works are funded under the National Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA) Program and not funded by Council. There is time limitations associated with these restoration works. GHD have been engaged in a progressive manner after approval by RMS for:-

·    Initial site assessment for public safety

·    Concept designs and estimates

·    Detailed designs and estimates

·    Environmental assessments

·    Preparation of contract documents

·    Contract management

·    Project management

 

The requirements of the NDDRA program is that Council cannot cost its own staff to these projects during normal business hours so it is mandatory that we use contractors and consultants if we want 100% cost recovery from the government for these works.

 

The list of projects where GHD are currently engaged are:

 

June 2016 Flood Damage – 3 Slips – Upper Coopers Creek x 2 and Coolamon Scenic Drive (CSD1)

 

Currently, an extension for works has been lodged with RMS as the works are expected finish after June 2018.  It is imperative that GHD continue to execute the Tender Package and engage contractors to continue the work as without GHD doing so, Council risks completing these works directly from Council funds and without the assistance of NDRRA funding.

 

March 2017 Flood Damage – 3 Slips – Johnsons Road; Coolamon Scenic Drive (CSD2) and Yamble Drive Reservoir

 

Discussions have been made to present the two 2017 slips to contractors tendering for the 2016 works.  To complete and expedite these works, it is necessary to keep GHD to maintain continuity for delivery.

 

Additionally, the close proximity of CSD1 and CSD2 make it possible to conduct the works simultaneously – reducing costs and impact to the community.

 

Byron Bay Town Centre Bypass

 

GHD have provided extensive services in the delivery of this project to date.  The implications of this relationship going forward is still being assessed.

 

North Ocean Shores Fire Main Upgrade

 

GHD have provided extensive contract superintendent services for this project to date. The contract is nearing practical completion.  Services are outstanding to the value of $30,000.

 

Byron STP Odour Control Upgrade Inlet Works Investigation

 

GHD are providing extensive technical investigative services for this project  on a critical component of the treatment plant.  Extensive planning and programming are required for this work.  Services are outstanding to the value of $30,000.

 

         

5.   Council 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.

 

On 22 January 2018 Council wrote to Downer EDI, the RPQ Group, NSW Spray Seal, Skilltech Consulting Services, GHD, QBE, Arrium Steel, Worley Parsons, Eco Logical, Wagners, WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff, Cardno, Komatsu and Arcadis to alert them to this motion and urge them to reconsider their involvement with Adani and the construction of the Carmichael mine. These are all companies from which Council currently or have in the past purchased goods or services. The letters are provided as an attachment to this report.

On 9 February 2018, Council received a response from Downer regarding their relationship with Adani and the Carmichael mine. The letter is attached to this report and confirms that Downer has no intention of pursuing contracts for work on the Carmichael mine and Downer is now listed in the “Who’s Out” section of the Market Forces website Adani list.

 

 

6.   Council writes to the Prime Minister, the Hon. Mr Malcolm Turnbull and Queensland Premier, the Hon, Annastacia Palaszczuk and to all councils across Australia (addressed to mayors and councillors) to express in the most respectful terms our extreme concern about the Adani mine and alert them to the contents of this motion.

 

Letters were sent as above on 12 December 2017 and are provided as attachments to this report. Responses have been received from the following Councils: Wakefield Regional Council, Council of Lower Eyre Peninsula, City of West Torrens, East Gippsland Shire Council, Brisbane City Council, Colac Otway Shire Council, Whitsunday Regional Council, City of Port Phillip, Shoalhaven City Council, Goulburn Mulwaree Council, City of Randwick, and Isaac  Regional Council.

 

 

Financial Implications

 

The financial implications of implementing resolution 17-585 may be approximately $4M. This includes:

·    Potential costs of not honouring existing contracts for emulsion and meter reading services.

·    Cost of purchasing emulsion from another supplier for the remainder of 2017/18.

·    Cost of purchasing meter reading services from another supplier for the remainder of 2017/18

·    Loss of government funding for restoration of landslips

·    Costs of works for existing engagements for water and sewer works

 

Full details of the calculations are provided as a confidential attachment to this report.

 

It must be noted that there will also likely be additional costs of implementing 17-585 in future years as Council pays more for water meter reading services and road surfacing materials and services.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Council has an existing contract (2015-0026) with Downer for the supply and delivery of emulsion. Legal advice received and attached to this report advises that whilst this contract can be cancelled, there may be financial implications to Byron Shire Council.

 

Council also has an existing contract (2016-0017) with Skilltech Consulting Services for water meter reading. There is no provision in the Contract for Council to terminate the contract without cause. It is highly likely that Council would be liable to compensate the supplier should we terminate the Contract early.

 

Council’s Financial Sustainability Plan requires Council to make savings from its procurement activities. Having to use suppliers other than Downer and its subsidiaries for the supply and delivery of emulsion, spray sealing services, and water meter reading services will directly affect the savings Council is able to obtain from its procurement activities for 2017/18. Therefore the required 1% savings may not be achieved this year if Council cancels its existing contracts with Downer and its subsidiaries.


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                          13.5

 

 

Report No. 13.5           Byron Environment Centre

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           Mark Arnold, Director Corporate and Community Services

File No:                        I2018/57

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Open Space and Recreation

 

 

Summary:

 

Council at its Ordinary meeting held on 23 November 2017, following consideration of Report 13.35 – Resolution 17-556 Additional Information on Railway Park, resolved (in part), as follows:-

 

3. Request staff to enter into discussions with the Byron Environment Centre about the future

occupation/location of the rotunda structure and bring a report on the outcome of those

            discussions back to the first Council meeting in 2018.”

 

This Report has been prepared to inform Council of the discussions with representatives of the Byron Environment Centre regarding the future occupation and or location of the Rotunda Structure.

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.       That Council receive and note this report.

 

2.       That Council authorise staff to continue the discussions with the Byron Environment Centre about the future occupation/location of the rotunda structure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Report

 

Council at its Ordinary meeting held on 23  November 2017, following consideration of Report 13.35Resolution 17-556 Additional Information on Railway Park resolved via Resolution 17-575  as follows:-

 

Resolved that Council:

 

1.   Note the report.

 

2.  Request staff to commence work to include Railway Park in an updated Plan of Management with the aim of completing the process by 30 June 2018.

 

3. Request staff to enter into discussions with the Byron Environment Centre about the future

occupation/location of the rotunda structure and bring a report on the outcome of those discussions back to the first Council meeting in 2018.”

 

In accordance Part 3 of the Resolution a meeting was arranged and took place on 7 December 2017 with representatives of the Byron Environment Centre Management Committee, John Lazarus and Sharon Curry. The meeting was held in the Council Administration Building at Mullumbimby, with the staff representatives being the Director Sustainable Environment and Economy and the Director Corporate and Community Services.

 

In accordance Resolution 17-575 the purpose of the meeting was for staff to enter into discussions with representatives of the Byron Environment Centre (“BEC”) regarding the future occupation and or location of Rotunda structure.

 

The representatives of the BEC made it clear from the commencement of meeting that the BEC did not support or accept the Byron Bay Town Centre Master Plan, or any actions relating to works proposed within Railway Park, not authorised by a Plan of Management for Railway Park.

 

In relation to future occupation and or location of the Rotunda structure the BEC representatives made the following requests to Council:

 

·    That the Rotunda stay in its current position within Railway Park

 

·    That the Railway Park Plan of Management process be the mechanism to determine the location (either the current or another site) and authorise the use and occupation of the Rotunda structure

 

In addition to the discussions on the future occupation and location of the Rotunda structure, the representatives also asked staff to arrange a walk around of Railway Park with the Consultant Landscape Architect preparing the Railway Square Landscape Concept Plan. This request was made in response to an offer extended by the Mayor, during earlier discussions with representatives of the Byron Environment Centre.

 

A walk around was arranged for Monday, 11 December 2017, but was postponed pending consideration by of the Mayoral Minute – Railway Square Landscape Concept and Design at the December Ordinary meeting on 14 December 2017, and the provision to the BEC of scaled drawings from  the latest version of the Concept Plans. T

 

The walk around was rescheduled to Monday, 18 December 2017 and was attended by Dan Plummer of Plummer & Smith Landscape Architects, Director Corporate and Community Services and six representatives of the BEC.

 

While the walk around provided the representatives of the BEC with an opportunity to discuss and ask questions of the Landscape Architect, regarding the Railway Square Landscape Concept and Design Plan adopted by Council on 14 December 2017, it also allowed a more specific discussion of potential locations.

 

The following is a summary of these discussions points relating to the location of the Rotunda location-

 

·   BEC to provide further advice on any other potential site locations for the Rotunda structure in the park. It is understood that the preferred location is the current site, with reasons for this preference being predominately associated with the cost of relocating the Rotunda structure and any works that might be required as a result of the relocation process. The other potential locations identified were a site near or on the location identified for the Art Seat and a site closer to the entry to the park near the pocket park.

 

·   Discussion was had in relation to the relocation process but it was agreed that this discussion was pre-emptive and that future discussions would need to be informed by advice on the structural integrity of the current structure.

 

It was also agreed that in accordance with the intent of Resolution 17-575 that staff would continue discussions with the BEC. That these discussions would allow Council to provide advice on the scope and timing of any works within Railway park that might impact on the use and occupation of the Rotunda structure by the BEC.

 

The above discussions were undertaken on the basis of providing information to the BEC representatives, and noting that nothing that was discussed or requested by the BEC representatives, should be seen or interpreted as the BEC providing support of the works proposed by the adopted  Railway Square Landscape Concept and Design Plan.

 

The notes taken by staff on the other matters discussed during the walk around have been provided to the Consultant Landscape Architect.

 

The above information and any future information provided by the BEC would also be used to inform the preparation of the Plan of Management for Railway Park (refer Part 2 of Resolution 17-575).

 

Financial Implications

 

The costs incurred in relation to the discussions were within existing allocated budgets.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Refer  Part 3 of Resolution 17-575 being:

 

3. Request staff to enter into discussions with the Byron Environment Centre about the future

occupation/location of the rotunda structure and bring a report on the outcome of those

            discussions back to the first Council meeting in 2018.”

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                          13.6

 

 

Report No. 13.6           Council Budget Review - 1 October 2017 to 31 December 2017

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No:                        I2018/66

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 31 December 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 (#E2018/9537) which includes the following results in the 31 December 2017 Quarterly Review of the 2017/2018 Budget:

 

a)      General Fund – $42,300 decrease to the Estimated Unrestricted Cash Result

b)      General Fund - $14,700 increase in reserves

c)      Water Fund - $106,500 decrease in reserves

d)      Sewerage Fund - $799,300 decrease in reserves

 

  2.     That Council adopt the revised General Fund Estimated Unrestricted Cash Result of $888,300 for the 2017/2018 financial year as at 31 December 2017

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Budget Variations for General, Water and Sewerage Funds, E2018/9612  

2        Itemised Listing of Budget Variations  for General, Water and Sewerage Funds, E2018/9537  

3        Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (IP&R) required Quarterly Review Statement, E2018/9550  

 

 


 

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 half of the 2017/2018 financial year.  This report considers the December 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, the September Review, resolutions between October and December and the revote (or adjustment for this review) and then the revised position projected for 30 June 2018 as at 31 December 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 Council’s 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. 

 

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 31 December 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 October to December 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 31 December 2017.

 

 

2017/2018 Budget Review Statement as at 31 December 2017

Original Estimate (Including Carryovers)

1/7/2017

 

Adjustments to 31 Dec 2017 including Resolutions*

Proposed 31 Dec 2017 Review Revotes

 

Revised Estimate 30/6/2018 at 31/12/2017

 

Operating Revenue

76,828,000

2,530,900

190,600

79,549,500

 

Operating Expenditure

79,542,600

3,252,800

324,500

83,119,900

 

Operating Result – Surplus/Deficit

(2,714,600)

(721,900)

(133,900)

(3,570,400)

 

Add: Capital Revenue

27,790,000

(18,543,700)

143,300

9,389,600

 

Change in Net Assets

25,075,400

(19,265,600)

9,400

5,819,200

 

Add: Non Cash Expenses

12,939,400

0

0

12,939,400

 

Add: Non-Operating Funds Employed

2,160,000

2,516,000

(1,277,000)

3,399,000

 

Subtract: Funds Deployed for Non-Operating Purposes

(64,587,000)

20,099,900

334,200

44,152,900

 

Cash Surplus/(Deficit)

(24,412,200)

3,350,300

(933,400)

(21,995,300)

 

Restricted Funds – Increase / (Decrease)

(24,419,500)

3,572,200

(891,100)

(21,738,400)

 

Forecast Result for the Year – Surplus/(Deficit) – Unrestricted Cash Result

7,300

(221,900)

(42,300)

(256,900)

 

GENERAL FUND

 

In terms of the General Fund projected Unrestricted Cash Result the following table provides a reconciliation of the estimated position as at 31 December 2017:

 

Opening Balance – 1 July 2017

$1,145,200

Plus original budget movement and carryovers

$7,300

Council Resolutions July – September Quarter

($50,000)

September Review – increase/(decrease)

($161,900)

Council Resolutions October – December Quarter

($10.000)

Recommendations within this Review – increase/(decrease)

($42,300)

Forecast Unrestricted Cash Result – Surplus/(Deficit) – 30 June 2018

($256,900)

Estimated Unrestricted Cash Result Closing Balance – 30 June 2018

$888,300

 

The General Fund financial position overall has decreased by $42,300 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 impacting the Budget Result

 

Resolution 17-500 resolved that Council reinstates the Feral Animal Management Program by allocating $10,000 to assist meeting the costs of a trapper from January to June 2018.  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

182,400

110,000

72,400

Infrastructure Services

(898,000)

(739,900)

(158,100)

Sustainable Environment & Economy

176,300

132,900

43,400

Total Budget Movements

(539,300)

(497,000)

(42,300)

 

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 $73,300 in revenue has been recognised from general rates through the amount of supplementary valuations and levies year to date greater then the budget estimate.

 

·   In the Corporate Services Program it is proposed to increase expenditure by an estimated $100,000 for legal expenses.  This can be funded through the Legal Services reserve.  There is also an additional $60,000 required to cover costs of the consultancies associated in the development of the Council’s new Community Strategic Plan funded from savings in the Strategic Procurement Roadmap budget.

 

Infrastructure Services

 

·   In the Supervision & Administration program, it is proposed to increase expenditure by $40,000 for uniform issues to account for new boots, uniforms and hi-vis work wear for staff that is now required at the Depot for Work Health and Safety reasons.  This is offset by a support services cost adjustment to other budget programs.

 

·   In the Local Roads and Drainage program, there are a number of adjustments outlined under Note 17 in the Budget Variations explanations section of Attachment 1.  Further disclosure is included in the third and fourths page of Attachment 2 under the budget program heading Local Roads and Drainage. 

 

·   In the Open Space and Recreation program, operating income and expenditure increased by $52,000 due to a grant received for a Shark Management Strategy.

 

·   In the Waste & Recycling program it is proposed to increase capital expenditure by $88,000 for Organics Processing Infrastructure – The budget forecasts for this project were approximately $88,000 under actual costs due to unforeseen EPA restrictions on the use of fill for engineering preparation works.  Council had planned to use excavated public road material from infrastructure works projects as general fill, however the EPA did not provide approval and as such Council had to purchase quarry products at a higher cost.

 

·   In the Facilities Management program It is proposed to decrease operating expenditure by $22,100 due to the budget for the contract of Mullumbimby swimming pool being more than the contract.

 

Sustainable Environment and Economy

 

·   In the Development and Certification program, it is proposed to increase income by $80,000 and expenditure by $17,000 to budget for the Information and Technology Service fee.  The expenditure will part fund the Process Improvement Officer position

 

·   In the Planning Policy and Natural Environment Program, It is proposed to increase income and expenditure to accommodate the OEH New Brighton Beach Scraping grant ($56,300), and an increase to the OEH Saving our Species Iconic Koala grant ($40,000).  It is also proposed to allocate $10,000 to the Bangalow village plan and Mullumbimby masterplan to engage a graphic designer for document design and desktop publication for both of these projects.

 

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)

Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)

0

December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)

(56,500)

Forecast Reserve Movement for 2017/2018 – Increase / (Decrease)

1,317,700

Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2018

$6,271,500

 


 

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)

Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)

0

December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)

(50,000)

Forecast Reserve Movement for 2017/2018 – Increase / (Decrease)

(4,639,300)

Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2018

$2,052,800

 

Movements for Water Fund can be seen in Attachment 1 with a proposed estimated decrease to reserves (including S64 Contributions) overall of $106,500 from the 31 December 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

Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)

0

December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)

(524,300)

Forecast Reserve Movement for 2017/2018 – Increase / (Decrease)

(1,610,600)

Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2018

$5,762,200

 

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)

Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)

0

December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)

0

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)

Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)

0

December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)

(275,000)

Forecast Reserve Movement for 2017/2018 – Increase / (Decrease)

(2,440,100)

Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2018

$7,143,500

 

Movements for the Sewerage Fund can be seen in Attachment 1 with a proposed estimated overall decrease to reserves (including S64 Contributions) of $799,300 from the 31 December 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 potentially 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 31 December 2017.

 

Total Legal Income & Expenditure as at 31 December 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

170,320

84.7%

Total Expenditure General Fund

201,000

170,320

84.7%

 

Note: Due to current legal matters, it is estimated that Council may incur costs for legal expenses of approximately $100,000 in addition to the original budget.  In view of this, there is a recommendation in this report to allocate an additional $100,000 to the General Legal Expenses budget, funded from the Legal Services Reserve.  This will leave an estimated Legal Services Reserve balance at 30 June 2018 of $324,500.

 

Byron Railway Precinct Projects

 

The adopted 2017/2018 Budget Estimates currently provides an allocation of $790,800 funded from the Infrastructure Renewal Reserve, TDDI Grant and a Visitor Centre contribution for projects related to the Byron Bay Master Plan – Railway Precinct.

 

A summary of the current projects with funded budgets associated with the Byron Railway Precinct 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

$

Funding from Visitor Centre Contribution $ (1)

4835.187

Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan

239,300

0

239,300

0

0

4835.188

Byron St Connection Upgrade

139,000

69,500

69,500

0

0

4835.189

Railway Park Upgrade

237,500

118,800

118,700

0

0

4835.190

Visitor Centre Refurbishment

130,000

50,000

0

30,000

50,000

4835.191

Visitor Centre Technology Project

45,000

22,500

22,500

0

0

 

Total

790,800

260,800

450,000

30,000

50,000

(1)  This contribution whilst budgeted and invoiced is yet to be paid to Council.

 

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.

 

There are a number of Railway Precinct projects that have been identified and have current expenditure allocated against them but do not have a budget:-

 

Job No

Project

Actual Expenditure to 31 December 2017 (Inc Commitments)

4835.219

Byron Rail Corridor Park (RPP18)

$57,043

4835.222

Conservation Management Strategy (RPP9)

$8,824

4835.223

Market/Comm Relocation/Use DAs (RPP11)

$480

4835.224

Rail Corridor Contam'tion Ass (RPP12)

$32,096

4835.225

Farmers Market Relocation (RPP13)

$21,890

 

Total

$120,334

 

Allocating budgets for these projects will be required by Council at a future point before the end of the 2017/2018 financial year.  These need to be addressed no later than the 31 March 2017 Quarter Budget Review.

 

Financial Implications

 

The 31 December 2017 Quarter Budget Review of the 2017/2018 Budget has decreased the overall budget result by $42,300.  As a result there is a decrease of $42,300 to the estimated unrestricted cash balance attributable to the General Fund, with this becoming an estimated $888,300 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 31 December 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 $256,900 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.

 

Whilst not covered in this budget review, Council needs to recognise that the maintenance expenditure budgets in the Local Roads and Drainage Program are under pressure.  Current expenditure trends suggest there is not sufficient funding to support maintenance expenditure up to the end of the financial year.  Urban Road Maintenance and Bridge Maintenance budgets are examples. Any additional expenditure over and above the current budget estimates will of course increase the budget deficit in future quarterly budget reviews if not addressed.

 

The short term financial position of Council may become unsatisfactory if work is not undertaken to address the current budget position and any unfunded expenditure in the remaining two quarterly budget reviews or by separate report to Council.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                          13.7

 

 

Report No. 13.7           Bangalow A&I Hall - new fee 'community rate'

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           Joanne McMurtry, Community Project Officer

File No:                        I2018/72

Theme:                         Society and Culture

                                      Community Development

 

 

Summary:

 

It has come to Council’s attention during community consultation in the past few months in Bangalow that the Bangalow A&I Hall fees and charges seem to be precluding many local organisations from using the hall as they historically have. This report outlines new fees under the ‘community rate’ and requests Council to introduce them earlier than the 1st July 2018 to encourage local organisations to use the hall once again.

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.       That the new fees for Bangalow A&I Hall outlined below be placed on public           exhibition for 28 days.

 

Bangalow A&I Hall (community rate)

Proposed fee

Per hour

$20

Per session/ half day (4 hours)

$150

Per day

$300

Backstage hire

$100

Balcony (premium seating, per day)

$100

Kitchen hire (per day)

$160

Kitchen hire (per hour – minimum hire 2 hours)

$20

 

2.       That if no submissions are received during the public exhibition period, the new fees be adopted and incorporated into Council’s fees and charges.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Bangalow A&I Hall adopted fees & charges 2017-18, E2018/6625  

 

 


 

Report

 

It has come to Council’s attention during community consultation in the past few months in Bangalow that the Bangalow A&I Hall fees and charges seem to be precluding many local organisations from using the hall as they historically have.

 

Following investigations and discussions about the fees and charges for the Bangalow A& I Hall, the Board of Management have recommended the introduction of new fees under the ‘community rate’ to encourage local organisations to use the hall once again. The new rates include an hourly rate, therefore allowing flexibility for community groups to use the hall and kitchen for periods less than the half day rate.

 

Rather than wait to introduce these new fees in the new financial year, Council are requested to adopt these new fees now to allow implementation earlier than 1st July 2018.

 

Bangalow A&I Hall (community rate)

2017/18 fee

Proposed fee

Per hour

N/A

$20

Per session/ half day (4 hours)

$165

$150

Per day

$330

$300

Backstage hire

$110

$100

Balcony (premium seating, per day)

$110

$100

Kitchen hire (per day)

$187

$160

Kitchen hire (per hour – minimum hire 2 hours)

N/A

$20

 

 

Financial Implications

 

As outlined in the report, the new community rate fees represent approximately a 10% reduction. All other fees, eg standard rates and major commercial rates, for Bangalow A&I Hall are proposed to remain unchanged (see Attachment 1).

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Under section 610F of the Local Government Act 1993, if, after the date on which the operational plan commences the nature or extent of an existing service is changed, Council must give public notice (in accordance with section 705) for at least 28 days of the fee proposed for the new or changed service.

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                          13.8

 

 

Report No. 13.8           Council Investments January 2018

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No:                        I2018/86

Theme:                         Corporate Management

                                      Financial Services

 

 

Summary:

 

This report includes a list of investments and identifies Council’s overall cash position for the month of January 2018 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 January 2018 be noted.

 

 

 

 

 


 

Report

In relation to the investment portfolio for the month of January 2018, Council has continued to maintain a diversified portfolio of investments.  At 31 January 2018, the average 90 day bank bill rate (BBSW) for the month of January was 1.79%.  Council’s performance to 31 January 2018 is 2.52%. 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 January 2018:

 

Schedule of Investments held as at 31 January 2018

 

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)

P

AA-

24/03/22

N

B

3.25%

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

P

AA-

31/03/22

N

FRN

3.25%

1,000,000.00

16/11/17

750,000

Bank of Queensland

P

BBB+

16/11/21

N

FRN

2.63%

750,000.00

08/08/17

2,000,000

Bank of Queensland

N

BBB+

05/02/18

N

TD

2.60%

2,000,000.00

17/08/17

1,000,000

Bank of Queensland

N

BBB+

19/02/18

N

TD

2.55%

1,000,000.00

05/09/17

1,000,000

Bananacoast Credit Union

P

NR

06/03/18

Y

TD

2.60%

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

15/09/17

1,000,000

Peoples Choice Credit Union

P

BBB

15/03/18

Y

TD

2.55%

1,000,000.00

27/09/17

1,000,000

Bank of Queensland

N

BBB+

27/03/18

N

TD

2.50%

1,000,000.00

04/10/17

2,000,000

Police Credit Union

P

NR

04/04/18

Y

TD

2.70%

2,000,000.00

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-

05/02/18

N

TD

2.52%

1,000,000.00

05/10/17

1,000,000

Police Credit Union

N

NR

05/04/18

Y

TD

2.56%

1,000,000.00

17/10/17

1,000,000

Police Credit Union

N

NR

17/04/18

Y

TD

2.55%

1,000,000.00

23/10/17

1,000,000

Bank of Queensland

N

BBB+

23/04/18

N

TD

2.55%

1,000,000.00

30/10/17

2,000,000

Beyond Bank

P

BBB

07/02/18

Y

TD

2.42%

2,000,000.00

02/11/17

2,000,000

Police Credit Union

N

NR

02/05/18

Y

TD

2.73%

2,000,000.00

03/11/17

1,000,000

Maitland Mutual Building society

P

NR

02/05/18

Y

TD

2.55%

1,000,000.00

06/11/17

2,000,000

NAB

N

AA-

05/02/18

N

TD

2.49%

2,000,000.00

08/11/17

2,000,000

ME Bank

P

BBB

07/02/18

Y

TD

2.42%

2,000,000.00

08/11/17

1,500,000

Auswide Bank Ltd

P

BBB-

07/02/18

Y

TD

2.35%

1,500,000.00

10/11/17

2,000,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

13/03/18

Y

TD

2.42%

2,000,000.00

15/11/17

1,000,000

The Capricornian Credit Union

P

NR

16/04/18

U

TD

2.55%

1,000,000.00

15/11/17

1,000,000

The Capricornian Credit Union

N

NR

15/03/18

U

TD

2.50%

1,000,000.00

17/11/17

1,000,000

Hunter United Employees Credit Union

P

NR

16/02/18

U

TD

2.50%

1,000,000.00

17/11/17

1,000,000

Bank of Queensland

N

BBB+

19/03/18

N

TD

2.45%

1,000,000.00

17/11/17

1,000,000

Police Credit Union

N

NR

17/05/18

Y

TD

2.75%

1,000,000.00

17/11/17

1,000,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

16/02/18

Y

TD

2.50%

1,000,000.00

23/11/17

1,000,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

23/02/18

Y

TD

2.40%

1,000,000.00

23/11/17

2,000,000

NAB

N

AA-

23/02/18

N

TD

2.49%

2,000,000.00

23/11/17

1,000,000

The Capricornian Credit Union

N

NR

23/05/18

U

TD

2.55%

1,000,000.00

24/11/17

1,000,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

24/05/18

Y

TD

2.55%

1,000,000.00

28/11/17

1,000,000

Bananacoast Credit Union

N

NR

28/02/18

Y

TD

2.65%

1,000,000.00

28/11/17

1,000,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

28/02/18

Y

TD

2.40%

1,000,000.00

30/11/17

2,000,000

NAB

N

AA-

30/04/18

N

TD

2.49%

2,000,000.00

30/11/17

2,000,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

30/04/18

Y

TD

2.49%

2,000,000.00

01/12/17

1,000,000

Defence Bank

P

BBB

20/03/18

U

TD

2.65%

1,000,000.00

01/12/17

1,000,000

Defence Bank

N

BBB

01/03/18

U

TD

2.50%

1,000,000.00

04/12/17

1,500,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

06/03/18

Y

TD

2.40%

1,500,000.00

06/12/17

1,000,000

Hunter United Employees Credit Union

N

NR

06/04/18

U

TD

2.55%

1,000,000.00

08/12/17

2,000,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

08/06/18

Y

TD

2.55%

2,000,000.00

08/12/17

2,000,000

My State Bank

P

W/D

08/06/18

Y

TD

2.65%

2,000,000.00

15/12/17

1,000,000

Auswide Bank Ltd

N

BBB-

15/03/18

Y

TD

2.40%

1,000,000.00

19/12/17

2,000,000

Credit Union Australia

P

BBB

19/06/18

Y

TD

2.60%

2,000,000.00

19/12/17

2,000,000

Gateway Credit Union

P

NR

19/04/18

Y

TD

2.50%

2,000,000.00

02/01/18

1,000,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

04/04/18

Y

TD

2.40%

1,000,000.00

02/01/18

2,000,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

04/07/18

Y

TD

2.55%

2,000,000.00

09/01/18

1,000,000

Gateway Credit Union

N

NR

11/05/18

Y

TD

2.50%

1,000,000.00

10/01/18

1,000,000

Bankwest

P

AA-

10/04/18

N

TD

2.50%

1,000,000.00

12/01/18

1,000,000

Bank of Queensland

N

BBB+

12/06/18

N

TD

2.55%

1,000,000.00

12/01/18

1,000,000

Bankwest

N

AA-

12/06/18

N

TD

2.55%

1,000,000.00

12/01/18

1,000,000

Bankwest

N

AA-

12/04/18

N

TD

2.50%

1,000,000.00

23/01/18

1,000,000

AMP Bank

P

A

23/07/18

N

TD

2.60%

1,000,000.00

24/01/18

1,000,000

ME Bank

N

BBB

24/07/18

Y

TD

2.60%

1,000,000.00

29/01/18

2,000,000

Rural Bank

P

BBB+

30/07/18

Y

TD

2.60%

2,000,000.00

31/01/18

2,000,000

AMP Bank

N

A

03/08/18

N

TD

2.60%

2,000,000.00

N/A

571,384

 

CBA Business Online Saver

N

A

N/A

N

CALL

1.40%

571,384.37

 

12/01/18

1,001,190

NSW Treasury Corp

N

AAA

N/A

Y

CALL

1.27%

1,001,190.43

Total

75,972,574                                                                                                                                                                             

 

 

 

 

 

AVG

2.52%

75,987,317.86

 

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 Council’s 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’s 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 institutions that invest in fossil fuels but the purposes of the investments are in accord with the broader definition of Environmental 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 January 2018, 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 January 2018

 

Principal Value ($)

Investment Linked to:-

Current Market Value ($)

Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)

71,000,000.00

Term Deposits

71,000,000.00

0.00

2,400,000.00

Floating Rate Note

2,403,642.89

3,642.89

571,384.37

Business On-Line Saver (At Call)

571,384.37

0.00

1,001,190.43

NSW Treasury Corp (T Corp)

1,001,190.43

0.00

1,000,000.00

Bonds

1,011,100.17

11,100.17

75,972,574.80

 

75,987,317.86

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 January 2018 on a current market value basis. 

 

Movement in Investment Portfolio – January 2018

 

Item

Current Market  Value (at end of month) $

Opening Balance at 01 January 2018

74,984,261.21

Add: New Investments Purchased

14,000,000.00

Add: Call Account Additions

0.00

Add: Interest from Call Account

1,866.22

Less: Investments Matured

13,000,000.00

Add: T Corp Additions

1,000,000.00

Add: Interest from T Corp

1,190.43

Less: Call Account Redemption

1,000,000.00

Less: Fair Value Movement for period

0.00

 

Closing Balance at 31 January 2018

75,987,317.86

 

Investments Maturities and Returns – January 2018

 

Principal Value ($)

Description

Type

Maturity Date

Number of Days Invested

Interest Rate Per Annum

Interest Paid on Maturity $

1,000,000

Banana Coast Credit Union

TD

04/01/18

184

2.70%

13,610.96

1,000,000

National Australia Bank

TD

04/01/18

92

2.50%

6,601.37

1,000,000

National Australia Bank

TD

09/01/18

92

2.51%

6,326.58

1,000,000

National Australia Bank

TD

11/01/18

132

2.52%

8,492.06

1,000,000

Auswide Bank

TD

11/01/18

92

2.50%

6,301.37

1,000,000

Bank of Queensland

TD

12/01/18

150

2.55%

10,479.45

1,000,000

Auswide Bank

TD

15/01/18

94

2.50%

6,438.36

1,000,000

National Australia Bank

TD

20/01/18

92

2.48%

6,250.96

1,000,000

ME Bank

TD

24/01/18

90

2.42%

5,967.12

2,000,000

Rural Bank

TD

29/01/18

123

2.50%

16,849.32

2,000,000

ME Bank

TD

30/01/18

92

2.42%

12,199.45

13,000,000

 

 

 

 

 

99,517.00

         

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 January 2018 the table below identifies the overall cash position of Council as follows:

 

 

Dissection of Council Cash Position as at 31 January 2018

 

Item

Principal Value ($)

Current Market Value ($)

Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)

Investments Portfolio

 

 

 

Term Deposits

71,000,000.00

71,000,000.00

0.00

Floating Rate Note

2,400,000.00

2,403,642.89

3,642.89

Business On-Line Saver (At Call)

571,384.37

571,384.37

0.00

NSW Treasury Corp (T Corp)

1,001,190.43

1,001,190.43

0.00

Bonds

1,000,000.00

1,011,100.17

11,100.17

Total Investment Portfolio

75,972,574.80

75,987,317.86

14,743.06

 

 

 

 

Cash at Bank

 

 

 

Consolidated Fund

1,513,192.85

1,513,192.85

  0.00

Total Cash at Bank

1,513,192.85

1,513,192.85

  0.00

 

 

 

 

Total Cash Position

77,485,767.65

77,500,510.71

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                                          13.9

 

 

Report No. 13.9           Tender Assessment - Legal Services Contract 2017-0054

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           Ralph James, Legal Counsel

File No:                        I2018/94

Theme:                         Corporate Management

                                      Governance Services

 

 

Summary:

 

On 13 September 2017 the General Manager gave approval for Council to go to tender for Legal Services using the open request for tender process as per Section 55 of the Local Government Act.

 

Tenders have been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005. 

 

This report provides an overview of the tender submissions and seeks Council to award the tender as per the recommendation in the attached confidential report.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council award Tender Legal Services Contract 2017-0054 in accordance with the recommendation made in the Evaluation Panel Recommendation Report for the Provision of Legal Services (#E2018/3130).

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Confidential - Evaluation Panel Recommendation Report-Provision of Legal Services, E2018/3130  

 

 


 

Report

 

On 13 September 2017 the General Manager gave approval for Council to go to tender for Legal Services using the open request for tender process as per Section 55 of the Local Government Act.

 

The proposed contract for legal services subject of this Tender is for a period of three years with the option to extend the contract for two additional periods of one year at Council’s sole discretion.

 

The objective of the tender is to:

•     Provide timely access to qualified legal services.

•     Enable the provision of high quality, cost competitive and consistent legal services to Council.

•     Reduce the administrative effort by Council by engaged lawyers and/or firms through an approved panel arrangement.

 

Tenders were advertised in Tenders Online between 24 October 2017 and 14 November 2017, in the Sydney Morning Herald on 24 October 2017, in the Byron Shire News on 26 October 2017 and on Council’s website between 24 October 2017 and 14 November 2017.

 

The tender was available for download free of charge from Council’s E-Tendering portal.

 

Eleven (11) tenders were received electronically through E-Tendering. The tenderers are listed below. They are listed in order of receipt. This listing does not reflect any ranking assessment.

 

1.       Holding Redlich

2.       Redenbach Lee

3.       Swaab Attorneys

4.       Marsdens Law Group

5.       McInnes Wilson

6.       Moray & Agnew

7.       Lander and Rogers

8.       McCullough Robertson

9.       McCabes

10.     Wiltshire Webb

11.     HWL Ebsworth

 

Tender Evaluation

 

The Tender Assessment Panel comprised three staff members, including the Legal Counsel who is the Council Officer assigned to management of Council’s legal services. The other Panel members were the Manager Corporate Services and the Strategic Procurement Coordinator.

 

Tenders were initially assessed for conformity and all of the tenders received were accepted as conforming with the “Conditions of Tendering”.

 

Tenders were evaluated against three capability selection criteria, which were:

 

Profile and relevant experience

 

This criterion was evaluated on

 

I.    the tenderers business being relevant to what Council is seeking,

II.   that the tenderer has relevant experience, particularly in providing the deliverables and in local government,

III.  a commitment to improving environmental impact, has programs in place to provide employment/training for disadvantaged people.

 

Quality and availability of resources

 

This criterion was evaluated on

 

i.    Clear management structure, that key personnel have relevant qualifications and experience

ii.    Enough staff to do the work and that those staff have relevant skills and experience

iii.   Minimal use of subcontractors that Any subcontractors that are used are well managed to ensure compliance

 

Delivery plan

 

This criterion was evaluated on

 

i.    The tenderer has processes and systems in place to manage the work

ii.    Offers metrics for managing performance

iii.   Clear and realistic information plan that demonstrates understanding of Council’s requirements

iv.  Commitment to purchase supplies/services from NOROC businesses, social enterprise and/or indigenous businesses.

v.   Offers employment for local/disadvantaged people.

vi.  Products offered or used offer sustainability advantages (e.g. Australian made/recyclable et cetera)

 

The Tender Assessment Panel also assessed pricing as per the attached evaluation assessment. A combination of the capability ranking and the pricing brought about a value for money ranking. Overall value for money for each respondent was calculated using the quality: price ratio. The respondent with the highest quality:price ratio offers the best overall value for money.

 

The Tender Assessment Panel considered it would be preferable to have a minimum of two suppliers on the panel to sustain competitiveness and ensure availability.

 

The Evaluation report recommends to Council that it award the tender to the top four ranked tenderers.

 

Council’s resolution should list the successful tenderers in ‘alphabetical order’, as is usually the case where multiple suppliers are appointed to avoid any inference otherwise being drawn as to the commercial-in-confidence information contained in the tender submissions.

 

Financial Implications

 

There are no financial implications from entering into contracts under this Tender because the Request for Tender made it very clear that even if Council appointed a service provider or multiple service providers to a panel, that would not be a guarantee of allocation by Council of legal work.

 

That is, even if Council appoints tenderers under this contract, Council has the right not to consume any legal services at all, in which case there would be no financial implications to Council. However, the reality is that Council will, over the period of the contract, most likely consume some legal services.

 

The amount of legal services Council consumes as a result of taking enforcement and regulatory action, defending decisions made on development, planning and environmental applications, defending third party challenges to other decisions by Council and on obtaining advice and other services, such as conveyancing, varies considerably from year to year.

 

Council always endeavours to minimise expenditure on legal services by undertaking as much of Councils legal work in-house via the professional services of the Legal Services team.

 

Council must manage the cost of legal services within the annual legal budgets it allocates annually.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

The tendering process has been undertaken in accordance with Council’s procurement policy, and the provisions of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

 

The Local Government (General) Regulations 2005 define the options available to Council.  An extract is provided below. 

 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GENERAL) REGULATION 2005

 

178 ACCEPTANCE OF TENDERS

(1)     After considering the tenders submitted for a proposed contract, the council must either:

(a)     accept the tender that, having regard to all the circumstances, appears to it to be the most advantageous, or

(b)     decline to accept any of the tenders.

(1A) Without limiting subclause (1), in considering the tenders submitted for a proposed contract for the performance of domestic or other waste management services, the council must take into account whether or not existing workers (within the meaning of clause 170) will be offered employment or engagement on terms and conditions comparable to those applicable to the workers immediately before the tender was submitted.

(2)     A council must ensure that every contract it enters into as a result of a tender accepted by the council is with the successful tenderer and in accordance with the tender (modified by any variation under clause 176). However, if the successful tender was made by the council (as provided for in section 55 (2A) of the Act), the council is not required to enter into any contract in order to carry out the requirements of the proposed contract.

(3)     A council that decides not to accept any of the tenders for a proposed contract or receives no tenders for the proposed contract must, by resolution, do one of the following:

(a)     postpone or cancel the proposal for the contract,

(b)     invite, in accordance with clause 167, 168 or 169, fresh tenders based on the same or different details,

(c)     invite, in accordance with clause 168, fresh applications from persons interested in tendering for the proposed contract,

(d)     invite, in accordance with clause 169, fresh applications from persons interested in tendering for contracts of the same kind as the proposed contract,

(e)     enter into negotiations with any person (whether or not the person was a tenderer) with a view to entering into a contract in relation to the subject matter of the tender,

(f)      carry out the requirements of the proposed contract itself.

(4)     If a council resolves to enter into negotiations as referred to in subclause (3) (e), the resolution must state the following:

(a)     the council's reasons for declining to invite fresh tenders or applications as referred to in subclause (3) (b)-(d),

(b)     the council's reasons for determining to enter into negotiations with the person or persons referred to in subclause (3) (e).

 

179 NOTIFICATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF SUCCESSFUL TENDER

As soon as practicable after entering into a contract in accordance with clause 178 or deciding not to accept any of the tenders for a proposed contract, a council must:

(a)     send to all tenderers whose tenders were not accepted notices to the effect that their tenders were unsuccessful or, as the case may be, that none of the tenders for the proposed contract was accepted, and

(b)     display in a conspicuous place that is accessible to members of the public a notice specifying the name of the tenderer whose tender was accepted and the amount of the successful tender or, if none of the tenders was accepted, a notice to that effect.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                        13.10

 

 

Report No. 13.10         Joint Organisation of Councils

Directorate:                 Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:           Ralph James, Legal Counsel

File No:                        I2018/95

Theme:                         Corporate Management

                                      Governance Services

 

 

Summary:

 

A report was been prepared and submitted to 1 February Ordinary meeting on this subject. The purpose of the Report being to provide Council with an update on the status of Regional Joint Organisations of Councils, and to allow Council to consider the invitation from the Office of Local Government, issued in its correspondence dated 1 December 2017 (refer Attachment 1), for Council to voluntarily join the Northern Rivers Joint Organisation of Councils.

 

Council following consideration of the Report resolved via Resolution 18-043 as follows:

 

“1. That Council defer consideration of the report for the purposes of a Strategic Planning

Workshop (SPW) to receive details and implications of the proposed legislative and

governance framework for Joint Organisations and how it might change decision making

processes of Council in the future and in particular, participation of the community,

accountability and transparency of decision making.

 

2. That Council, following the SPW, receive a further report at the 22 February meeting.”

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That, in accordance with Part 7 of Chapter 12 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Act), Council:

 

1.       Inform the Minister for Local Government (Minister) of the Council’s endorsement of the Minister recommending to the Governor the establishment of a Joint Organisation in accordance with this resolution.

 

2.       Approve the inclusion of the Council’s area in the Joint Organisation’s area.

 

3.       Request that the Joint Organisation be established to cover the Council’s area and any one or more of the following council areas:

 

a)      Richmond Valley

b)      Lismore City

c)      Ballina Shire

d       Kyogle

e)      Tweed Shire

 

4.       Authorises the General Manager to provide the Minister with a copy of this resolution including the date on which Council made this resolution before 28 February 2018.

 

5.       Authorises the General Manager to, on the expiry of a period of 28 days from the making of this resolution, inform the Minister that this resolution has not been rescinded.

 

Attachments:

 

1        Letter from the Office of Local Government-Joint Organisations, E2018/4097  

2        Joint Organisation Information Pack, E2018/4099  

3        Second Reading speech Mr John Barilaro ( Monaro—Deputy Premier, Minister for Regional New South Wales, Minister for Skills, and Minister for Small Business) , E2018/7877  

 

 


 

Report

 

The Office of Local Government (“OLG”) has written to Councils following the recent passage by the NSW Parliament of the Local Government Amendment (Regional Joint Organisations) Bill 2017. The OLG in its correspondence of 1 December 2017 has stated that this legislation allows for Councils to voluntarily join a new Joint Organisation “to strengthen regional coordination and improve the delivery of important infrastructure and services for communities through strategic planning, collaboration and shared leadership and advocacy”.

 

Council has been invited to establish and nominate to join the Northern Rivers Joint Organisation of Councils.

 

The Office of Local Government in its Joint Organisations – Frequently Asked Questions provides the following information on structure and purpose of a Joint Organisation.

 

 “A Joint Organisation is a new entity under the Local Government Act comprising member councils in regional NSW to provide a stronger voice for the communities they represent.

 

A Joint Organisation will provide a more structured, permanent way for local councils, State agencies and other interested groups to collaborate. Each region will decide its own priorities, working on short and long term projects such as attracting a new industry to the region or improving the health of a river system. By putting their resources together and focusing on the unique challenges and strengths of their whole region, Joint Organisation members can drive better outcomes for local residents.

 

Each Joint Organisation will comprise at least three member councils and align with one of the State’s strategic growth planning regions. One of the member council’s mayors will be elected chairperson and an Executive Officer may be appointed.”

 

Further information on the proposed Joint Organisations and the entire process is available on the Office of Local Government’s website (olg.nsw.gov.au), under the heading of Strengthening Local Government. The following link is provided http://www.olg.nsw.gov.au/content/joint-organisations-strengthen-regional-nsw.

 

Byron Shire currently sits within the North Coast State Planning Region along with Tweed Shire, Ballina Shire, Bellingen Shire, Kyogle, Richmond Valley, Nambucca Shire, Lismore City, Clarence Valley, Kempsey Shire, Coffs Harbour City and Port Macquarie-Hastings Councils.

 

The Office of Local Government  in the information provided to Councils on Joint Organisations and the next steps (Attachment 2), has indicated that a Council should consult with other Councils within their allocated Regional Planning Region, to identify the member Councils for a Joint Organisation.

 

NOROC at a meeting held in November 2016 resolved to endorse the submission to the NSW Government’s Joint Organisations: Getting the Boundaries Right report (16/17:R14).The submission stated that NOROC supported the proposed boundaries for the Northern Rivers Joint , and that NOROC included the Kyogle, Richmond Valley, Tweed, Byron, Lismore and Ballina Local Government areas, and that the alignment of the proposed boundary for the Joint Organisation and the current NOROC boundary would ensure a smoother transition process.

 

Each of the individual Councils within the area of a proposed Joint Organisation needs to pass a resolution establishing the Joint Organisation and its membership, and confirming that the Council wishes to be member of the Joint Organisation.

 

This format and the content of the resolution has been prescribed by the Office of Local Government. The resolution when passed by Council, along with the Council’s nomination to join a Joint Organisation, needs to be submitted to the Office of Local Government prior to 28 February 2018.

 

This report has been prepared to allow Council to consider the invitation from the Office of Local Government, for Council to join the Northern Rivers Joint Organisation of Councils, by passing the required resolution.

 

Financial Implications

 

At this stage there is not anticipated to be any additional resource or financial implications to Council, although this could change over time if the Joint Organisation sought to increase its level of service to the member councils and a higher staff resource was needed. This would only occur in consultation with the member councils.

 

The current contribution to NOROC is approximately $15,500.

 

Initial establishment funding is to be provided by the State Government, with $3.3 million to be allocated to the project. NOROC, or the new Joint Organisation, will look at opportunities to access this funding for projects that may benefit the region.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Local Government Act 1993.

 

The legislation provides as follows for joint organisations:

 

(a)     it enables the making of proclamations by the Governor to constitute joint organisations and provides for the area of the joint organisation (a joint organisation area) to consist of at least 2 council areas,

 

(b)     it prohibits a council area from being included in a joint organisation area unless the council has resolved to approve inclusion of the council’s area in the joint organisation area,

 

c)      a joint organisation established under a proclamation is constituted as a body corporate with the powers of an individual both in and outside the State,

 

(d)     the principal functions of a joint organisation are to establish strategic regional priorities, provide regional leadership and identify and take up opportunities for inter-governmental co-operation on regional matters,

 

(e)     joint organisations may also deliver services to or on behalf of councils and provide assistance to councils (including capacity building), subject to any restrictions imposed by the regulations,

 

(f)      a joint organisation is to make decisions through its board, which will contain voting and non-voting representatives. The voting representatives will be the mayor of each council whose area is included in the joint organisation (a member council) as well as one additional representative for each member council if the board determines that additional representatives are to be added,

 

(g)     the role of the board is to direct and control the affairs of the joint organisation. The board is to prepare and adopt a charter for the joint organisation,

 

(h)     the chairperson of the joint organisation is to be elected by the voting representatives from the representatives who are mayors and is to hold office for 2 years and may, if the board

          so determines, be a non-voting chairperson,

 

(i)      regulations may be made to enable alternates to be appointed for voting representatives and may provide that the alternates may only act for limited periods,

 

(j)      a voting representative will cease to hold office when he or she ceases to be the mayor or councillor of a member council, resigns, has a nomination revoked or is removed from office by the Minister and will be suspended for any period of suspension as a mayor or councillor,

 

(k)     a member council may request that the Minister remove the mayor of the council from the board on the ground of exceptional circumstances, with or without the consent of the mayor,

 

(l)      the role of the executive officer of a joint organisation is to conduct the day-to-day management of the joint organisation and to give effect to lawful decisions of the joint organisation,

 

(m)    the functions of the joint organisation may be exercised by means of the representatives, by a committee or by other provision or means, jointly with another person or persons or a member council or by a delegate,

 

(n)     a joint organisation cannot require a member council to delegate a function to it,

 

(o)     if an administrator is appointed for a member council, the administrator may exercise the functions, and has the same number of votes as, all of the voting representatives of that council,

 

(p)     the Governor may make proclamations amending the constitution of, or dissolving, a joint organisation,

 

(q)     provisions enabling savings and transitional provisions to be included in proclamations constituting councils will apply to proclamations made under the proposed Part,

 

(r)      a function of the joint organisation may be delegated to a committee, the executive officer or any other person or body. The executive officer may sub-delegate the function as well as delegate his or her functions. A joint organisation may also sub-delegate to a committee, the executive officer or any other person or body functions delegated to the joint organisation by the Chief Executive of the Office of Local Government or a member council,

 

(s)     the regulations will be able to provide for the making of financial contributions by member councils to a joint organisation and this may include making employees available for the purposes of the joint organisation,

 

(t)      limitations are imposed on the employment of staff pending certain declarations,

 

(u)     provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 that apply to councils are applied to joint organisations as if they were councils, subject to specified exclusions. Regulations may also be made to exclude the application of additional provisions and to apply excluded provisions.

 

The intent of the Government in introducing the legislation and its intended operation of Joint Organisations is set out in the Second Reading Speech of Mr John Barilaro ( Monaro—Deputy Premier, Minister for Regional New South Wales, Minister for Skills, and Minister for Small Business) Attachment 3.  


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                 13.11

 

 

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy

 

Report No. 13.11         Update on the CZMP for the Eastern Precincts of the Byron Bay Embayment

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Chloe Dowsett, Coastal and Biodiversity Coordinatior  

File No:                        I2017/2004

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Planning Policy and Natural Environment

 

 

Summary:

 

This report provides an update on the development of the draft Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) for the Eastern Precincts of the Byron Bay Embayment (Cape Byron to Main Beach) for submission to the Minister in June 2018. Also outlined in this report are revised timeframes as previously reported on the delivery of the CZMP to the Minister.

 

The revised timeframes are based on a request from the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) to complete a formal review of the CZMP (requiring up to 3 weeks) prior to the CZMP going to public exhibition. This aims to increase the potential for Ministerial certification of the plan prior to the lapsing of the existing legislations transitional arrangements.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council note the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Report

 

Background

Council considered a report at the 26 October 2017 meeting on the Minister’s and NSW Coastal Panel’s advice on the draft Coastal Zone Management Plan for the Byron Bay Embayment, which included amongst other advice excising the Belongil Spit area from the plan and resubmitting for Ministerial certification.  At this meeting Council resolved (Resolution 17-521) to prepare a Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) for the Eastern Precincts of the Byron Bay Embayment (BBE) for Cape Byron to Main Beach, comprising Wategos/Little Wategos, The Pass, Clarkes Beach and Main Beach precincts.

 

It is critical to have the new CZMP completed and with the Minister for certification prior to the lapsing of the existing legislation’s transitional arrangements. It is expected that the legislation will come into effect within the next few months; therefore the new CZMP should ideally be with the Minister by end of June 2018, to leave ample time for review and approval of the plan.

 

Plan Development

The development of a draft CZMP for the Eastern Precincts of the BBE has commenced and is progressing well. The process for developing the plan has been more complex than just simply ‘splitting’ the plan in two, as new coastal issues have emerged within the planning area. As such, early engagement and involvement with public agencies has taken place from the beginning of the process.

 

Management issues and actions presented in the preceding CZMP BBE relating to the Eastern Precincts were not a focus of the Coastal Panel of OEH review in 2016 as the complex issues at Belongil Spit took precedent and overshadowed other precincts (Cape Byron to Main Beach). Hence, actions and strategies proposed in the newly formed CZMP for the Eastern Precincts have been fleshed out in more detail in close consultation with agencies and OEH.

 

A workshop was held on 24 January 2018 with some agencies in attendance and others providing written comments for discussion at the workshop. The workshop was very productive to gain feedback on the proposed actions and strategies, and discuss new issues relevant to the planning area.

 

Agency support for the actions in the plan that pertain to them is critical to the success of the plan and agency agreement in the form of a ‘Letter of Support’ is required to accompany the CZMP document.  

 

Advice, comment and feedback has already been received on the preliminary draft plan by the Office of the Environment and Heritage (OEH) with the main comments provided below and a response as to how these comments have been addressed.

 

#1: The plan needs to be clear, concise and upfront as to how it proposes to manage this section of the coast.

 

The newly formed plan is succinct with the majority of background information on management issues and objectives now in Appendices. The plan is open and transparent and seeks to accord with the guidance of existing Council policy and State legislation. The plans aims to manage this section of the coast based on Councils current planning controls and resolutions

 

#2: The plan needs to be fully furnished prior to submission to the Minister. The plan should be accompanied by letters of support from Public Agencies before being submitted to the Minister. The plan will most likely be reviewed by the NSW Coastal Panel, and time does not allow for the Coastal Panel to request additional information of any kind.

 

To achieve this, the plan will be formally reviewed by OEH (3 weeks required) with comment requested from Public Agencies prior to going to Council for endorsement and Public Exhibition. This aims to ensure agency agreement of the plan and that the plan is 100% certifiable (to the best of our knowledge) by the Minister. The plan needs to be a fully furnished final draft prior to submission with accompanying letters of support from agencies.

 

#3: The upgrade of the Jonson Street Protection Works (JSPW) is a positive strategy and will provide public benefit, amenity and safety. This strategy should be at the forefront of the plan and needs to be outlined in more detail.

 

The highest and most costly priority action to retain coastal protection works at Main Beach (Jonson Street) is now at the forefront of this plan. More detail has been given in the plan as to the justification for the retention and upgrade of the works, the masterplanning process recently completed, the benefits to the community (access, amenity, safety, and protection of the town centre) and actions required to be completed.

 

#4: High priority actions/strategies should ideally be budgeted for and included in Councils IP& R framework. This shows Council commitment and intention to implementing the proposed management strategies. 

 

This report recommends that Council allocate $150,000 (50% of project costs) for the Jonson Street Protection Works pre-construction stage over the 2018/19 and 2019/2020 financial years.

 

OEH have been working closely with council staff in the development of the plan and are committed to assisting council in the delivery of a fully furnished CZMP to the Minister by June 2018. Trying to ensure the success of the CZMP, OEH have requested they complete a formal review of the draft plan prior to the plan being publicly exhibited. This review may take up to 3 weeks.

 

Project Delivery

 

At the 14 December 2017 meeting council considered a report on the delivery timeframes for the CZMP. At this time it was expected that a draft plan would be reported to the 22 February 2018 meeting.  However, due to OEHs request to complete a formal review of the CZMP prior to going to public exhibition, the timeframe for delivery of the plan has been pushed back by one month.

 

Outlined below is the current delivery and timeframes for this project.

 

When

What

Status

December 2017

Commence development of the CZMP for the Eastern Precincts BBE (Cape Byron to Main Beach)

 

Commenced

Report to 14 December Council meeting on status of draft plan and other coastal projects.

 

Plan for the Eastern Precincts acknowledged as highest priority project.

Complete

January 2018

Workshop with Public Agencies (24 Jan) on the draft plan

Complete

February 2018

 

Close consultation with OEH to finalise the draft plan.

 

 

Preliminary review of draft CZMP by OEH and public agencies.

 

 

Workshop for Councillors (8 Feb) - presentation of draft plan and agency comments/feedback.

 

Report to Council (22 Feb) – update on development of plan.

Formal review by OEH (3 weeks)

 

 

Commenced and on-going

 

Complete

 

 

 

Complete

 

 

This report

 

 

Pending

March 2018

 

Report to Council (22 Mar) on draft CZMP. Council approve draft CZMP to go to public exhibition.

 

Community engagement activities.

 

 

Pending

 

 

 

April 2018

Public Exhibition (4-5 weeks).

 

Community engagement activities.

 

Pending

 

 

 

May 2018

 

Review submissions and feedback.

 

Report to Council, finalise plan.

 

Seek letters of support from public agencies.

 

 

Pending

 

 

 

 

June 2018

Submit to Minister for certification.

 

Pending

 

July 2018

Review and approval of the CZMP.

 

Pending

 

 

 

Financial Implications

 

Council resolved that it would consider an allocation of $150,000 (50% of project costs) at the 14 December 2017 meeting (Res 17-641).

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

The Coastal Protection Act 1979 is soon to be repealed by the Coastal Management Act 2016.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                 13.12

 

 

Report No. 13.12         PLANNING - 24.2017.82.1 'Housekeeping' Amendment - Byron DCP 2014 (Various Chapters)

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Steve Daniels, Project Officer - Planning Reforms

File No:                        I2018/10

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Planning Policy and Natural Environment

 

 

Summary:

 

This report presents the public exhibition outcomes for a proposed ‘housekeeping’ amendment to Byron DCP 2014 (various chapters) in accordance with Council Resolution 17-414.  The amendment seeks to resolve a number of anomalies and inconsistencies that create issues when assessing development applications.  An itemised description and rationale for the proposed amendments was provided in report 13.11 to the 21 September 2017 Council Meeting

http://byron.infocouncil.biz/Open/2017/09/OC_21092017_AGN_610_WEB.htm

 

The proposed amendment was placed on public exhibition for a period of 30 days from Thursday 16 November 2017 to Friday 15 December 2017.  Five submissions were received during the exhibition period. 

 

The majority of submissions raise concerns with regard to proposed amendment ‘Item 8’ which seeks changes to Chapter D2: Residential Accommodation and Ancillary Development in Rural Areas.  The remaining issues raised were in relation to proposed amendment ‘Item 3’ which seeks changes to Chapter B3: Services, and amendment ‘Item 11’ which seeks changes to Chapter D8: Public Art.  Submission details and staff responses to each submission are provided in the body of this report. No changes are proposed as a result of the submissions.

 

Item 12 of the draft amendment proposed a new DCP chapter – Chapter D9: Child Care Centres.  Following the introduction of State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017, this chapter is now redundant and it’s recommended that it be removed.

 

Additional changes are also recommended to Item 4, B3.2.1: Provision of Services.  Since the proposed amendment was first reported to Council, the NSW Department of Planning has issued Planning Circular No. PS 17-002 which recommends that consent authorities adopt a model condition of consent for real estate developments.  The condition of consent relates to the provision of telecommunications infrastructure and requires that developers install fibre-ready facilities to all individual lots and/or premises in a real estate development project so as to enable fibre to be readily connected.  Recommended changes to Item 4, B3.2.1: Provision of Services are detailed in Attachment 1.

 

It should be noted that Item 4 also enables alternative means of telecommunications access for rural subdivision to be considered where the applicant can demonstrate that an NBN service is available.  No changes to this provision are recommended.

 

Item 7 of the draft amendment proposes minor changes to D1.2.2 Setbacks from Boundaries.

An additional amendment is recommended to clarify that in instances where parking provision is not required by the DCP (i.e. visitor parking is not required for a dwelling house); informal parking within the driveway may be provided.  If parking provision is required by the DCP, it must not be provided within setbacks.  Recommended changes to Item 7, D1.2.2 Setbacks from Boundaries are detailed in Attachment 1.

 

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:

 

1.       That Council adopts the exhibited amendments to Byron DCP 2014 with the following changes:

 

a)   removal of Chapter D9: Child Care Centres;

b)   amendment to B3.2.1 Provision of Services as contained in Attachment 1; and

c)   amendment to D1.2.2 Setbacks from Boundaries as contained in Attachment 1.

 

2.       Adopt the Byron DCP 2014 amendment and give public notice of the decision within 28 days.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        24.2017.82.1 - Schedule of Proposed Amendments to Byron - Amended following public exhibition, E2018/10197  

2        Confidential - 24.2017.82.1 Submissions, E2018/6624  

 

 


 

Report

 

Council resolved to proceed with preparation and public exhibition of the proposed amendments to Byron DCP 2014 (various chapters) on the 21 September 2017 as follows:

 

17-414 Resolved:

 

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

 

Item 4 - Chapter B3 Services B3.2.1 Provision of Services

 

3. Telecommunications Infrastructure

 

c)  Alternative means of telecommunications access for rural subdivision may be considered where the applicant can demonstrate that an NBN service is available and is supported by a letter from a recognised telecommunications consultant confirming that each allotment can be serviced by such a system.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed amendment was placed on public exhibition for a period of 30 days from Thursday 16 November 2017 to Friday 15 December 2017 in accordance with Res 17-414.  Five public submissions were received during the exhibition period and one staff submission has been included in this report. 

 

Submissions

 

Council received five submissions during the exhibition period.  No amendments to the DCP are recommended as a result of the submissions. The table below identifies the key issues raised in the submissions and includes staff comments for Council’s consideration.   

 

The table below should be read with reference to Attachment 1 (Schedule of Proposed Amendments).

 

Issue Raised in Submission

Staff Comment

DCP Amendment Item 3:

·    Council should consider an amendment to the DCP to ensure that acoustic barriers and associated infrastructure are to be contained within the development they are servicing.

 

 

Noted.  This suggestion will be considered for a future amendment to the DCP. 

DCP Amendment Item 8:

·    Given that our Council has invested a great deal of time for affordable housing, it appears at odds with itself to then reduce the number of studios that can be constructed on rural lands.  Rural lots play a vital role in providing a mix of affordable housing and this does not seem to be recognised by Council.

 

 

 

 

This submission reflects the unlawful practice of building rural studios for the purpose of separate habitation, be it in the form of rental accommodation or holiday letting.

 

Existing DCP provisions require that a studio must not be used for separate habitation.  The objective of the controls is to enable construction and use of a detached building where, because of its nature or space requirements, the proposed use of the building is not practical within the confines of the dwelling.  Examples of such uses may include a workshop, art space or home office.

 

Therefore, proposed controls pertaining to rural studios should have no bearing on addressing affordable housing concerns within the Shire.

  

 

·    There are no clear reasons or objectives given for the changes to D2.7.1 Studios.

 

The reasons/objectives stated for all amendments included under ‘Item 8’ are:

 

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

 

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

 

 

·    Studios should be allowed for each approved dwelling within a rural allotment. Many households have a need for a workspace that is external to the main dwelling building and working from home is becoming more popular with the rollout of the NBN. 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed controls do not strictly prohibit the construction of more than one rural studio.  The Objectives and Performance Criteria applicable to D2.7.1 Studios enable the construction of a studio where it can be demonstrated that a legitimate need exists for the studio.  Therefore, a development application seeking an additional studio may be considered if the applicant has satisfied this requirement. 

 

 

·    It is logical that if one studio per dwelling is permitted in a multiple occupancy, it should also be permitted in a dual occupancy.

 

 

Both dwellings in a rural dual occupancy development are owned by a single land owner unless later subdivided.  A rural studio may be shared among the residents of the property or an additional studio may be considered if there is a demonstrated need for the studio and it will not result in over development of the land.

 

This scenario is distinctly different from multiple occupancy development whereby the lot is collectively owned.  For a multiple occupancy development, the DCP permits a rural studio for each dwelling in the interest of equity among each of the individual owners of the land.

 

The key objective for Item 8 is to manage the scale of rural residential development and ensure that the rural character and rural environment is not compromised by over development.  In this regard, it should be noted that multiple occupancy development is only permissible in certain mapped locations within the Shire that have been selected based on suitable site characteristics for accommodating this form and scale of rural development.

 

 

·    There is a problem with the proposed amendment and its description because both a primary dwelling and a dual occupancy may be expanded houses and both the primary dwelling and dual occupancy could theoretically have a studio and secondary dwelling as part of their dwelling.

 

 

The submission is correct in stating that both a primary dwelling and a dual occupancy may be expanded houses.  However, where this arrangement constitutes more than six (6) residential buildings, the proposed controls would require applicants to demonstrate that there is a need for more than six (6) buildings and that the rural character and rural environment will not be adversely affected by over development.

 

The submission is incorrect in stating that both the primary dwelling and dual occupancy could theoretically have a secondary dwelling.  A secondary dwelling is quite literally a ‘second dwelling’ on the property and must meet Byron LEP 2014 requirements with regard to gross floor area.  An application for three (3) or more dwellings would be assessed as ‘multi-dwelling housing’ which is not permissible in rural zones.

 

It should be noted that where a development application for a rural studio would result in more than six (6) buildings on the property, the proposed controls would again require the applicant to demonstrate that there is a need for more than six (6) buildings and that the rural character and rural environment will not be adversely affected by over development.

 

 

·    Item 8 does not take into consideration the Affordable Housing SEPP which allows Group Homes (temporary and permanent) in rural zones where a dwelling is permitted.

 

 

For applications where the provisions of a SEPP apply (such as an application seeking approval for a Group Home), the provisions of the SEPP take precedence over any DCP provisions that may obstruct the application of the SEPP.     

 

DCP Amendment Item 11

 

Object to the proposed amendment on the following grounds:

 

1.   The amendment has been proposed at a time when Council’s Public Art Policy and Guidelines are under review.

 

2.   No justification for the proposed amendment has been provided by Council

 

3.   The proposed amendment allows developers to escape commissioning and displaying public art in their development, thereby devaluing public art as an essential component of significant developments

 

4.   The proposed amendment does nothing to address the unfair and regressive nature of the Developer Contribution as it applies to public art

 

5.   No method of valuing the cost of a work/s of public art is outlined, or referred to, in the draft chapter

 

 

This amendment relates to Council Resolution 15-604 which resolved;

 

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

 

The amendment responds to the fact that not all developments subject to DCP Chapter D8 ‘Public Art’ will provide suitable opportunities for the display of art works in a public setting.  An example of such an occurrence would be a private development with limited street frontage or public exposure. 

 

Where practical opportunities for public art display are limited, the proposed amendment provides a solution by allowing developers to fund ‘off-site’ art works in suitable locations that are accessible to the public.  Entering into a Voluntary Planning Agreement with Council is an appropriate mechanism for developers to provide for public art in such instances.

 

Points 4 and 5 of the submission are noted.  These points will be considered under a comprehensive review of Chapter D8 Public Art.

 

 

Staff Review

 

·    Item 4 of the draft amendment proposed changes to B3.2.1 Provision of Services.  Since the proposed amendment was first reported to Council, the NSW Department of Planning has issued Planning Circular No. PS 17-002 which recommends that consent authorities adopt a model condition of consent for real estate developments.  The condition of consent relates to the provision of telecommunications infrastructure and requires that developers install fibre-ready facilities to all individual lots and/or premises in a real estate development project so as to enable fibre to be readily connected. 

 

Point b) of Item 4 has been amended to reflect this requirement (see Attachment 1), however certain forms of development are considered exempt, typically where it would be impractical or costly to upgrade existing infrastructure.  The exemptions are required under Commonwealth law. 

 

It should be noted that the condition of consent is not recommended to apply in rural areas. Therefore, no changes are recommended to the exhibited amendment which enables alternative means of telecommunications access for rural subdivision to be considered where the applicant can demonstrate that an NBN service is available.

 

·    Item 7 of the draft amendment proposed minor changes to D1.2.2 Setbacks from Boundaries.

An additional amendment is recommended to clarify that in instances where parking provision is not required by the DCP (i.e. visitor parking is not required for a dwelling house); informal parking within the driveway may be provided.  If parking provision is required by the DCP, it must not be provided within setbacks.  Recommended changes to Item 7, D1.2.2 Setbacks from Boundaries are detailed in Attachment 1.  

                    

·    Item 12 of the draft amendment proposed a new DCP chapter – Chapter D9: Child Care Centres.  Following the introduction of State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017, this chapter is now redundant and it is recommended that it be removed.

 

Financial Implications

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

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

The relevant policy considerations are addressed above.


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                 13.13

 

 

Report No. 13.13         Draft Constitutions for new Biodiversity Advisory Committee and Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Advisory Committee

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Sharyn French, Manager Environmental and Economic Planning

File No:                        I2018/19

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Planning Policy and Natural Environment

 

 

Summary:

 

At the 28 November 2017 Extraordinary meeting Council resolved (Res 17-611) to reorganise the existing Biodiversity and Sustainability Panel into two new committees:

1.   Biodiversity Advisory Committee, and

2.   Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Advisory Group Committee

 

Council also resolved that the draft Terms of Reference and community membership be developed with the assistance of nominated Councillors.

 

This report tables the draft Terms of Reference, membership and meeting schedule for Council’s consideration.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.   That Council nominate up to three councillors for each of the Biodiversity Advisory Committee, and Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Advisory Committee.

 

2.   That Council invite the previous Biodiversity and Sustainability Panel members to nominate for one or both of the committees and extend and invitation to Zero Emissions Byron for their nominated representative to participate in the Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Advisory Committee. 

 

3.   That the draft Terms of Reference for the Biodiversity Advisory Committee (Attachment 1 E2017/2233), and Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Advisory Committee (Attachment 2 E2017/2239) be confirmed at their respective first meetings.

 

4.   That Council adopt the meeting scheduled for both advisory groups as follows:

 

Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Advisory Committee

·    First week of March 2018 subject to nominated councillor availability

·    11.30am 29 March 2018

·    11.30am 28 June 2018

·    11.30am 30 August 2018

·    11.30am 25 October 2018

 

Biodiversity Advisory Committee

·    First week of March 2018 subject to nominated councillor availability

·    2pm 12 April 2018

·    2pm 14 June 2018

·    9am 11 October 2018

·    9am 20 December 2018

 

 

5.   That an amount of $3,000 is considered in the 2018/19 budget to support the committee meetings.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Draft Constitution -  Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Advisory Committee, E2018/2239  

2        Draft Constitution - Biodiversity Advisory Committee, E2018/2233  

 

 


 

Report

 

At 28 November Extraordinary meeting Council resolved the following (Resolution 17-611):

 

That Council:

1.       Agree to the overarching concept of a reorganising the Biodiversity Advisory Group and Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Advisory Group.

 

2.       The model and terms of reference and membership be drafted with the nominated Councillors Coorey, Ndiaye, Martin and Hunter.

 

3.       That the two new groups be designated as Committees as opposed to panel.

 

4.       That Council receive a further report to confirm the model and terms of reference and membership of the new Biodiversity Advisory Committee and Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Committee in February 2018.

 

5.       That, given the substantial amount of issues pertaining to Biodiversity and Sustainability in the Shire, and the schedule of meetings be devised that reflects this.

 

6.       That the first meetings of the new Biodiversity Advisory Group and Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Advisory Group occur at the earliest possible opportunity in 2018.       

This report tables the draft Terms of Reference (TOR) and proposed membership which were developed with the assistance of some of the councillors nominated by Resolution 17-611, part 2.

 

 

Draft Terms of Reference

Draft constitutions have been prepared and attached.  See Attachment 1 – Biodiversity Advisory Committee and Attachment 2 - Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Advisory Committee.  It is proposed that the draft TOR be confirmed by each Advisory Group at their first meeting.

 

 

Membership

It is proposed that the former Biodiversity and Sustainability Panel members be invited to nominate for community membership on one or both of the two new committees. Former Panel members are: Samala Heart, Joanna Immig, Luke McConell, Chris Sanderson, Peter Westheimer, and Andy Baker.

 

In addition, Zero Emissions Byron will be invited to nominate a representative on the Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Advisory Committee.

 

It is proposed that Councillor representation on each Advisory Committee be determined by Council at this meeting.

 

 

Meeting Dates

Thursdays are Councils nominated meeting dates. The following are meeting times available on a Thursday:

 

Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Advisory Committee

·    11.30am 29 March 2018

·    11.30am 28 June 2018

·    11.30am 30 August 2018

·    11.30am 25 October 2018

Biodiversity Advisory Committee

·    2pm 12 April 2018

·    2pm 14 June 2018

·    9am 11 October 2018

·    9am 20 December 2018

 

Resolution 17-611 called for meetings as soon as possible. In addition to the above meetings it is proposed that a further meeting be held during the first week of March subject to the nominated councillor’s availability.

 

The first meeting agenda will address item 6 Induction in the draft constitution; confirmation of the draft Terms of Reference; reports on relevant projects and develop a future meeting agenda schedule.

 

Financial Implications

 

Some of the proposed Committee meeting times cover the lunch period and funds are required for catering. Additionally some meetings may engage professionals to present on a particular subject of relevance to the committees and some may use different meeting formats such as field days and workshops. An amount of $3,000 is required, to support the committee meetings.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

The Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 states:

 

260   Council may establish committees

(1)  A council may, by resolution, establish such committees as it considers necessary.

(2)  A committee is to consist of the mayor and such other councillors as are elected by the councillors or appointed by the council.

(3)  The quorum for a meeting of a committee is to be:

(a)  such number of members as the council decides, or

(b)  if the council has not decided a number—a majority of the members of the committee.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                 13.14

 

 

Report No. 13.14         24.2017.81.1 Amendment to DCP 2014 Chapter E5 - Bayshore Drive (Habitat)

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Steve Daniels, Project Officer - Planning Reforms

File No:                        I2018/31

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Planning Policy and Natural Environment

 

 

Summary:

 

This report presents the public exhibition outcomes for a proposed amendment to Byron DCP 2014 Chapter E5 – Bayshore Drive (Habitat) in accordance with Council Resolution 17-244.

 

The proposed DCP amendment (Draft DCP) was placed on public exhibition for a period of 30 days from 23 November 2017 to 22 December 2017.  A Development Application for the site was lodged by the applicant and exhibited concurrently with the Draft DCP.  One public submission to the Draft DCP was received during the exhibition period. 

 

The submission highlighted anomalies in the Draft DCP that are generally minor or typographical in nature. Correcting these errors ensure that the Draft DCP and the development concept adopted by Council under Res 17-224 are consistent.  Submission details and staff responses to the public submission are provided in the body of this report.

 

In addition to the public submission, Staff’s review of the draft DCP identified minor amendments generally related to the ecological enhancement components and minor typographical corrections.  These amendments will rectify any anomalies or inconsistencies that may cause problems when assessing development applications.

 

This report recommends that Council approve the exhibited Draft DCP Chapter E5 with changes in accordance with Attachment 1 to this report.

 

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:

 

1.       That Council amend the exhibited Draft Byron DCP 2014 Chapter E5 in accordance with Attachment 1 (E2018/7848) to this report.

 

2.       Adopt the Byron DCP 2014 amendment and give public notice of the decision within 28 days.

 

Attachments:

 

1        24.2017.81.1 [DRAFT] Byron DCP Chapter E5_Proposed Amendments following Public Exhibition, E2018/7848  

2        Confidential - 24.2017.81.1 - Public Submissions, E2018/7068  


 

Report

 

Council received a request from Planners North (the Applicant) to amend Chapter E5 (section 5.5) of Byron Development Control Plan 2014 (DCP 2014) relating to the ‘Habitat’ development (previously known as ‘Bayshore Village’).

 

Council resolved to proceed with preparation and public exhibition of the proposed DCP amendment on 22 June 2017 as follows:

 

17-224 Resolved:

 

1.   That Council support the request from the Applicant (Planners North) to amend Development Control Plan 2014 – Chapter E5.5, as it applies to the Habitat development at LOT 3 DP 1004514, Bayshore Drive BYRON BAY, to reflect the revised ‘Masterplan’ precincts and ‘DCP Amendment Proposal Summary’ contained in Attachment 2 to this report; and

 

2.   That the applicant be requested to lodge a formal Development Application that can be exhibited at the same time as the proposed DCP amendments for this site.

 

The ‘DCP Amendment Proposal Summary’ referenced in the above Council resolution and accessed at: http://byron.infocouncil.biz/RedirectToInvalidFileName.aspx?FileName=OC_22062017_ATT_607.HTM*$PDF3_ATTACHMENT_4080_2 , necessitated consequential amendments to many elements of DCP 2014 Chapter E5.5 in order to maintain a logical consistency with the development concept.    

 

The proposed amendment was placed on public exhibition for a period of 30 days from 23 November 2017 to 22 December 2017 in accordance with Res 17-244.  One public submission was received during the exhibition period (Attachment 2).  The proposed amendment was exhibited at the same time as the Development Application submitted by the applicant in accordance with Res 17-244.

 

Subject Site

 

The subject site is comprised of 6 lots and has an area of 4.921ha. It is located adjacent to and immediately northwest of the Byron Arts and Industry Estate, as illustrated in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – Subject Site

 

Background 

 

The site has an extensive history and due to a number of changes, in particular the rezoning of the site to B4 Mixed Use Zone, the applicant submitted a revised development concept consistent with the objectives of the new zone.

 

The revised concept proposal was reported to Council on 22 June 2017.  The proposal responds to the change of zoning by offering a similar style mixed use development, but reconfigured to deliver increased residential and commercial yields across much of the site. 

 

Public Submissions

 

Council received one public submission during the exhibition period.  The proposed amendments are generally minor or typographical in nature, and generally occur where elements of the draft DCP are inconsistent with the concept adopted by Council under Res 17-224.  Table 1 below describes the proposed amendments detailed in the submission and includes staff comments for Council’s consideration.  These amendments have been discussed with the proponent.

 

Table 1 below should be read with reference to Attachment 1 where the proposed amendments are shown in red text

 

Table 1: Public Submissions

Exhibited DCP

(Attachment 1) Page & Section

 

Proposed Amendment

Staff Comment

Page 13

 

E5.5.3.4

Precinct Plan

 

 

Under subheading:

 

2 (c) Precinct 2: Pocket Living

 

Remove reference to “6x three bedroom units”.

Supported.

 

The amendment is consistent with the concept adopted by Council.

Page 14

 

E5.5.4.1

Land Use, Management and Environmental Assessment

 

 

Under  subheading:

 

Prescriptive Measures

1.   Land use and Density

 

Change the maximum number of residential dwellings provided within the site from 140 to 152.

 

Supported.

 

Provision of 152 dwellings is consistent with the concept adopted by Council.

Page 15

 

E5.5.4.1

Land Use, Management and Environmental Assessment

 

Under Table:

 

E5.1 – Land Uses Consistent with Desired Future Character

 

Change the Built Gross Floor Area for Precinct 1 from 6100m2 to 7430m2.

Supported.

 

The 6100m2 figure accounts for the cumulative lot size of the Tired Living component of Precinct 1, not the Built Gross Floor Area.

Page 16

 

E5.5.4.1

Land Use, Management and Environmental Assessment

 

Under Table:

 

E5.2 – Setbacks

 

Include a 4 metre minimum setback to the external property (lot) boundary for Precinct 1.

 

Change the internal roads minimum setback for Precincts 2 & 3 from 3 metres to 0.5 metres.

Supported

 

Inclusion of a 4 metre minimum setback to the external property (lot) boundary for Precinct 1 is consistent with the setback provisions for Precincts 2 & 3.  This inclusion also removes any ambiguities that may create issues for assessment officers.

 

Changing the internal roads minimum setback for Precincts 2 & 3 from 3 metres to 0.5 metres is consistent with the setback provisions for Precinct 1.

 

Page 23

 

E5.5.4.4

Site and Open Space Design

 

Under subheading:

 

Prescriptive Measures

2.   Private Open Space

 

Amend point (c) to require that each ground floor unit has a minimum 49m2 private landscaped area (including terrace) plus additional common area.

  

Supported.

 

The proposed amendment is reflective of the increased residential densities provided across the site under the concept adopted by Council.

Page 29

 

Map E5.3

Habitat Precinct Plan

Amend the map label for Precinct 1 to show an area of 12129m2.

Supported.

 

This amendment corrects a typographical error.

 

Staff Review

 

The issues noted below include minor corrections, generally related to the ecological enhancement components of the Draft DCP.  These amendments will rectify any anomalies or inconsistencies that may cause problems when assessing development applications.  

 

Table 2 below should be read with reference to Attachment 1 where the proposed amendments are shown in red text

 

Table 2: Staff Review

Exhibited DCP

(Attachment 1) Page & Section

 

Proposed Amendment

Page 3 & 4

 

Contents, Maps, Figures and Tables

 

Note: Consequential updates to page numbers may be required should Council choose to adopt amendments proposed in this report.

Page 16

 

E5.5.4.1

Land Use, Management and Environmental Assessment

 

Under Table:

 

E5.1 – Land Uses Consistent with Desired Future Character

 

Change the Consistent Land Uses for Precinct 5 to read “Ecological enhancement, restoration, management and monitoring”.  This change better reflects all the elements of the Council approved Acid Frog Management Plan: Habitat North Beach, Byron Bay by Geolink Environmental Management and Design, Version 4 dated 4/5/17.

 

Page 17

 

E5.5.4.1

Land Use, Management and Environmental Assessment

 

Typographical change to correct numbering error for prescriptive measures ‘Buffering’ and ‘Environmental Assessment’.

 

 

Page 17

 

E5.5.4.1

Land Use, Management and Environmental Assessment

 

Under subheading:

 

Prescriptive Measures

3.   Buffering

 

Remove reference to “Lot 1 DP 1004514” and replace with “Lot 12 DP 1189646”.  This amendment reflects a change to the legal description of the lot after the lot was dedicated to Council.

 

Page 27

 

E5.5.4.7

Ecological Enhancement

 

 

Under subheadings:

 

Performance Criteria; and

Prescriptive Measures

 

Update to include the full title of the Council approved “Acid Frog Management Plan: Habitat North Beach, Byron Bay by Geolink Environmental Management and Design, Version 4 dated 4/5/17”. 

 

Additionally, note that habitat restoration applies both within the site and on adjoining lands.

 

These amendments remove any ambiguities that may cause problems for assessment officers.   

 

Financial Implications

 

The proposed amendments to DCP 2014 will be funded by the Applicant to ensure full cost-recovery.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

The relevant policy considerations are addressed above.

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                 13.15

 

 

Report No. 13.15         PLANNING - Development Application No.10.2017.639.1 dual occupancy (detached), alterations and additions to existing dwelling house and two (2) lot strata subdivision of land at 33 Kallaroo Circuit Ocean Shores

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Patricia Docherty, Planner

File No:                        I2018/33

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Development and Approvals

 

 

 

DA No:

10.2017.639.1

Proposal description:

Construction of a new dwelling house to create a dual occupancy (detached), alterations and additions to existing dwelling house and two (2) lot strata subdivision of land

Property description:

LOT: 2083 DP: 808462

33 Kallaroo Circuit OCEAN SHORES

Parcel No/s:

130610

Applicant:

Ardill Payne & Partners

Owner:

Mrs J M Mangleson

Zoning:

R2 Low Density Residential

Date received:

13 November 2017

Integrated Development:

Yes – Bush Fire Safety Authority s.100B Rural Fires Act 1997

Public notification or exhibition:

-    Level 1 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications

-    Exhibition period: 30/11/17 to 13/12/17

-    Submissions received: One (1) objection

Planning Review Committee:

No

Delegation to determination:

Council

 

Issues:

·    Byron LEP 2014 - Clause 4.1E Minimum lot size (4.9 %variation)

·    Byron LEP 2014 – Clause 4.1Minimum lot sizes for dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings (36-37% variation)

·    Byron LEP 2014 - Clause 6.6 Essential Services. Driveway access clearance  doesn’t comply with Australian Standards

·    Byron DCP 2014 – access and parking, landscape principles, privacy fence  on a front boundary; cannot be supported; objectives for private open space; and character

·    Public submission

·    Bushfire prone land

·    Acid sulfate soils class 2

·    Does not address all reasons for previous refusal for same development (10.2016.844.1)

·    Building height plane on the western elevation

·    Suitability of the site for the development as proposed

·    Public interest (undesirable precedent)

 

Summary:

An application has been received to construct a new dwelling to create a dual occupancy (detached), alterations and additions to an existing dwelling and strata title subdivision at 33 Kallaroo Circuit, Ocean Shores.

 

The subject site has an area of 760.7m2, and the development would result in a (4.9%) breach of the 800m2 minimum lot size development standard for dual occupancies under clause 4.1E of Byron LEP 2014.  The proposed strata title subdivision will result in a significant breach of the 600m ² minimum lot size development standard under Clause 4.1 of the Byron LEP (37%). 

 

In addition, the proposal is inconsistent with provisions of Byron LEP 2014 in relation to essential services for driveway access and controls in Byron DCP 2014 in terms of minimum landscaped areas, private open space, car parking, driveway access, character and fencing.

 

For reasons explained further in the attachment to this report, proposed variations to Byron LEP and DCP 2014 are not supported. The inconsistency is symptomatic of a constrained site, which has limited room to accommodate a single storey three bedroom dwelling due to the large footprint and central location of the existing house. It follows that the clause 4.6 request to vary the minimum lot size is also not supported as there is insufficient justification to vary the standard. The site attributes are not conducive to a smaller lot size.

 

The proposal is not considered to represent a good development outcome, particularly given that alternative design options may exist. Approving variations to these standards and controls without sufficient justification may set an undesirable precedent and is not in the public interest.

 

Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

 

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

 

 

  

RECOMMENDATION:

Pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, development application .10.2017.639.1 for construction of a new dwelling house to create a dual occupancy (detached), alterations and additions to existing dwelling house and two (2) lot strata subdivision of land, be Refused for following reasons:

a)      Pursuant to Section 79C (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with clause 4.1E of Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014, which sets an 800m2 minimum lot size for dual occupancies (detached) in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone.

 

b)      Pursuant to Section 79C (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with clause 4.1of Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014, which sets a 600m2 minimum lot size for new lots.

 

c)      Pursuant to Section 79C (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the written request accompanying the proposed development fails to comply with clause 4.6 of Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014. Insufficient justification has been provided to demonstrate that compliance with development standards is unreasonable or unnecessary or that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard’ or that proposed development is in the public interest.

 

d)      Pursuant to Section 79C (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with clause 6.6 of Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014, which requires development consent must not be granted to a development unless suitable vehicular access has been provided.  The driveway width for the rear dwelling does not meet obstruction clearance requirements in accordance with Australian Standards AS2890.1.

 

e)      Pursuant to Section 79C (1) (a) (iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with Chapter B9 Landscaping of Byron Development Control Plan 2014. The proposal does not comply with the objectives of Part B9.5 Dual Occupancies and Semi Detached Dwellings. Landscape principles to provide a pleasant environment for enjoyment of occupants of each dwelling – lack of deep soil planting in rear yard for use by existing property.

 

f)       Pursuant to Section 79C (1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with Chapter D1 Residential Accommodation in Urban, Village and Special Purpose Zones of Byron Development Control Plan 2014. Private open space for the existing dwelling comprises a minimal sized fenced area (34 m²) bound by a driveway on two sides. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate how the proposed development can meet the objectives of Part D1.5.4 Private Open Space, privacy fence on a front boundary cannot be supported under Part D.1.2.5; and Part D1.5.2 DCP Character principles – does not provide adequate private open space – conflicts with proposed rear privacy fence, driveway width and interface with vehicles.

 

g)      Pursuant to Section 79C (1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with Chapter B4 Traffic Planning, Vehicle Parking, Circulation and Access of Byron Development Control Plan 2014 in relation to the provision of stacked car parking for both dwellings.  Fails to demonstrate it will not adversely affect the use of private open space and width of driveway not meeting obstruction clearance requirements in accordance with Australian Standards AS2890.1.

 

h)      Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C (1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the site is not considered suitable for the development as proposed, as there is insufficient area to accommodate the proposed three bedroom dwelling and associated vehicle access, resulting in an overdevelopment of the site.

 

i)        Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C (1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, approval of a development which contravenes Council’s adopted development standards and development controls without sufficient justification may set an undesirable precedent and is not in the public interest. Options for an alternative design may exist to achieve better outcomes in relation to private open space, landscaping, fencing vehicle access, and car parking.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        DA.10.2017.639.1 Drawings for Council Report, E2018/6666  

2        Confidential - submission received, E2018/7963  

 

 


 

 

Assessment:

 

1.         INTRODUCTION

 

1.1.          History/Background

 

BA 5.1994.2293.1

Dwelling

Approved 18/05/1994

BA 6.1994.2750.1

Additions & alterations to dwelling

Approved 17/11/1994

DA 10.2016.844.1

Construct New Dwelling House to Create Dual Occupancy (Detached), Alterations and Additions to Existing Dwelling House and Strata Subdivision

Refused 04/07/2017

 

Development Application No. 10.2016.844.1 was refused primarily because the site has an area less than the 800m2 minimum area required under clause 4.1E of Byron LEP 2014 for a dual occupancy (attached) and insufficient justification was provided to support a variation to a development standard, particularly due to the multiple constraints including driveway access, stacked parking and private open space. 

 

The proposal to subdivide the lot to create a new strata plan would require a variation to Clause 4.1 Minimum Lot Size in excess of 37% comprising Two (2) new lots of 382 m² and 378.73 m². 

 

Council staff met the applicant and owner on 9th August 2017 to discuss the reasons for refusal of the original DA 10.2016.844.1.

 

In particular:

·    Landscaping did not meet the prescriptive requirements or objectives of the DCP. The new dwelling resulted in a high site coverage and excessive hard surfaces.

·    The private open space for the existing dwelling was poor and did not meet the objectives of the DCP. Due to the central location of the existing dwelling, there would be no backyard, and the proposed courtyard was bound by a driveway on two sides, offering poor privacy, solar access, safety and amenity.

·    The stacked parking situation was undesirable. Although the DCP doesn’t specifically outlaw such a layout - it would have been awkward and could have potentially resulted in future conflict.

·    The above issues were symptomatic of the lot size being too small for the proposed development; hence the clause 4.6 variation was not justified.

 

Options to address these issues were discussed, including:

·    Altering the patio for the existing dwelling – to try and create a private, landscaped courtyard for residents;

·    Altering the size and layout of the new dwelling to increase the separation between dwellings, and provide more landscaping;

·    Other general options such as having a secondary dwelling instead.

 

During the meeting the applicant proposed options such as removing the decks to increase landscaped area. Staff indicated that any changes to improve the design would be viewed positively, but ultimately it would be up to them to come up with a satisfactory design with sufficient merit to warrant approval.

 

The current application is lodged effectively to review that determination.  The review process provided under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 is not available in this case, as the proposal is integrated development pursuant to that Act; being a Bush Fire Safety Authority s 100B Rural Fires Act 1997.

 

1.2.          Description of the proposed development

This application seeks approval to construct a new dwelling to create a dual occupancy (detached), plus alterations and additions to an existing dwelling and strata subdivision. In detail, the application proposes the following:

 

1)      New dwelling to create dual occupancy (detached)

a)      96.83 m2, single storey building;

b)      Weathertex external cladding with metal skillion roofs;

c)      3 bedrooms;

d)      Open plan lounge/dining/kitchen;

e)      Laundry, bathroom, WC and separate ensuite for bedroom 1; and

f)       Single carport with additional hardstand space in stacked configuration.

 

2)      Alterations and additions to existing dwelling house

a)      Removal of the existing awning to the eastern elevation of the existing dwelling;

b)      Alterations to internal garage and dwelling floor plan;

c)      Partially demolish double garage and convert to single garage;

d)      Provision of new driveway down eastern boundary to service new dwelling; and

e)      construction of privacy fences, including a front fence to Kallaroo Circuit to provide an extra private open space to the existing dwelling house.

 

3)      Tree removal

a)         Removal of two trees in the rear yard immediately behind the existing house.

 

4)      Strata subdivision

a)      Strata subdivision to create separate strata lots and common property for each dwelling house.

 

Changes made to plans previously refused under 10.2017.639.1 are:

 

·    deletion of the 32.98m 2 paved patio areas that adjoined the master bedroom and the lounge/dining room- to provide increased landscaped open space that will form part of the deep soil zones on the site;

·    reduction in the area of the roof of the proposed dwelling which previously extended over the paved patio area that adjoined the lounge/dining room;

·    provision  of a concept landscaping plan;

·    removal of the awning on the eastern elevation of the existing dwelling house;

·    addition of privacy/amenity fencing surrounding the private open space areas of Residence 1.

 

The new dwelling is provided with approximately 81m 2 of useable landscaped area excluding the area around the car port and under the eaves on the southern boundary containing rainwater tanks and other utilities, falling short of the 90m2 minimum requirement.

 

Private open space for the existing dwelling is provided by way of removal of an existing awning and a fenced area, bound on two sides by a driveway. The applicant has not demonstrated how this area can be configured to comply with the relevant objectives of the development control.

 

Demolition of the existing two car garage will result in tandem parking for both dwellings, which is generally considered to be an undesirable outcome.

 

The minimal width of the driveway access handle combined with the overhanging eaves is also not acceptable providing a minimum clearance of approximately 2.5 metres, failing to meet Australian Standards AS2890.1.

 

Numerous cumulative issues arise from the proposed development:

 

·    Byron LEP 2014 – Non-compliance with minimum subdivision lot size: general (Clause 4.1) and specific to dual occupancies detached (Clause 4.1E).

·    Clause 4.6 Variation of 37% for (Clause 4.1) minimum lot size - subdivision not justified.

·    Clause 4.6 Variation of 4.9 % for (Clause 4.1E) 800 m² minimum lot size for dual occupancies – insufficient merit to justify.

·    Byron LEP 2014 - Clause 6.6 - Essential Services - development consent must not be granted to a development unless suitable vehicular access has been provided (driveway width for the rear dwelling does not meet obstruction clearance requirements - Australian Standards AS2890.1 or DCP 2014.

·    Non-compliance with Part B4.2.2 of Byron DCP 2014 (stacked  parking between both dwellings – fails to demonstrate it will not adversely affect the use of private open space);

·    Non –compliance with DCP 2014 Part B4.2.3 (suitable vehicular access has not been provided - overhanging eaves into the driveway);

·    Non-compliance with Part B9.5 of Byron DCP 2014 (landscape principles and minimum landscaped area to provide a pleasant environment for enjoyment of occupants of each dwelling –  lack of deep soil planting in rear yard for use by existing property);

·    Non-compliance with D.1.2.5 of Byron DCP(privacy fence  on a front boundary cannot be supported;

·    Non compliance with Part D1.5.4 of Byron DCP 2014 (objectives for private open space);

·    Non-compliance with Part D1.5.2 of Byron DCP Character principles – does not provide adequate private open space – conflicts with proposed privacy fence, driveway width and interface with vehicles – refer to Landscape Plan, Drawing 8, Revision a, dated 19/09/2017.

·    Does not address all reasons for previous refusal for same development (10.2016.844.1);

·    Building height plane on the western elevation;

·    Suitability of the site for the development as proposed; and

·    Public interest (undesirable precedent).

 

1.3.          Description of the site

 

Land is legally described as

LOT: 2083 DP: 808462

Property address is

33 Kallaroo Circuit OCEAN SHORES

Land is zoned:

R2 Low Density Residential

Land area is:

760.7m2

Property is constrained by:

Acid Sulfate Soils (Class 2)    

 

Bushfire prone land

 

The property contains a single storey dwelling with brick veneer walls and a brown tiled roof.  The existing dwelling contains four bedrooms and a double garage.  A covered patio is located behind the double garage, which opens up onto a large backyard area with views of the Council reserve to the north.

 

The site is located within an established residential subdivision in north Ocean Shores, surrounded by single storey dwelling houses, which appear to date to the early to mid 1990’s.  Most feature brick veneer walls with tiled roofs.

 

Aerial image and site photos of the proposed development site are illustrated at figure 1 to 5.

 

 

Figure 1: Aerial image of site – 33 Kallaroo Circuit, Ocean Shores (Lot: 2083 DP: 808462)

 

 

Figure 2: Existing dwelling looking north from Kallaroo Circuit (centre frame). The double garage to be reduced to a single garage with stacked car parking and a new driveway down the eastern boundary.

 

Figure 3: Existing dwelling as viewed from the proposed development site in a southerly direction. The white lines indicate the proposed strata subdivision. Yellow line indicates the section of garage to be demolished to accommodate the new driveway (lines are indicative only).

 

 

Figure 4: Existing dwelling viewed from backyard. Covered patio overlooking driveway is the nominated private open space for the existing house.

Figure 5: Proposed dwelling site located behind the existing house. Planted vegetation will be removed. Council reserve adjoins to the north, and residential dwellings adjoin to the east and west.

A similar application for development of the site has previously been refused (Development Application No. 10.2016.844.1).  Whilst Development Application No. 10.2017.639.1 partly addresses some of the reasons for refusal in relation to landscaping and private open space, it is considered that it does not address all reasons for refusal.  

 

The application does not adequately justify variation to development standards for minimum lot size and the development has not been redesigned to address reduce the overall layout and footprint of the dwelling resulting in overdevelopment, minimal landscaped space for the original dwelling the majority of which is in the front set-back.  The layout of the site also results in stacked parking and insufficient driveway access with inadequate clearance widths. 

 

2.         SUMMARY OF REFERRALS

 

Referral

Issue

Development Engineer

Reasons for Refusal

 

Not Supported

The development application is not supported from engineering grounds and should be refused for the following reasons:

 

1.   Essential Services

Suitable Vehicular Access

In accordance with Byron LEP 2014 Section 6.6 development consent must not be granted to a development unless suitable vehicular access has been provided. Suitable vehicular access has not been provided for the following reasons:

 

·    Residence 2 has not provided parked cars with sufficient room to manoeuvre to enter and leave in a forward direction as required by Council’s DCP 2014 Chapter B4.2.3.

·    For Residence 2, if two cars are stacked on site the car parked adjacent to the boundary can not exit without both cars performing complex manoeuvres.

·    For Residence 2, the driveway width for the rear dwelling does not meet AS2890.1 requirements. Where there is an obstruction more than 150mm high adjacent to the driveway 300mm clearance must be provided in accordance with AS2890.1.

·    When a car is stacked in the front dwelling access to the rear dwelling is considered tight and undesirable. This additional concern does not provide sufficient merit to warrant variants on the above concerns.

 

Stormwater Drainage

Pursuant to Section 79C (1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and in accordance with Byron LEP 2014 Section 6.6 development consent must not be granted to a development unless adequate arrangements have been made for stormwater drainage. As insufficient stormwater drainage information has been submitted Council can not have confidence residence 2 can drain to the street in accordance with Council requirements.

 

2.   Stacked Parking

Pursuant to Section 79C (1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and DCP 2014 Chapter B4.2.2 stacked parking is not favoured but may be permitted where the development has merit. Given the significant concerns listed above it is considered the proposed stacked parking does not have sufficient merit. Concerns are exacerbated by the existing double garage being reduced into stacked parking.

 

Section 64  Systems - ET Engineer

This development generates an additional load onto Councils Water, Bulk Water and Sewer System

 

Council requires Payment of Developer Servicing Charges (prior to issue of a construction/subdivision certificate) of:

·    0.6 ET for Water &

·    0.6 ET Bulk Water; and

·    1.0 ET for Sewer.

 

Rural Fire Service

Proposal was referred to the Rural Fire Service for approval under s100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997. The RFS have issued general terms of approval should the application be supported.

 

All other referral retracted as no longer relevant to refused development: Environmental Health Officer, S94 / Contributions Officer.

 

 

 

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

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

 

3.1       State Environmental Planning Instruments

 

 

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

State Environmental Planning Policy No 14—Coastal Wetlands

Consideration: There are no mapped SEPP 14 wetlands adjacent to the site.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 26—Littoral Rainforests

Consideration: There are no mapped SEPP 26 littoral rainforests adjacent to the site.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 44—Koala Habitat Protection

Consideration: The site has an area less than 1ha.  The development control provisions of the SEPP are therefore not applicable.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land

Consideration: The site is located in an established urban area with a long standing history of residential use.  There are no potentially contaminating land uses known to have occurred on the site or in the immediate vicinity and the site is not included in Council’s contaminated land register.  A preliminary site investigation report is not required. 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 71—Coastal Protection

Consideration: The proposal is satisfactory with regards to parts 2 and 4 of SEPP 71.  No adverse impacts on the coastal environment are expected.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

Consideration: A valid BASIX certificate has been supplied.

 

 

 

4.2     Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP 2014)

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

 

Part 1

1.1| 1.1AA| 1.2| 1.3| 1.4| Dictionary| 1.5| 1.6| 1.7| 1.8| 1.9

Part 2

2.1| 2.2 | 2.3 |Land Use Table | 2.6| 2.7

Part 4

4.1| 4.1E|4.3|4.4 |4.5 | 4.6

Part 5

5.5

Part 6

6.1| 6.2| 6.6| 6.7

 

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

(a)     The proposed development is defined in the LEP 2014 Dictionary as Dual Occupancy (detached). Strata subdivision is not defined in the LEP, but is defined in Section 4B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;

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

(c)     The proposed development is permissible with consent.  Strata subdivision is permitted with consent pursuant to clause 2.6 of the LEP; and

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

 

Zone Objective - R2 Low Density Residential

Consideration

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

The proposal will provide additional housing stock for the area.  Dual occupancy development is generally not antipathetic to the zone objectives.  However, the proposal is inconsistent with clauses 4.1, 4.1E and 6.6 in Byron LEP 2014 and various development controls in Byron DCP 2014 and is therefore not supported.  

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

N/A.

 

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.  The proposed development complies with all these clauses of LEP 2014 (in some cases subject to conditions and/or to the satisfaction of other assessing officers), except in relation to Clauses 4.1, 4.1E and 6.6, which are considered further below:

 

Clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size

The Minimum Lot Size Map specifies 600m2 for this locality.  Recent Land and Environment Court judgments determined that:

a)      the exemption contained in subclause 4.1(4) only applies to subdivisions where the parent allotment is a lot in a strata plan or community title scheme;

b)      LEPs do not permit strata subdivision which does not comply with the minimum size requirement specified in subclause 4.1(3); and

c)      Strata subdivision that does not comply with the minimum lot size is prohibited.

 

That variation request is considered with reference to relevant matters as follows:

 

1.       Introduction – Summary of proposed development

The development application proposes Strata Title subdivision of a proposed detached dual occupancy on a site area of 760.7m2.  Resultant lots would be 378m2 and 382m2.

 

2.       Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards

LEP 2014 clause 4.6 allows the granting of 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.

 

4.       Extent of Variation to the Development Standard

The proposed strata subdivision would result in 2 new lots of 378m2 and 382m2.  The extent of the variation therefore ranges from 36 to 37% for the new lots.

 

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 land use zone (R2 Low density residential) have been addressed in this section of this report above.

 

The proposal will provide additional housing stock for the area.  Dual occupancy development is generally not antipathetic to the zone objectives.  However, the proposal is inconsistent with clauses 4.1, 4.1E and 6.6 in Byron LEP 2014 and various development controls in Byron DCP 2014 and is therefore not supported.  

 

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?  

NO

 

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

NO

 

(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?

NO

 

The proposed development is not considered to meet the assessment questions. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient justification to vary this development standard (Clause 4.1).  For the reasons outlined in this report the response is NO to all questions in subclauses 4.6 (3) (a), (b) and 4.6(4) (a) (ii).

 

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

This clause sets a minimum lots size of 800m2 for detached dual occupancy in the R2 low density residential zone.  The site has an area of 760.7m2, which is 4.9% below the required development standard.

 

The application includes a submission, made pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP, seeking to justify the variation to the 800m2 minimum lot size development standard (applicable to dual occupancies).

 

That variation request is considered with reference to relevant matters as follows:

 

1.       Introduction – Summary of proposed development

The development application proposes Strata Title subdivision of a proposed detached dual occupancy on a site area of 760.7m2.  Resultant lots would be 378m2 and 382m2.

 

2.       Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards

LEP 2014 clause 4.6 allows the granting of 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:

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

d)      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 sizes for dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing applicable under LEP 2014 Clause 4.1E, as described above.

 

4.       Extent of Variation to the Development Standard

The extent of the variation under Clause 4.1E would result in a variation of 4.9% from the development standard to permit dual occupancies (attached) in the R2 Low density residential zone.

 

5.       Objective of the Development Standard

The objectives of the development standard, as outlined in subclause 4.1E(1):

 

(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. [Extracted as follows:]…

 

Column 1

Column 2

Column 3

Dual occupancy (detached)

Zone R2 Low Density Residential, Zone R3 Medium Density Residential

800 square metres

 

6.       Objectives of the Zone

The objectives of the land use zone (R2 Low density residential) have been addressed in this section of this report above.

 

The proposal will provide additional housing stock for the area.  Dual occupancy development is generally not antipathetic to the zone objectives.  However, the proposal is inconsistent with clauses 4.1, 4.1E and 6.6 in Byron LEP 2014 and various development controls in Byron DCP 2014 and is therefore not supported.  

 

7.       Assessment – the specific questions to be addressed:

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

NO

 

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

NO

 

(f)      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?

NO

 

The proposed development is not considered to meet the assessment questions. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient justification to vary this development standard (Clause 4.1).  For the reasons outlined in this report the response is NO to all questions in subclauses 4.6 (3) (a), (b) and 4.6(4) (a) (ii).

 

Clause 6.6           Essential Services

 

Clause 6.6 of Byron LEP 2014 states that:

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

 

(a)  the supply of water,

(b)  the supply of electricity,

(c)  the disposal and management of sewage,

(d)  stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,

(e)  suitable vehicular access.

 

The driveway width for the rear dwelling does not meet obstruction clearance requirements in accordance with Australian Standards AS2890.1. Development consent must not be granted to a development unless suitable vehicular access has been provided.

 

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

Draft SEPP (Coastal Management) 2016

The draft SEPP proposes to replace SEPP 14 (Coastal Wetlands), SEPP 26 (Littoral Rainforest) and SEPP 71(Coastal Protection).  It will redefine the current ‘Coastal Zone’, to be within four coastal management areas:

·    coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests area

·    coastal environment area;

·    coastal use area; and

·    coastal vulnerability area.

 

The subject site will be mapped within the coastal use area. The proposed development is not in a wetland, littoral rainforest, coastal environment area or coastal vulnerability area.  The proposed amendments to the consent do not raise any specific issues that apply to the coastal use area provisions under the draft SEPP.

 

4.4     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

X

Part B Chapters:

XB2 | XB3 | XB4 | XB6 | XB7 | XB8 | XB9| XB14

Part C Chapters:

n/a

Part D Chapters

 X D1

Part E Chapters

n/a

 

These checked Parts/Chapters have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP&A Act. The proposed development complies with all sections of these Parts/Chapters, except in relation to certain prescriptive measures which are considered further (having regard to the DCP 2014 Section A1 Dual Path Assessment) as follows:

 

What Section and prescriptive measure does the development not comply with?

Does the proposed development comply with the Objectives of this Section? Address.

Does the proposed development comply with the Performance Criteria of this Section? Address.

Part B4.2.2

Parking Layout Standards

 

No

No - stacked  parking between both dwellings – fails to demonstrate it will not adversely affect the use of private open space.

Part B4.2.3

Vehicle Access and Manoeuvring

 

No

No - suitable vehicular access has not been provided - overhanging eaves into the driveway.

Part B9.5.1  Landscaping - Dual Occupancies & Semi Detached Dwellings

 

No

No - landscape principles and minimum landscaped area to provide a pleasant environment for enjoyment of occupants of each dwelling –  lack of deep soil planting in rear yard for use by existing property.

Part D.1.2.1

Building Height Plane

Yes.  It is considered that the proposed development would:

1. To ensure that residential development is designed to minimise impacts on solar access and privacy on adjoining properties, and on the views from adjacent existing buildings.

 2. To ensure that the occupants of the building or buildings will enjoy the optimum use of winter sunlight and summer shade.

Yes, the proposal reasonably demonstrates that it meets the performance criteria of Section D1.2.1:

 

 

Part D.1.2.5 

Fences

 


No

No -privacy fence of a height suitable to provide visual obstruction on a front boundary cannot be supported

Part D1.5.2

Dual Occupancy and Semi-Detached Dwellings

Character

 

 

No

No. Character principles – does not provide adequate private open space – conflicts with proposed privacy fence, driveway width and interface with vehicles – refer to Landscape Plan, Drawing 8, and Revision A, dated 19/09/2017. Trim Doc# E2018/6666

Part D1.5.4

Dual Occupancy and Semi-Detached Dwellings

Private Open Space

 

No

No. Objectives for private open space are not met.

 

The proposed development fails to meet the relevant Objectives of DCP 2014.

 

 

4.5       Any Planning Agreement or Draft Planning Agreement?

 

 

Yes

No

Is there any applicable planning agreement or draft planning agreement?

Consideration: Not applicable

 

 

4.6       Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 Considerations

 

Clause

This control is applicable to the proposal:

I have considered this control as it relates to the proposal:

If this control is applicable, does the proposal comply?

92

Yes

Yes

Yes

93

No

N/A

N/A

94

No

N/A

N/A

94A

No

N/A

N/A

* Non-compliances and any other significant issues discussed below

 

4.7       Any coastal zone management plan?

 

 

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Not applicable

Is there any applicable coastal zone management plan?

Consideration: 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

The proposed development will result in an undesirable outcome for residents of the existing dwelling, leaving it with little private open space adjoining a narrow driveway. It is recognised that the proposal is unlikely to result in significant impacts on surrounding development, however considering non-compliances with Byron LEP 2014 and Byron DCP 2014, the impacts on the built environment are not considered to be acceptable and the application is recommended for refusal.

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.

 

All relevant Council policies that are applicable to the proposed development have been considered in relation to this assessment.

 

4.9       The suitability of the site for the development

The site is constrained by a small lot size and a centrally located existing dwelling. The resulting design does not address the constraints of the site and is attempting to fit a three bedroom dwelling into a small backyard of approximately 310m² in area (excluding the driveway access handle).

 

In accordance with Byron LEP 2014 Section 6.6 development consent must not be granted to a development unless suitable vehicular access has been provided. Suitable vehicular access for has not been provided with insufficient clearance from adjacent boundaries; necessitating stacked vehicles that are unable to enter and leave in a forward direction without both cars performing complex manoeuvres. 

 

The driveway width for the rear dwelling does not meet AS2890.1 requirements. Where there is an obstruction more than 150mm high adjacent to the driveway, 300mm clearance must be provided in accordance with AS2890.1. When a car is stacked in the front dwelling access to the rear dwelling is considered tight and undesirable. This additional concern does not provide sufficient merit to warrant variants on the above concerns.

 

The proposal is not compliant with Byron LEP 2014 and DCP 2014. Due to the above constraints, it is not feasible to site a three bedroom single storey dual occupancy (detached) of the proposed scale on the subject allotment, although smaller dwelling types that do not require car parking may be possible. The site is therefore not considered suitable for the proposed development.

 

4.10     Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

The application was notified for a period of 14 days from 30/11/17 to 13/12/17. One public submission was received in the form of a letter of objection. A number of issues were raised as follows:

 

Issue

Assessing Officer Comment

consent must not be granted for detached dual occupancies on R2 zoned land unless the lot has an area of greater than 800m2;

Objection is well founded. Refer to Section 4.2 above.

minimum lot size 600m2. The asked for 378m2 and 382m2 lot are grossly below the 600m2 limit, in fact they are barely over HALF the required size;

Objection is well founded. Refer to Section 4.2 above.

unsuitable provision of parking;

Objection is well founded. The site does not provide for suitable parking access that meets requirements for essential services.

breach of the building height plane and non-compliance with council’s other development controls;

There is a minor breach of the building height plane. This and other non- compliance with Byron Development Control Plan is assessed in Section 4.4 above.

overdevelopment of the site;

Objection is well founded in relation the constraints of the site, which has limited room to accommodate a single storey detached three bedroom dwelling due to the large footprint and central location of the existing house. 

character and streetscape;

Objection is well founded in relation to the layout and fails to meet character principles – does not provide adequate private open space – conflicts with proposed privacy fence, driveway width and interface with vehicles on site

impacts on amenity;

Objection is well founded in relation to the layout and conflicts between access, open space, siting design and character.

tree removal;

Approval for tree removal is not considered to be an impediment to this particular development.

holiday rental concerns;

Objection is conjecture. Potential for holiday rental is not considered to be relevant to the proposed development. Unlawful short term holiday rental would be a compliance matter.

inconsistency with the zone objectives;

Objection is well founded. The land use is consistent but the proposed design and layout is not consistent with the objectives of the R2 Low density zone. Refer to Section

potential for damage to neighbouring properties during construction.

Objection not relevant – construction management matters addressed at construction certificate stage - development not recommended for approved.

 

Most of the resident’s concerns are considered to be well founded.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with Byron LEP 2014 and DCP 2014, and has not demonstrated sufficient justification to vary the minimum lot size standards. 

 

4.11     Public interest

Approving variations to these standards and controls without sufficient justification may set an undesirable precedent and is not in the public interest.

 

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 no high environmental value land is located on the lot.

 

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

 

5.1       Water & Sewer Levies

Section 64 levies would be payable, however this is not relevant as the application is recommended for refusal.

 

5.2       Section 94 Contributions

S94 contributions would be payable should the application have been supported. This is not relevant in the circumstances as the application is recommended for refusal.

 

6.         DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL DONATIONS AND GIFTS

 

Has a Disclosure Statement been received in relation to this application

No

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

No

 

Provide Disclosure Statement register details here: Not applicable

 

 

7.         CONCLUSION

The proposed development not consistent with Clause 4.1; 4.1E; 4.6; and 6.6 of  Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 and Parts B4.2.2;  B4.2.3 ; B9.5; D.1.2.5; D1.5.4; and D1.5.2 of Byron Development Control Plan 2014, and the site is not suitable for the proposed development or in the public interest. Accordingly, the proposed development is recommended for refusal.

 

8.         RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, development application no. 10.2017.639.1 for construction of a new dwelling house to create a dual occupancy (detached), alterations and additions to existing dwelling house and two (2) lot strata subdivision of land, be refused for the following reasons:

 

REASONS FOR REFUSAL

j)        Pursuant to Section 79C (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with clause 4.1E of Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014, which sets an 800m2 minimum lot size for dual occupancies (detached) in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone.

 

k)      Pursuant to Section 79C (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with clause 4.1of Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014, which sets a 600m2 minimum lot size for new lots.

 

l)        Pursuant to Section 79C (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the written request accompanying the proposed development fails to comply with clause 4.6 of Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014. Insufficient justification has been provided to demonstrate that compliance with development standards is unreasonable or unnecessary or that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard’ or that proposed development is in the public interest.

 

m)     Pursuant to Section 79C (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with clause 6.6 of Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014, which requires development consent must not be granted to a development unless suitable vehicular access has been provided.  The driveway width for the rear dwelling does not meet obstruction clearance requirements in accordance with Australian Standards AS2890.1.

 

n)      Pursuant to Section 79C (1) (a) (iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with Chapter B9 Landscaping of Byron Development Control Plan 2014. The proposal does not comply with the objectives of Part B9.5 Dual Occupancies and Semi Detached Dwellings. Landscape principles to provide a pleasant environment for enjoyment of occupants of each dwelling – lack of deep soil planting in rear yard for use by existing property.

 

o)      Pursuant to Section 79C (1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with Chapter D1 Residential Accommodation in Urban, Village and Special Purpose Zones of Byron Development Control Plan 2014. Private open space for the existing dwelling comprises a minimal sized fenced area (34 m²) bound by a driveway on two sides. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate how the proposed development can meet the objectives of Part D1.5.4 Private Open Space, privacy fence on a front boundary cannot be supported under Part D.1.2.5; and Part D1.5.2 DCP Character principles – does not provide adequate private open space – conflicts with proposed rear privacy fence, driveway width and interface with vehicles.

 

p)      Pursuant to Section 79C (1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development does not comply with Chapter B4 Traffic Planning, Vehicle Parking, Circulation and Access of Byron Development Control Plan 2014 in relation to the provision of stacked car parking for both dwellings.  Fails to demonstrate it will not adversely affect the use of private open space and width of driveway not meeting obstruction clearance requirements in accordance with Australian Standards AS2890.1.

 

q)      Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C (1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the site is not considered suitable for the development as proposed, as there is insufficient area to accommodate the proposed three bedroom dwelling and associated vehicle access, resulting in an overdevelopment of the site.

 

r)       Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C (1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, approval of a development which contravenes Council’s adopted development standards and development controls without sufficient justification may set an undesirable precedent and is not in the public interest. Options for an alternative design may exist to achieve better outcomes in relation to private open space, landscaping, fencing vehicle access, and car parking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                 13.16

 

 

Report No. 13.16         PLANNING - 24.2018.6.1 - Car Share Policy and Draft Amendments to Byron Development Control Plan 2014 Chapter B4: Traffic Planning, Vehicle Parking, Circulation and Access.

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Rob Van Iersel, Major Projects Planner

File No:                        I2018/36

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Planning Policy and Natural Environment

 

 

 

Summary:

The Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan (Masterplan) identifies strategic priorities based on the principle of a pedestrian prioritised centre that supports and integrates alternate modes of transport.

 

The Masterplan is the start of a 20 year implementation strategy that identifies the need for a review of planning controls in the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and the Development Control Plan (DCP) and the preparation of an Access and Movement Strategy that focuses on attracting people into the centre and encouraging car parking and traffic circulation to be located on the periphery– ‘People In - Cars Out’.

 

There are a number of factors that have contributed to traffic congestion in the Town Centre, and there are a range of initiatives being undertaken to change the situation. 

 

As part of this, draft DCP controls are being prepared that aim to reduce the number of ancillary car parking spaces associated with residential/ tourist development within the business zone in Byron Bay.  This will be achieved by providing an optional maximum number of car parking spaces for residential development, serviced apartments, hotels or motels, but only where they are a component of a mixed use development that has commercial or community activities on the ground floor. 

 

Parking spaces will still need to be provided for the commercial components of such development in accordance with the minimum requirements outlined in Chapter 4 of the DCP.

 

Reducing parking spaces within the town centre is one of a number of measures being planned to change the Town Centre from a car focused area to a people focused area.  Other measures include the bypass, the provision of additional parking at the periphery of the centre, park and ride initiatives, and improved cycling and pedestrian networks and infrastructure.  Car share also has a strong potential to play a role in reducing car numbers in the centre.

 

In addition to reducing the number of cars that need to enter the town centre, minimising the requirement for on-site car parking spaces can facilitate redevelopment within the centre of smaller, better buildings, by reducing the need to provide large areas within (or under) sites for car parking.

 

Under the current DCP car parking provisions, and given the size and pattern of existing properties in the town centre, the development of a mixed use building, with commercial uses at ground level and residential above, will generally require the amalgamation of sites, simply to provide the space to construct a car park. 

 

The physical space needed to provide a car park invariably results in buildings that are significantly larger in scale. 

 

Over time, such redevelopment will change the existing character of Byron, through the loss of the smaller local-scale buildings. 

 

Reducing or eliminating the need to provide basement or larger at-ground car parking will enable the redevelopment of sites at smaller scales.  Combined with amendments of planning controls that facilitate design excellence and street activation, this will facilitate a greater diversity of design and better buildings in town.

 

The amendments to the car parking requirements outlined in this report are a first step in that process.

 

Where a mixed use development proposal seeks to ‘opt out’ of providing the specified maximum number of parking spaces for the residential / tourist components, applicants will need to provide a Sustainable Travel Plan, addressing how alternative, feasible and practical transport options will be available for residents.

 

The provision of car share parking spaces is encouraged as a key component of a Sustainable Travel Plan, and is identified in the draft DCP parking controls as an alternative to on site car parking.  Increased bicycle storage, motorcycle and scooter parking and electric vehicle charging facilities would also contribute.

 

There is demand for car share options and the uptake of this and other share economy modes of transport is expected to increase over the next 10 years.  Car share is a real alternative to private car ownership that can be delivered to Byron Bay Town Centre now.

 

A draft Car Share Policy has been prepared for discussion purposes, to assist in providing a framework for the delivery of viable car share options, and to support the proposed DCP amendments to Chapter B4: Traffic Planning, Vehicle Parking, Circulation and Access.

 

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

 

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

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1.       Endorse the principles of the report to develop a pilot project for car share;

2.       Request staff to exhibit the draft Policy and the suggested DCP 2014 amendments together for a period of 28 days;

3.       Note that, if no submissions are received, the amendments are to be adopted as at the date of the close of exhibition and notified accordingly;

4.       Support progression of an expression of interest from car share companies for a pilot project in Byron and Mullumbimby, and that a further workshop and report to Council to occur following the EOI process.

 

Attachments:

 

1        Draft Amendments to Byron DCP Chapter B4- Byron Bay Town Centre Maximum Parking Rates, E2018/8685  

2        Research Paper Car Sharing in the Byron Shire, E2018/9939  

3        Draft Car Share Policy - Council meeting 22 Feb 2018, E2018/8681  

Report

 

Draft DCP Amendment:

The suggested amendment to Chapter 4 of the DCP will relate only to the Byron Bay Town Centre, being the land currently zone for business purposes. 

 

The primary intention is to reduce the number of parking spaces required for the residential and/ or hotel/ motel/ serviced apartment components of mixed use developments in the Town Centre, by specifying a maximum rather than minimum number of car parking spaces.

 

Parking requirements for the commercial/ business components would not change.

 

Reducing parking spaces within the town centre, and providing alternatives such as enhanced parking on the periphery of town and initiating car sharing options, will provide two key benefits:

1.    Reducing the number of cars that need to enter the town centre; and

2.    Unlocking the ability for developers to design smaller footprint, better buildings within the Town Centre, by reducing the need to provide larger areas within (or under) sites for car parking.

 

Under the current DCP car parking provisions, and given the size and pattern of existing properties in the town centre, the development of a mixed use building, with commercial uses at ground level and residential above, will generally require the amalgamation of sites, simply to provide the space to construct a car park.  For most developments, the space requirements also mean that the car parking can only be achieved at basement level.

 

In addition to significantly increasing the cost of development, associated with the purchase of multiple properties and basement excavation, the physical space needed to provide a car park invariably results in buildings that are significantly larger in scale. 

 

Over time, such redevelopment will change the existing character of Byron, through the loss of the smaller local-scale buildings.  This will also continue and exacerbate the current scenario where it is very difficult for smaller local businesses to establish in the town centre.

 

Reducing or eliminating the need to provide basement or larger at-ground car parking can enable the redevelopment of sites at smaller scales.  Combined with amendments to planning controls that facilitate design excellence and street activation, this will facilitate a greater diversity of design and better, more affordable, buildings in town.

 

The suggested amendment to Chapter 4 of the DCP specifies the following maximum car parking rates residential and tourist components of mixed use developments:

·     For Residential Accommodation components of any mixed use development, parking provision is optional up to the following maximum rate:

1 space per unit, plus

1 visitor space per 5 dwellings

·     For Hotel and Motel Accommodation or Serviced apartments components of mixed use development, parking provision is optional up to the following maximum rate:

1 space per unit, plus

1 space for on-site manager

 

Where an application for a mixed use development proposes to provide less than the specified number of parking spaces for the residential or tourist components, the draft DCP will require:

·     the preparation of a Sustainable Transport Plan;

·     the provision of secure undercover bicycle parking and ‘end of trip’ facilities;

·     motorcycle and scooter parking; and

·     participation in a locally provided car share scheme.

 

Sustainable Travel Plan

The intention of this is to encourage new development to manage the transport and parking needs of future residents/ occupants through options that maximise walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing.

 

The Plan should be developed in consideration of the realistic transport options available in Byron Bay Town Centre, the nature and future use of the development proposed, and the availability of alternative options such as car sharing, car pooling and the like.

 

The suggested wording for the draft DCP amendment is outlined in Attachment 1.

 

Car Share:

Councils in Australia and overseas have taken steps to encourage and support this emerging alternative to private vehicle ownership with interesting results in relation to the effects it has on travel patterns and behaviour. 

 

A research paper regarding car share is contained in Attachment 2.

 

The key findings of the research paper are:

·    For every car share used, around 10-12 cars are taken off the road. 

·    Both traditional car sharing and peer-to-peer car sharing services are growing in patronage in Australia, particularly within cities and metropolitan areas. 

·    In Europe and the USA, the car share industry is large and expanding with point-to-point services.  Helsinki, for example, is claiming it will transform its existing public transport network into a comprehensive, point-to-point “mobility on demand” system by 2025 – one that, in theory, would be so good that nobody would have any reason to own a car[1].

·    Autonomous vehicles will be arriving in Australia soon and there is an array of research and forecasting looking at how autonomy and the share economy will converge to provide driverless vehicles ‘on demand’ in the future.

·    Car sharing can be more cost effective than ownership of a car.  This is particularly true if you live in a city and if you drive less than 5,000km per year.

·    A majority of LGAs in central Melbourne and Sydney now have car share schemes and many are underpinned by sustainable transport strategies and Car Share Policies.  Car Sharing is expanding in Brisbane, Adelaide and possibly other cities soon.  GoGet was aiming to move into Newcastle by the end of 2017. 

·    In these cities, changes to strategic planning are shaping new ways of thinking about the necessity for a private car and car parking located within new development; particularly where residents, workers and tenants have good access to housing in mixed use buildings that are close to shops and services. 

·    The option to share vehicles for occasional essential trips over longer distances is an attractive alternative to owning and maintaining a private car.

 

Byron Shire Council has already invested in a number of sustainable transport initiatives over the last decade that meet similar objectives to those of car sharing. 

 

A pilot project would enable Council to build on its ongoing investment in alternative sustainable transit options.  It would be one of the first regional LGAs to implement a car sharing trial with a commercial provider – demonstrating leadership.

 

There is also an opportunity for Council to consider how it uses its own car pool, which could be used more efficiently, and to align with the existing Northern Rivers Car Pool; and to maximise the use and benefit of the Council owned Electric Vehicle and charging station.

 

A pilot would enable Council to explore new approaches to car sharing (with the providers) to explore what works and what doesn’t work in a regional area and why.  This will provide valuable research and inspire new ways of thinking about Byron Shire’s current dependence on car ownership.

 

There are a number of options (and combination of options) in terms of next steps:

 

1)   Create a policy that enables Byron Shire to take up commercial car sharing schemes if and when viable.  This could include various models of car sharing to suit the needs of our resident and visitor population in response to demand.

 

2)   Conduct a procurement process to run a pilot for a trial period of 1-2 years with a traditional car share company (where a company owns and supplies a car or a fleet of cars to be shared by its users/members).  The purpose of the trial will be to determine the real need and value of car sharing to the community and to assess the financial viability of commercial car sharing in a regional area with a small residential population (but large tourism footprint).

 

3)   Conduct a pilot for a trial period of 1-2 years involving a combination of various models of car sharing, if deemed feasible, such as traditional, peer-to-peer and social enterprise/not for profit.  Develop criteria to measure the success or otherwise of the pilot to establish what works and what doesn’t.

 

4)   Explore what is possible and viable during a pilot period for Council to become an ‘anchor tenant’ for car sharing.  The objective would be for council staff to lead by example by utilising a car sharing scheme either with its existing fleet and/or commercially managed vehicles to replace a percentage of Council’s own pool cars.  This would enable staff to opt-in to use car share vehicles to occasionally get to and from work or use a car share vehicle while at work.  It could even give staff access to underutilised vehicles at the weekend such as a ute for short trips.

 

5)   Council to consider engaging other potential partner ‘anchor tenants’ during the trial/pilot including major hotels and other major employment providers to widen the shire/region’s exposure to car sharing as a concept.

 

6)   Any pilot should be cognisant of the existing Northern Rivers Carpool scheme to compliment or extend its functionality.

 

As outlined in the draft Policy contained as Attachment 3, Council’s involvement with a pilot project could involve dedication of specified on-street or off-street car parking spaces.

 

It is suggested that Council invite Expressions of Interest from established car share firms to indicate how they would intend to establish the service in Byron Bay Town Centre.  The Expressions would also outline Council’s role in any such scheme.

 

 

 

Financial Implications

 

The financial implications will depend on the nature and scale of any pilot program, and the extent of Council’s involvement in same.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

This report recommends that Byron DCP 2014 be amended to require a maximum number of car parking spaces for specified development in the Byron Bay Town Centre, rather than the current requirement for a minimum number of spaces (for that development).

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                 13.17

 

 

Report No. 13.17         PLANNING - 26.2017.3.1 - Update on Planning Proposal for rezoning of land at Saddle and Gulgan Roads between Mullumbimby and Brunswick Heads

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Natalie Hancock, Senior Planner

File No:                        I2018/46

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Planning Policy and Natural Environment

 

 

 

Summary:

Council at its 22 June 2017 meeting considered a report on Byron Affordable Housing Summit Issues Action Plan and resolved (17-260), where appropriate, to invite the lodgement of a Planning Proposal for the purpose of affordable housing.

 

A Planning Proposal was lodged by Planners North and Balanced Advice on behalf of certain land owners of Saddle Road and Gulgan Road in Mullumbimby and Brunswick Heads.

 

The proposal is for a significant and large new urban growth area for Byron Shire. The proponent estimates the Planning Proposal would supply approximately 495 rural residential and residential dwellings to the market, if developed.

 

A significant number of landowners included in the Planning Proposal have objected to their inclusion in the Planning Proposal. Further, questions have been raised about the ‘affordable housing’ component of the proposal and mechanism for delivery, which was the pretext for it being submitted to Council.

 

Staff have reviewed the Planning Proposal (Attachment 1 to this Report) and met with the proponents, Planners North and Balanced Advice, to discuss the Planning Proposal.

 

Staff also consulted with the Aboriginal heritage stakeholders and the landowners in The Saddle Road precinct.

 

There are a number of matters that need further consideration to enable an informed and final decision by staff on the Planning Proposal, including cultural heritage, farmland protection, and infrastructure and precinct design.

 

A rezoning review may be requested by a proponent if Council has not supported or made a decision within 90 days of receipt of a planning proposal. The discussions with the proponent addressed this matter and they have confirmed in writing that they have no intention to trigger any “Pre Gateway Review” in relation to the processing of the Saddle Road Planning Proposal (Attachment 2).

 

The proponents also advised that they have commenced the cultural heritage work.

 

This report details the current assessment status, key matters yet to be considered and a logical process for their consideration.  As such it is recommended that Council note the report and that the planning proposal will be tabled for Council’s consideration once further information is provided is available.

 

Notwithstanding the staff recommendation, there are other options available for Council as well and these are discussed in the conclusion to the report.

 

 

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 and that the Planning Proposal (26.2017.3.1) will be reported to Council for consideration once further information is available.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Planning Proposal from Planners North & Balanced Advice, E2017/92604  

2        Letter from Planners North Re: Cultural Heritage Excavations and Planning Proposal Review, E2018/6782  

3        Confidential - Land owners early submissions on the Saddle Road Planning Proposal received Sept 2017 - Jan 2018, E2018/10699  

4        Confidential - Land owners early submission on Saddle Road Planning Proposal received at 7 February 2018 Land owner meeting, E2018/10704  

5        Appendix A of North Coast 2036 Regional Plan 2017, E2018/6648  

6        Special Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest Form, E2012/2815  

 

 


 

Report

 

The Planning Proposal

This Planning Proposal relates to land located at Saddle Road and Gulgan Road, inclusive of Bashforths Lane and Mangrove Lane, between Mullumbimby and Brunswick Heads.  The land, described by the applicant as the subject land or study precinct, is approximately 315 hectares and covers 37 lots of varying sizes plus road reserves (Figure 1).

 

The Planning Proposal proposes to rezone approximately 126 hectares of the existing RU1 Primary Production, RU2 Rural Landscape and Deferred Matter zones to R2 Low Density Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential, R5 Large Lot Residential, RU5 Village and SP1 Special Activities.  All proposed zones are preliminary at this stage.

 

The balance of the subject land (189 hectares) would either remain in its current zones or be zoned E3 Environmental Management. 

 

A range of residential lot sizes is proposed across the subject land. 

 

 

 

Figure 1:  Subject land

 

Background and Assessment Process to date

 

Council resolved at the Ordinary Meeting of 6 October 2016 to convene a Byron Shire Housing Summit prior to the adoption of the Byron Shire Residential Strategy.  The summit was held on 10 February 2017, and over 100 people attended.  The report on the housing summit presented to Council on 22 June 2017 noted that:

 “In response to the issue of ‘land availability’, at the Councillor workshop held 11 May 2016, support was expressed for the identification of and progression of potential pilot sites ahead of the Residential Land Strategy to rezone land that could be used to achieve affordable/diverse housing outcomes for the Shire.”

 

At this meeting Council resolved (Res 17-260, relevant part) to:

 

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.

 

The extent of the ‘subject land’ in the Planning Proposal is larger than site 17 as referred to in the resolution and as shown on Figure 2. Table 1 summarises that process to date in response to actioning Item 2 of Resolution 17-260.

 

 

 

 

Planning Proposal Subject Land

 

 

 

 

 

Site 17 as identified in the Preliminary Draft Residential Strategy

 

Figure 2: Comparison of Site 17 to extent of planning proposal

 

Table 1: Process to date in response to Res 17-260 Item 2

Date

 

Process to date

 

22 June 2017

 

Council at its Ordinary Meeting considered a report on affordable housing options and resolved in part to support further discussions with landowners in Site 17 (The Saddle Road precinct) in the draft Residential Strategy to establish feasibility of the Area for affordable housing and where appropriate invite a proposal to rezone land for this purpose.

 

30 August 2017

 

A meeting was held with landowners in The Saddle Road precinct to:

·    advise of the Res 17-260

·    provide an update on the draft Residential Strategy site suitability mapping in relation to The Saddle Road precinct

·   explain key planning considerations for any future residential development in this precinct , including infrastructure servicing

·   gain a better understanding of landowner views about future residential opportunities in this precinct, including affordable housing opportunities

Cultural heritage was raised by attendees as a key issue for The Saddle Road precinct.

 

15 Sept 2017

 

Subject Planning Proposal lodged with Council. The proponent has indicated that this Planning Proposal was lodged in response to the invitation extended under Res 17-260.

 

October 2017

 

Council notified by the proponent of a proposed Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of The Saddle Road area.

 

Council staff consulted with the Tweed Byron Local Aboriginal Land Council (TBLALC) and the Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal) on their requirements regarding assessment consultation.

 

November 2017

 

Council staff conveyed to the proponent’s cultural heritage consultants the need for a comprehensive Cultural Heritage Assessment of The Saddle Road area.

 

Sept – Dec 2017

 

Number of The Saddle Road precinct landowners advised Council of their objection to being included in the Planning Proposal. (Attachment 3.)

 

23 November 2017

 

Council at the Ordinary Meeting resolved (Res 17-601, relevant part) to:

 

3.  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 in December.

 

Dec 2017

 

It was originally intended to have a report assessing this Planning Proposal included in the agenda for the 14 December 2017 Ordinary Meeting as per the Res 17-601. However, Council’s Executive Team, formed the view that it would be appropriate to allow a further period of consultation between planning staff and the proponents and the objectors before the report was put before Council. Such consultation would make the ultimate staff report more robust and would serve to more fully advise Councillors and put them in a position to make a fully informed decision.

 

Jan 2018

 

Meeting held with the proponent to discuss the status of the Planning Proposal. Proponent provided a letter subsequent to this meeting advising that they ‘have no intention to trigger any “Pre Gateway Review” in relation to the processing of the Saddle Road Planning Proposal(correspondence contained in Attachment 2).

 

1 Feb2018

 

Council at the Ordinary Meeting resolved (Res 18-038) to:

1.   That in relation to the Saddle Road EOI sites a further report be presented to Council on their potential for affordable housing against the Council endorsed assessment criteria and methodology and any current Council resolutions pertaining to the land.

 

2.   That a report on the status of the Saddle Road Planning Proposal be completed and considered by Council at the 22 February 2018 Council meeting.

 

 7 Feb 2018

 

Meeting (arranged by Council staff) held with the landowners and the proponent to discuss the status of the Planning Proposal and EOI process.

Landowners reiterate the issues raised at the August landowner meeting including:

·    cultural heritage

·    regionally significant farmland

·    infrastructure and services

·    practicality of the location for affordable housing

·    impacts on landscape amenity and consistency with existing Council policy around protection of rural landscapes.

The following Councillors were also in attendance: Mayor Simon Richardson; Councillors: Michael Lyon, Jan Hackett, Basil Cameron, Cate Coorey and Janette Martin.

 

Since this meeting further landowner objections have been received. (Attachment 4.)

 

Feb 2018   

 

 

Response from Roads and Maritime Services in regard to Council’s preparation of local growth management strategies, advising that the development of a Saddle Road as a Residential Precinct (potential 400 homes) is likely to have an impact on the Gulgan Road, Brunswick Heads - Pacific Highway interchange as out of town development will be reliant on employment and services in Mullumbimby, Brunswick and Byron Bay. Roads and Maritime recommends that any investigation be informed by a Traffic Impact Assessment to determine origin and destination, increase in peak demand at interchanges and any infrastructure requirements to be included in relevant contributions plans.

 

20 Feb 2018

 

Meeting with Department of Primary Industries to discuss a number of projects including the draft Residential Strategy - Saddle Road Precinct and the implications of the regionally significant farmland designation.

 

 

 

Initial Assessment of Planning Proposal and Key Issues

 

Staff have undertaken an initial assessment of the Planning Proposal and identified a number of key issues in need of further consideration. The North Coast Regional Plan 2036 (NCRP) Action 1.1 (page 17) requires councils to “Focus future urban development to mapped urban growth areas.” The subject land is not within a designated ‘urban growth area’ under any local growth management strategies. However it was partially indicated as one of the possible areas for residential in the Preliminary Draft Residential Strategy exhibited in August 2016. The NCRP incorporates capacity for the consideration of a variation if land is outside a designated urban growth area boundary and sets variation principles.

Below is a summary of the key issues in relation to proceeding with this Planning Proposal prior to the adoption of a Residential Strategy based on the Urban Growth Area Variation Principles contained in Appendix A of the NCRP (Attachment 5).

Cultural Heritage

Any development culminating out of a rezoning must protect and manage Aboriginal cultural heritage. As part of its engagement commitments, Council has met with the Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal) and the Tweed Byron Local Aboriginal Land Council (TBLALC) about this Planning Proposal. The consultation confirmed that The Saddle Road area is of interest to both the Arakwal and TBLALC and that it is appropriate for their involvement in the Cultural Heritage Assessment.

 

The proponent is currently undertaking a Cultural Heritage Assessment. It is Council staff’s understanding that this assessment will involve engagement with the Arakwal and TBLAC in order to fully appreciate any potential cultural heritage sites and their broader significance within this locality. Their involvement is considered critical to the credibility of this assessment, as well as ensuring the Planning Proposal satisfies the requirements of Section 117 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Direction 2.3 Heritage Conservation.

 

The findings of this assessment are critical to the determination of the appropriateness of this area as a new urban growth area. Until this is known it would be premature to progress with a determination of the Planning Proposal.

 

Farmland Protection

Section 117 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Direction 5.3  Farmland of State and Regional Significance on the NSW Far North Coast – The Northern Rivers Farmland Mapping Project identifies parts of the subject land as significant non-contiguous regional farmland. The NCRP requires that any urban growth boundary variation to be consistent with relevant Section 117 Directions and in proposing land for uses other than farmland it address Important Farmland Interim Variation Criteria NCRP Appendix B. Consultation is required with Department of Primary Industry’s (DPI) to determine the position of compliance with the NCRP Important Farmland Interim Variation Criteria. A meeting has been arranged with DPI officers to discuss this matter on 20 February 2018. Any relevant considerations from this meeting will be provided to Councillors as a Report addendum prior to the 22 February Ordinary Meeting.

 

Infrastructure

The variation needs to consider the use of committed and planned major transport, water

and sewerage infrastructure, and have no cost to government. Infrastructure capacity and sequencing were not considered as part of the preliminary analysis for the Residential Strategy and further investigation is required. The Saddle Road is a satellite location (i.e. out of town) with the Planning Proposal indicating potential for over 495 new dwellings. The new infrastructure likely to be needed to support this site will impact on its affordability and it is not clear how any major upfront infrastructure will be funded given that a major motivation for the development is low cost housing. Further discussions are required with the proponent to determine requirements, service delivery approach and potential cost. The variation principle requires ‘adequate and cost effect infrastructure be provided to match the expected population.’

 

Regulatory Framework and Addressing Council Resolution for Affordable Housing

 

Council’s resolution to proceed ahead of the Residential Strategy is grounded on the basis that early implementation would provide affordable housing. The subject land is away from existing community facilities and social structure and therefore it’s not an obvious affordable housing site. The NCRP Direction 25 supports the delivery of more opportunities for affordable housing and suggests the use of Precinct Plan to assist in its delivery.

 

Further discussions are required with the proponent around effective means for delivering affordable housing, infrastructure and addressing the other land issues that require additional information from the proponent including resolution of environmental zones; land use conflict risk assessment; land contamination extent and remediation options; use of flood affected land; public transport and site connectivity; and accurate bushfire hazard information. A number of regulatory approaches are available for use in such situations including a Voluntary Planning Agreement, Chapter in Development Control Plan or Precinct Plan under the NCRP. All these options allow for design considerations and could also bring together the concerns of different interest groups within the community.

 

Any option considered for this site must be done in line with Council’s Supporting Partnership Policy.

 

Conclusion

After an initial assessment of the Planning Proposal (Attachment 1 to this Report), consulting with proponents Planners North and Balanced Advice, the Aboriginal heritage stakeholders and the landowners in The Saddle Road precinct, it is considered that the assessment process is dependant on the outcomes of investigations into a number of key issues, being:

 

1. Cultural Heritage Assessment (most critical)

 2. Regionally significant farmland

3: Infrastructure

4: Affordable Housing Delivery Agreement

5. Appropriate regulatory framework

 

A report back to Council to enable a determination on the Planning Proposal is proposed to be provided by staff once the key issues above, and any other issues that arise as a consequence of the more detailed assessment have been appropriately investigated. 

 

However, in the meantime other options available to Council include:

 

1.   Not proceed at all with the Planning Proposal as submitted.

 

2.   Not proceed further with the Planning Proposal until the Residential Strategy is adopted by Council.

 

3.   Request an amended Planning Proposal that accords only with the ‘Site 17’ area and that this is subject to the more detailed assessment being proposed.

 

4.   Request that an expression of interest for the Brunswick Eco Village proposal be submitted and progressed as part of the category 1 Saddle Road EOI’s already submitted, independent of the planning proposal submitted.

 

5.   Combination of the above.

 

Financial Implications

 

If Council chooses to proceed with the Planning Proposal, it is able to fully recover the processing costs for an applicant-initiated LEP amendment.  Council has already received an amount from the applicant to cover initial costs associated with preparing this Council report and an assessment report.  If the Planning Proposal is to proceed through the Gateway determination process then full cost recovery of the remaining stages will be required by Council.  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 in this report.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                 13.18

 

 

Report No. 13.18         Cities Power Partnership (CPP) Pledge

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Ronnie  Lawton, Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Officer

File No:                        I2018/54

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Planning Policy and Natural Environment

 

 

Summary:

 

The Cities Power Partnership (CPP) is a free national program that exists to celebrate and accelerate the emission reduction and clean energy successes of Australian towns and cities. In July 2017, Byron Shire Council joined the CPP program. As part of this program Council must pledge to take five key actions, which will be promoted via CPP social media, and monitored and reported by Council to CPP on a biannual basis.

 

This report provides the five pledge items selected and endorsed by Council’s Executive Team for Councils consideration.

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council submit the five pledge items in Table 1, column 2 of this report as the Council’s commitment to the Cities Power Partnership.

 

 

 

 

 


 

Report

 

The CPP program provides participating councils a range of actions from which to select 5 pledge items. These actions are based on pledge items within 4 Key Areas:

1.   Renewable Energy,

2.   Energy Efficiency,

3.   Sustainable Transport, and

4.   Work Together and Influence.

 

There is no end date to achieve the pledge items. Council should strive to deliver outcomes against the selected pledges. The importance is that Council has investigated the items pledged and taken action where feasible. This will inform Council’s biannual report to CPP.

 

Table 1 below details the five pledge items selected and endorsed by Council’s Executive Team. Only the Pledge Item description (2nd column of Table 1) is required to be submitted to CPP.

 

Table 1: Five Pledge items

Key Area

Pledge Item

Proposed Project

1.  Renewable Energy

(a)  Install renewable energy (solar PV and battery storage) on council buildings, for example childcare facilities, libraries, street lighting, recreation centres, sporting grounds, and council offices.

Ongoing installs of Solar PV.

(b)  Power council operations by renewables, directly (with solar PV or wind), or by purchasing Greenpower (from electricity retailers). Set targets to increase the level of renewable power for council operations over time.

2027 100% Renewable Energy Target.

2.  Energy Efficiency

(a)  Create a revolving green energy fund to finance energy efficiency projects and receive $ savings.

Maintain revolving green energy fund.

3.  Sustainable Transport

(a)  Provide fast-charging infrastructure throughout the city at key locations for electric vehicles (EVs).

Maintain fast-charge station at Byron Bay Library. Promote the EV strategy encouraging further EV infrastructure.

4.  Work Together & Influence

(a)  Support local community energy groups with their community energy initiatives.

Ongoing. E.g. Enova’s Repower Byron project

 

 

Financial Implications

 

Depending on the project, clean energy or emissions reduction initiatives have potential to cost Council or save Council. As such, each project will need to be assessed on a case by case basis.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Nil

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                 13.19

 

 

Report No. 13.19         PLANNING - Development Application 10.2017.402.1 - Subdivision to create eighteen (18) residential allotments, a public reserve, a drainage reserve, a residual allotment, associated roads, earthworks, landscaping and infrastructure at 77 Tuckeroo Avenue Mullumbimby

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Paul Mills, Senior Planner

File No:                        I2018/80

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Development and Approvals

 

 

Proposal:

 

DA No:

10.2017.402.1

Proposal description:

Subdivision to create eighteen (18) residential Lots, a public reserve, a drainage reserve, a residual lot and associated roads, earthworks, landscape and infrastructure works (Stage 6 of Tallowood Ridge Estate)

Property description:

LOT: 105 DP: 1232439

77 Tuckeroo Avenue MULLUMBIMBY

Parcel No/s:

268751

Applicant:

Bayview Land Development Pty Ltd

Owner:

Gainsplay Pty Ltd

Zoning:

Part R2 Low Density Residential / Part RU1 Primary Production / Part RU2 Rural Landscape Zone / Part 1(a) General Rural  Zone (LEP 1988)

Date received:

26 July 2017

Integrated Development:

Yes - Bush Fire Safety Authority, Section 100B Rural Fires Act 1997

Public notification or exhibition:

-    Level 2 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications

-    Exhibition period: 17/8/17 to 30/8/17

-    Submissions received: Nil.

Delegation to determination:

Meeting of full Council (Application includes a SEPP No.1 Objection to Clause 11 of Byron LEP 1988 - 11.25% variation to minimum lot size)

 

Issues:

·    Stage Development Consent/Concept Approval for subdivision of the site has been issued (10.2009.314). In accordance with Section 83D(2) of the Act the proposed development must be consistent with staged development consent 10.2009.314 which is in force at the time of writing this report.

·    Flood liable land - Flood Study Submitted

·    Bush Fire Prone Land. S100B received from RFS with conditions

·    Impact of works on riparian rehabilitation corridor

·    Retention of large existing Tallowwood tree

·    The application includes a SEPP No.1 objection to Clause 11(1) regarding the 40 hectare minimum lot size for land within Zone 1(a) General Rural. Concurrence has been granted by the Department of Planning and Environment. Compliance with the development standard is considered unreasonable, unnecessary and not practical in the circumstances of this case and the SEPP No.1 objection to Clause 11(1) of the Byron LEP is supported.

 

 

Summary:

 

Development Consent is sought for the construction of Stage 5 of the Tallowood Ridge Estate which includes:

·    18 lot residential subdivision;

·    public reserve land dedication for riparian plantings and restoration (area 2.48 hectares);

·    stormwater drainage reserve;

·    a residual allotment (area 35.5 hectares);

·    bulk earthworks (cut and fill);

·    dedication of roads, and

·    street landscaping and related civil infrastructure.

 

In response to the public notification process, no submissions were received. The applicant has submitted an Arborist Report considering the impact of the development on vegetation including  an old growth tallowwood tree near the entrance to this residential stage. The applicant has demonstrated that the tree can be retained and maintained within the subdivision. A condition has been included to require tree preservation measures being undertaken in accordance with AS 4970-2009 – Protection of Trees on Development Sites during the construction period. Land is also to be dedicated for riparian plantings and restoration as part of the development. 

 

The proposed development is considered to satisfy the relevant environmental planning instruments and development control plan 2014 , and is consistent with the Staged Development Consent for “Tallowood Ridge Estate”.  The development is recommended for consent subject to conditions.

 

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

 

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

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That  pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, development application 10.2017.402.1 for Subdivision to create eighteen (18) residential allotments, a residual lot, public reserve, drainage reserve and associated roads and infrastructure works (Stage 6 of Tallowood Ridge Estate) be granted consent subject to the recommended conditions listed in Attachment 2.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Proposed Plans prepared by CivilTech , E2018/8405  

2        Conditions of consent, E2018/7060  

 

 


Assessment:

 

1.1.          History/Background

 

The following past applications over the subject site are noted:

 

DA 10.2009.314.1 for a staged development under Sections 83A to 83D of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 was refused by Council on 12 November 2009. The proposed development comprises a subdivision of approximately 240 lots and a range of infrastructure with a detailed development application for Stage 1 comprising 31 lots.

 

Prior to the determination of the Development Application, an appeal was lodged with the NSW Land & Environment Court against the deemed refusal of the proposal. The court issued consent orders granting consent to a staged plan for the subdivision of the site with the first stage comprising 29 residential allotments. The first stage has been constructed and the lots registered.

 

Section 96 Applications for 10.2009.314.1 have been granted over the past seven years the most recent being Section 96 application reference 10.2009.314.10 which was granted approval on 13 June 2016 to alter the open space, staging, roads, bikeways, rehabilitation areas, residential density and relocation of a potential commercial site.

 

Development Application 10.2011.117.1 - Stage 2 Tallowood Ridge Estate was granted consent on 4 April 2012 for urban subdivision comprising 28 residential allotments and associated civil infrastructure and access roads.

 

Development Application 10.2013.549.1 - Stage 3 Tallowood Ridge Estate was granted consent on 6 February 2014 for Subdivision to create thirty-one (31) residential allotments, one (1) residual allotment, roads, a stormwater detention basin, landscaping and related infrastructure works (Stage 3 of Tallowood Ridge Estate).

 

Development Application 10.2015.79.1 - Stage 4A Tallowood Ridge Estate was granted consent on 25 November 2015 for Subdivision to create thirteen (13) residential allotments, public reserves and associated infrastructure works.

 

Development Application 10.2015.686.1 - Stage 5 Tallowood Ridge Estate was granted consent on 25 August 2016 for Subdivision to create twenty-four (24) residential allotments, a public reserve, a residual allotment, associated roads and infrastructure.

 

Development Application 10.2016.161.1 - Stage 4B Tallowood Ridge Estate was granted consent on 31 August 2017 for Subdivision to create fifteen (15) residential lots, dedicate Public Reserve and extend existing Corella Crescent road reserve.

 

 

1.2.          Description of the site

 

Land is legally described as

LOT: 105 DP: 1232439

Property address is

77 Tuckeroo Avenue MULLUMBIMBY

Land is zoned:

Part R2 Low Density Residential / Part RU1 Primary Production / Part RU2 Rural Landscape / Part 1(a) General Rural Zone

Land area is:

44.9 hectares

Property is constrained by:

 

 

Flood Liable Land, Bush fire prone land, High Conservation Value, High Environmental Value Land  

 

 

1.3.          Description of the proposed development

 

This application seeks development consent for Stage 6 of Tallowood Ridge Estate including Subdivision to create Eighteen (18) residential Lots, a residual Lot (area of 35.6 hectares), associated public reserve (riparian corridor), drainage reserve, roads, infrastructure, landscape and riparian revegetation works.

 

Figure 1 – Location of proposed Stage 6 residential lots (outlined in pink)

 

Figure 2 – Diagram of proposed residential lots Stage 6 (red line is extent of bush fire APZ to rear of lots)

1.         SUMMARY OF REFERRALS

 

The application was considered by Council’s Development Engineer, Ecological Planner, ET Engineer, Section 94 Officer and where necessary conditions of consent have been included as recommended by these officers.

 

The application included a SEPP No.1 Objection which was considered by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment and concurrence was granted.

 

The application also sought Integrated Development Approval from the NSW Rural Fire Service which is discussed in Section 2.1 of this report.

 

2.         Integrated Development - Section 100B Rural Fires Act 1997

 

NSW Rural Fire Service

 

This response is to be deemed a bush fire safety authority as required under section 100B of the 'Rural Fires Act 1997' and is issued subject to the following numbered conditions:

 

1.       The development proposal is to comply with the subdivision layout identified on the drawing titled ‘Subdivision Layout Plan’ prepared by CivilTech, numbered 1002-DA62 (Issue A), dated 3 July 2017, except as modified by the following conditions:

 

Asset Protection Zones

The intent of measures is to provide sufficient space and maintain reduced fuel loads so as to ensure radiant heat levels of buildings are below critical limits and to prevent direct flame contact with a building. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

 

2.       At the issue of subdivision certificate and in perpetuity, the entire area of all residential lots shall be managed as an inner protection area (IPA) as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006' and the NSW Rural Fire Service's document 'Standards for asset protection zones'.

 

3.       A restriction to the land use pursuant to section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 shall be placed over Lots 128, 129, 133, 134 and 136 to 145 (inclusive) to prohibit the construction of a dwelling or Class 10 building within 10 metres of a dwelling, in the area identified as APZ (asset protection zone) on the plan titled ‘Subdivision Layout Plan’ prepared by CivilTech, numbered 1002-DA62 (Issue A), dated 3 July 2017.

 

Water and Utilities

The intent of measures is to provide adequate services of water for the protection of buildings during and after the passage of a bush fire, and to locate gas and electricity so as not to contribute to the risk of fire to a building. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

 

4.       Water, electricity and gas are to comply with section 4.1.3 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

 

Access

The intent of measures for public roads is to provide safe operational access to structures and water supply for emergency services, while residents are seeking to evacuate from an area. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

 

5.       Public road access shall comply with section 4.1.3 (1) of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006', except that:

• a perimeter road is not required; and

• the dead end road may be greater than 200 metres.

 

The intent of measures for internal roads is to provide safe operational access for emergency services personnel in suppressing a bush fire, while residents are accessing or egressing an area. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

 

6.       A restriction to the land use pursuant to section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 shall be placed over Lots 128, 133, 134 and 136 to 145 (inclusive) requiring pedestrian access to be maintained to the rear of the lots for fire fighting activities.

 

Landscaping

7.       Landscaping to the site is to comply with the principles of Appendix 5 of 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006'.

 

General Advice – consent authority to note

Asset protection zone distance calculations for certain perimeter lots have been based on site specific modelling of potential bush fire impacts provided by Bushfire Certifiers. Some of these lots may not have a building envelope able to meet the deemed-to-satisfy separation distances for BAL 29 under AS3959-2009. In these circumstances, future proposals for complying development may be affected and any application for development on the land may be required to provided site specific modelling of potential bush fire impacts to demonstrate the ability to comply with ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’.

 

2.2     Section 83D -     Status of staged development applications and consents

 

In accordance with Section 83D(2) of the Act the proposed development must be consistent with staged development consent 10.2009.314 which is in force at the time of writing this report. Section 83D(2) specifies:

 

83D   Status of staged development applications and consents

 

(2)       While any consent granted on the determination of a staged development application for a site remains in force, the determination of any further development application in respect of that site cannot be inconsistent with that consent.

 

Following a review of the approved concept plan details (Council ref 10.2009.314) it is considered that subject to conditions the proposed plans are generally consistent. Condition No.5 of the Stage Development Consent specifies as follows:

 

5)   Phasing of Development

The development must be carried out in 7 separate stages as described on Plan 6.1 – Stages Plan of the ‘Future Concept Proposals’ document, and occur in the following order:

Stage

Works comprised within stages as shown on Plan 6.1 – Stages Plan

1

‘Stage 1’ and ‘Stage 1 Plantings and Restoration’

2

‘Stage 2’ and ‘Stage 2 Plantings and Restoration’

3

‘Stage 3’; ‘Stage 3 Plantings and Restoration except as modified by DA 10.2009.151.3’; Basketball and Tennis Court as approved by DA 10.2009.151.3 and ‘New Bikeway’ as generally shown within Plan 8.1 – Proposed Road and Bikeway Systems of the ‘Future Stages Concept Proposals’ document.

4

‘Stage 4’ ‘Sports Field as approved in DA 10.2009.151.3’; access road and temporary turning area, car parking and extension of road though to Clays Road” and ‘Stage 4 Plantings and Restoration’.

5

‘Stage 5’ and ‘Stage 5 Plantings and Restoration’ and ‘New Bikeway’ along ridgeline to link Stage 3 with Brushbox Drive (as generally shown within Plan 8.1 – Proposed Road and Bikeway Systems of the ‘Future Stages Concept Proposals’ document)

6

‘Stage 6’; ‘Stage 6 Plantings and Restoration’; and ‘Stage 6 Flood-free gravel track to Clays Road’

7

‘Stage 7’ and ‘Stage 7 Plantings and Restoration’

Bike ways shown within Plan 8.1 must be completed as part of the corresponding stage as shown within Plan 6.1 with the exception that a bike way link must be provided to the sports fields as part of Stage 3. The ‘Sports Fields’, bike ways and the ‘Plantings and Restoration’ areas may be completed in an advanced order to the nominated staging but must not occur any later than the specific stages in which they are nominated.

It is considered that the current application for Stage 5 is generally consistent with the phasing of construction required by Condition No.5. It is understood the flood free gravel track mentioned for Stage 6 was deleted from the concept by a Section 96 amendment with the authorisation of Council’s Development Engineer.

 

Development Consent 10.2009.314 also requires the proposed development to accord with the approved document entitled ‘Future Stages Concept Proposals’ (concept plan). The following matters of particular relevance to proposed Stage 5 are noted:

 

Section 9 Subdivision Pattern

 

Section 9 of the approved Future Stages Concept Proposals’ document specifies, in part:

 

“The Schematic Subdivision Layout Plan provides for a variety of lot types and titling approaches, as follows:

·         The conventional lots have an area between 550 and 1200m² and will be subdivided as Torrens Title lots; and

·         A sprinkling of small lots will have an area of approximately 425m² and will be subdivided as Torrens Title lots.”

 

The proposed smallest lot size has an area of 450m² (Proposed Lot 132). The proposal is considered to be consistent with the minimum lot size provisions within Section 9. 

 

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

 

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

 

3.1       State Environmental Planning Instruments

 

 

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 - Development Standards

Consideration: See assessment in Section 4.2B of this report.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

Consideration: Council’s Ecologist has assessed the proposal against SEPP No.44 noting that parts of the site are considered to represent potential koala habitat. Previous survey results indicate the site is unlikely to be regarded as core habitat, but is known to be used for movement and dispersal.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land

Consideration: Council’s Environmental Officer has previously noted that the staged development consent (Concept Plan approval 10.2009.314.1) has considered and allowed for residential development of the subject land in view the requirements and matters for consideration provided within SEPP No.55.

 

The subject land is considered to be suitable for the proposed development without need for further detailed investigation. The recent land use history does not indicate any activities which are likely to have caused site contamination.  

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 71—Coastal Protection

Consideration: The proposed subdivision will not compromise any of the applicable provisions of SEPP No.71. The proposal shall not restrict access to the foreshore of the Main Arm of the Brunswick River. Development Consent 10.2009.314 granted Staged Development consent for the subdivision of the subject land meeting the requirements for a master plan (DCP) required by Clause 18(d) of SEPP No.71.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Consideration: No issues identified.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008

Consideration: The proposed subdivision is considered to satisfy the relevant matters for consideration in the Rural Lands SEPP and proposing fragmentation of land within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone.

 

 

4.2A  Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP 2014)

 

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

 

Part 1

1.1| 1.1AA| 1.2| 1.3| 1.4| Dictionary| 1.5| 1.6| 1.7| 1.8| 1.8A| 1.9|

1.9A

Part 2

2.1| 2.2 | 2.3 |Land Use Table | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8

Part 3

3.1| 3.2| 3.3

Part 4

4.1| 4.1A| 4.1AA| 4.1B |4.1C| 4.1D| 4.1E| 4.2| 4.2A| 4.2B| 4.2C| 4.2|4.3|4.4 |4.5 | 4.6

Part 5

5.1| 5.2| 5.3| 5.4| 5.5| 5.6| 5.7| 5.8|5.9| 5.9AA| 5.10| 5.11| 5.12|

5.13

Part 6

6.1| 6.2| 6.3| 6.4| 6.5| 6.6| 6.7| 6.8| 6.9

 

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

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

(b)     The land is within the R2 Low Density Residential / Part RU1 Primary Production / PART DM Deferred Matter / Part RU2 Rural Landscape according to the Land Zoning Map;

(c)     The proposed development is permissible with consent; and

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

 

Zone Objective

Consideration

R2 Low Density Residential Zone

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

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

 

The proposed subdivision and associated works are considered to be consistent with the Objectives of the R2 Zone.

RU2 Rural Landscape Zone

•  To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base.

•  To maintain the rural landscape character of the land.

•  To provide for a range of compatible land uses, including extensive agriculture.

•  To enable the provision of tourist accommodation, facilities and other small-scale rural tourism uses associated with primary production and environmental conservation consistent with the rural character of the locality.

•  To protect significant scenic landscapes and to minimise impacts on the scenic quality of the locality.

 

The proposed subdivision retains all land within the RU2 Zone within a single Lot and is considered to be consistent with the Objectives of the RU2 Zone.

RU 1 Primary Production Zone

•  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.

•  To protect significant scenic landscapes and to minimise impacts on the scenic quality of the locality.

 

The proposed subdivision retains all land within the RU1 Zone within Lot and is considered to be consistent with the Objectives of the RU1 Zone.

 

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. The proposed development complies with all clauses of LEP 2014 (in some cases subject to conditions and/or to the satisfaction of other assessing officers).

 

Minimum Lot Size

The minimum lot size in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone is 400sqm on the subject land. Each of the proposed lots exceeds 400sqm in area.

 

 

 

4.2B  Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988 (LEP 1988)

 

LEP 1988 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 1988 clauses that are checked below are of relevance to the proposed development:

 

Part 1

1| 2| 2A| 3| 4| 5| LEP 1988 Dictionary| 7

Part 2

8| 9

Part 3

10| 11| 11A| 11B| 12| 13| 14| 15| 16| 17| 17A| 17B| 18| 19| 22| 22| 23| 24| 25| 27| 29| 29AA| 29A| 30| 31| 32| 33| 34| 35| 36| 37| 38| 38A| 38B| 39| 39A| 39B| 39C| 40| 41| 42| 43| 44| 45| 46| 47| 47AA| 47A| 48| 49| 51| 52| 53| 54| 55| 56| 57| 58| 59| 60| 61| 62| 63| 64

Part 5

| 65| 66| 67| 68| 69| 70| 71| 72| 73| 74| 75| 76| 77| 78| 79| 80| 81| 82| 83| 84| 85| 86| 87| 88| 89| 90| 91| 92| 93| 94| 95|

96| 97| 98| 99| 100| 101

 

In accordance with LEP 1988 clauses 5, 8 and 9:

(a)     The proposed development is defined in the LEP 1988 Dictionary as Subdivision;

(b)     The land is within the LEP1988 1A General Rural Zone according to the map under LEP 1988;

(c)     The proposed development is permissible with consent; and

(d)     The proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of the Zone for the following reasons:

 

Zone Objective

Consideration

(a)  to encourage and permit a range of uses creating a pattern of settlement, at a scale and character that maintains or enhances the natural, economic, cultural, social and scenic amenity of the rural environment of the Shire of Byron,

(b)  to encourage and permit a pattern of settlement which does not adversely affect the quality of life of residents and visitors and maintains the rural character,

(c)  to ensure development only occurs on land which is suitable for and economically capable of that development and so as not to create conflicting uses,

(d)  to allow the use of land within the zone for agricultural purposes and for a range of other appropriate purposes whilst avoiding conflict between other uses and intensive agriculture,

(e)  to identify lands (shown hatched on the map) which in the opinion of the council possess a limited capability for more intensive uses or development,

(f)  to restrict the establishment of inappropriate traffic generating uses along main road frontages other than in road side service areas,

(g)  to ensure sound management of land which has an extractive or mining industry potential and to ensure that development does not adversely affect the potential of any existing or future extractive industry,

(h)  to enable the provision of rural tourist accommodation and facilities only where such facilities are compatible with the form and density of the nature of the locality, and

(i)  to permit the development of limited light industries which do not pose any adverse environmental impact, (eg software manufacture and film processing), and

(j)  to ensure that the development and use of land shown cross-hatched on the map adjacent to areas of significant vegetation and wildlife habitat do not result in any degradation of that significant vegetation and wildlife habitat, and that any development conserves and protects and enhances the value of the fauna and flora.

 

The subject site contains three small portions of land within the 1A General Rural Zone each portion is well below the 40 hectare minimum lot size. The proposal seeks to retain all the land within the 1A Zone within one residual Lot. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the 1A Zone.

 

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. The proposed development complies with all clauses of LEP 1988 (in some cases subject to conditions and/or to the satisfaction of other assessing officers).

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Objection - Non-compliance with Clause 11(1) of Byron LEP 1988

 

Pursuant to Clause 11(1) of Byron LEP 1988, the minimum area of a lot created to be created within the 1(a) General Rural Zone is 40 hectares. The proposed subdivision proposes to create 18 residential Lots in accordance with Byron LEP 2014 minimum Lot size map. However the residue lot containing 1(a) zoned land has an area of 35.5 hectares and is therefore less than the required 40 hectare minimum for the 1(a) General Rural Zone.

 

The applicant has submitted a SEPP No.1 Objection to the minimum allotment size. The applicant seeks a variation to the development standard applying to the minimum allotment size for subdivision within the 1(a) General Rural zoned land.

 

A written objection was submitted with the development application asserting that compliance with the minimum 40 hectare lot size development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary as the existing allotment has Staged Development Consent (10.2009.314) for residential subdivision and this development standard is would prevent the orderly and economic use of the land.

Clause 3 of SEPP No.1 specifies the following aims and objectives:

“This Policy provides flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act.”

 

Section 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 provides that the objects of the

Act relevant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 are:

 

“(a)    to encourage:

 

(i)      the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial

resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities,

35 towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,

 

(ii)     the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of

land,”

 

Clause 7 of SEPP No.1 specifies that consent may be granted:

 

Where the consent authority is satisfied that the objection is well founded and is also of the opinion that granting of consent to that development application is consistent with the aims of this Policy as set out in clause 3, it may, with the concurrence of the Director, grant consent to that development application notwithstanding the development standard the subject of the objection referred to in clause 6.

 

Strict compliance with the 40 hectare standard is not considered necessary in the circumstances of this application. The submitted SEPP No.1 Objection is considered to be well founded and compliance with the standard in this instance is unreasonable and unnecessary in view of the following:

 

·    The land contains multiple zones and is subject to Stage Development Consent ref 10.2009.314 which identified for residential subdivision;

·    The site contains three (3) small separate portions of land within the 1(a) General Rural Zone and maintains theses areas within a single residual lot;

·    the objection has planning merit by facilitating the subdivision of land within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone to create 18 additional allotments which are significantly exceed the minimum Lot size of 400sqm on the subject land.

 

In correspondence dated 24 January 2018 the Department of Planning and Environment issued concurrence for the proposal stating, in part:

 

“Concurrence was granted in this instance for the following reasons:

· The variation of the development standard will enable the orderly development of an area of residential    zoned land on the site;

· The area of 1(a) General Rural zoned land is already smaller than the development standard; and

· There is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.”

 

Compliance with the development standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case and the SEPP No.1 objection is therefore supported.

 

 

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

 

Draft SEPP (Coastal Management) 2016

The Draft Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) proposes to establish a new, strategic land use planning framework for coastal management. It is intended to support the implementation of the management objectives set out in the Coastal Management Act 2016.

 

Once adopted, the Coastal Management SEPP will be the single land use planning policy for coastal development and will bring together and modernise provisions from SEPP 14 (Coastal Wetlands), SEPP 26 (Littoral Rainforests) and SEPP 71 (Coastal Protection).

 

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

·    coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests area

·    coastal environment area;

·    coastal use area; and

·    coastal vulnerability area.

 

The subject site is mapped within the ‘coastal use area’ and ‘coastal environment area’.  The draft provisions for consideration of development within this area generally reflect the existing matters for consideration currently outlined in SEPP 71. 

 

The subject site does not fall within a ‘coastal vulnerability area’ as it is not identified within the ‘Coastal Erosion Hazard Area’. The proposal is considered to be acceptable having regard to the provisions of the Draft SEPP particularly Divisions No.2, 4 & 5. The proposed development is not in proximity of a wetland or littoral rainforest.

 

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

Part B Chapters:

B2| B3| B4| B5| B6| B7| B8| B9| B10| B11| B12| B13| B14

Part C Chapters:

C1| C2| C3| C4

Part D Chapters

D1| D2| D3| D4| D5| D6| D7| D8

Part E Chapters

E1| E2| E3| E4| E5| E6| E7

 

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

 

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

 

DCP 2010 is an applicable matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP& A Act because its purpose is to provide planning strategies and controls for various types of development permissible in accordance with LEP 1988. The DCP 2010 Chapters/Parts that are checked below are of relevance to the proposed development:

 

Chapter 1 Parts:

A| B| C| D| E| F| G| H| J| K| L| N

Chapters:

4| 6| 7| 8| 9| 10| 11| 12| 14| 15| 16| 17| 18| 19| 20| 21| 22

 

These checked Chapters/Parts have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP&A Act. The proposed development is demonstrated to meet the relevant controls of DCP 2010 for residential development and subdivision. 

 

4.5       Any Planning Agreement or Draft Planning Agreement?

 

 

Yes

No

Is there any applicable planning agreement or draft planning agreement?

Consideration: Not applicable.

 

 

 

4.6       Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 Considerations

 

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the additional matters for consideration provided in the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

 

4.7       Any coastal zone management plan?

 

 

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Not applicable

Is there any applicable coastal zone management plan?

Consideration: At the time of this report the NSW Government has not adopted Council’s Draft CZMP. 

 

 

 

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

The applicant has submitted an Arborist Report considering the impact of the development on vegetation including an old growth tallowwood tree near the entrance to this residential stage. The applicant has demonstrated that the tree can be retained and maintained in good health within the subdivision. A condition has been included to require tree preservation measures being undertaken in accordance with AS 4970-2009 – Protection of Trees on Development Sites during the construction period. Land is also to be dedicated for riparian plantings and restoration as part of the development. 

 

It is considered 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 having regards to the masterplan approval for this development.

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 other than positive impacts through the construction stage of the development and subsequent development of the lots for dwelling houses.

 

4.9       The suitability of the site for the development

 

Issue

Comment

Services

-      Water/ Sewer/ Stormwater

-      Ph./ power

-      Access

All essential services are available.

Hazards

-      Flooding

-      ASS

-      Bushfire

-      Landslip

 

Council’s development engineers have included conditions where necessary to address the issues flooding and slope stability (geotechnical assessment).

Condition/s has been included to manage acid sulfate soils.

RFS has issued a Section 100B BFSA for satisfy planning for bush fire protection.

Land Use conflicts

No conflicts identified. Land has concept approval for residential subdivision.

 

4.10     Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

 

The development application was publicly exhibited in accordance with the Level 2 provisions of DCP 2014. Council’s records indicate (at the time of this report) that no submissions were received.

 

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 Council’s Ecologist undertaken an inspection of the subject site and the information submitted and determined the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on threatened species or their habitat.

 

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

 

5.1       Water & Sewer Levies

 

Section 64 levies will be payable.

 

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 apart from technical non-compliance with Clause 11 of Byron LEP 1988.

 

The application includes a SEPP No.1 objection to Clause 11(1) regarding the 40 hectare minimum lot size for land within Zone 1(a) General Rural. It is considered that no planning benefit is to be gained from preventing the subdivision of containing Land within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone while maintaining all land within the 1(a) General Rural Zone on a single residual lot. Concurrence has been granted by the Department of Planning and Environment. Compliance with the development standard is considered unreasonable, unnecessary and not practical in the circumstances of this case and the SEPP No.1 objection to Clause 11(1) of the Byron LEP is supported.

 

The proposal raises no significant issues in terms of environmental impacts which cannot be managed, and the site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development subject to conditions.

 

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                                 13.20

 

 

Report No. 13.20         PLANNING - Development Application 10.2017.364.1 - Boundary adjustment/Subdivision to create two lots at 25 Station Street Mullumbimby

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Luke  Munro , Planner  

File No:                        I2018/82

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Development and Approvals

 

 

Proposal:

Proposal description:

Subdivision (2 into 2 Lots) to Create Two (2) Lots

Property description:

LOT: 2 DP: 727348, LOT: 35 SEC: 3 DP: 2772

25 Station Street MULLUMBIMBY

Parcel No/s:

145710, 122880

Applicant:

Ardill Payne & Partners

Owner:

Mr J & Mrs K M Northcott

Zoning:

R2 Low Density Residential

Date received:

12 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: 27/7/17 to 9/8/17

-    Submissions received: None

Planning Review Committee:

Not applicable

Delegation to determination:

Council

 

Issues:

·    Located on Flood Prone Land

·    Located on Acid Sulfate Soils (Class 3)

·    Clause 4.6 variation to Minimum Lot Size

 

Summary:

Development consent is sought for Subdivision (2 into 2 Lots) to Create Two (2) Lots over 25 Station Street, Mullumbimby.

The proposed lot sizes are not in accordance with Clause 4.1 of Byron LEP 2014 due to their lot size. The development application is supported by a request for a variation pursuant to clause 4.6 of the LEP. The circumstances of the case warrant a more flexible approach to application of the minimum lot size given the site currently comprises two existing lots of less than 600m2. The Applicant’s variation request is supported and the development application is recommended for approval despite the non-compliance. In this regard no additional lots or dwelling entitlements are being created.

 

The proposed development is considered to be an appropriate response to the characteristics of the site having regard to the provisions of the LEP and Byron DCP 2014, and the development application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. The proposed development is not contrary to the public interest, raises no issues and warrants approval.

 

 

 

 

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

 

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

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, development application 10.2017.364.1 for Subdivision (2 into 2 Lots) to Create Two (2) Lots, be granted consent subject to conditions listed in Attachment 2 (#E2018/7107).

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Proposed Plan of subdivision prepared by Ardill Payne, E2018/7108  

2        conditions of consent , E2018/7107  

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

Assessment:

 

1.         INTRODUCTION

 

1.1.          History/Background

 

This application is for subdivision of two (2) Council approved allotments which contain an existing dwelling house straddling both lots.

 

 

1.2.          Description of the proposed development

 

This application seeks approval for a Subdivision (2 into 2 Lots) to Create Two (2) Lots

 

The existing dwelling house straddles the two lots with an area of 310.4m2 (Lot 2 DP727348) and 561.5m2 (Lot 3 DP2772). The proposal will realign the existing boundaries of the existing 2 lots into two lots of 434.72m2 each.

 

The existing dwelling house which straddles the existing two lots will be wholly contained within Lot 1 which will have frontage to Station Street. Lot 2 will front onto McGougans Lane.

 

The site has a garage at the rear of the existing dwelling which will be wholly contained within proposed Lot 2, leaving Lot 1 with car parking in the front yard of Lot 1. Lot 1 will require a concreted hardstand area for the parking of two (2) vehicles in accordance with Chapter B4 of the Byron DCP 2014 – a condition has been recommended to this effect.  

 

 

 

Plan of subdivision

 

1.3.          Description of the site

 

Land is legally described as

LOT: 2 DP: 727348, LOT: 35 SEC: 3 DP: 2772

Property address is

25 Station Street MULLUMBIMBY

Land is zoned:

R2 Low Density Residential

Land area is:

310.4 m2 & 561.5m2

Property is constrained by:

Acid Sulfate Soils Class 4 and is liable to flooding. Bushfire does not affect the site.

 

The site contains an existing single storey dwelling house and detached garage in the rear yard. The site has access from both Station Street and McGougans Lane. The dwelling house is constructed what appears to be asbestos sheeting and roofing (there is no proposal to remove the dwelling or undertake alterations and additions to the dwelling house).

 

2.         SUMMARY OF REFERRALS

 

Referral

Issue

Development Engineer

No objections subject to 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 & Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), the following is a summary of the evaluation of the issues.

 

3.1       State Environmental Planning Instruments

 

 

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land

Consideration: Site has been subdivided for residential use from the 5 January 1892. Proposal raises no issues in terms of contamination.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 71—Coastal Protection

Consideration:

-    No public access to the coastal foreshore will be impeded or diminished as part of the proposal

-    No effluent is proposed to be disposed other than to Council’s sewerage system.

-    Stormwater is to be discharged to the street.

 

4.2A  Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP 2014)

 

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

 

Part 1

1.1| 1.1AA| 1.2| 1.3| 1.4| Dictionary| 1.5| 1.6| 1.7| 1.8| 1.8A| 1.9|

1.9A

Part 2

2.1| 2.2 | 2.3 |Land Use Table | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8

Part 3

3.1| 3.2| 3.3

Part 4

4.1| 4.1A| 4.1AA| 4.1B |4.1C| 4.1D| 4.1E| 4.2| 4.2A| 4.2B| 4.2C| 4.2|4.3|4.4 |4.5 |4.6

Part 5

5.1| 5.2| 5.3| 5.4| 5.5| 5.6| 5.7| 5.8| 5.9| 5.9AA| 5.10| 5.11| 5.12|

5.13

Part 6

6.1| 6.2| 6.3| 6.4| 6.5| 6.6| 6.7| 6.8| 6.9

 

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

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

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

(c)     The proposed development is permitted with consent; and

(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 subdivision will provide a range of housing types in the locality and maintains the existing character of the residential area.

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

Not Applicable

 

The remaining underlined clauses have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP&A Act. The proposed development complies with all of these clauses (in some cases subject to conditions and/or to the satisfaction of other assessing officers), except in relation to clause which is considered further as follows:

 

What clause does the development not comply with and what is the nature of the non-compliance?

Further consideration, including whether the development application is recommended for approval or refusal accordingly

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.

(4)  This clause does not apply in relation to the subdivision of individual lots in a strata plan or community title scheme.

 

See assessment below. 

 

4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size

Clause 4.1 of LEP 2014 is accessible via: https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/EPI/2014/297/part4/cl4.1

 

Matters under subclause (3) are addressed as follows:

 

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 existing dwelling house straddles two lots with an area of 310.4m2 (Lot 2 DP727348) and 561.5m2 (Lot 3 DP2772). The proposal will realign the existing boundaries of the existing 2 lots into two lots of 434.72m2 each.

 

The Applicant has submitted a clause 4.6 variation request (refer to Doc #E2017/71746). The clause 4.6 variation request is considered with reference to relevant matters as follows:

 

a)      Introduction – Summary of proposed development

The development application proposes a boundary realignment of two (2) lots into two (2) lots, each of the current lots have an area of 310.4m2 (Lot 2 DP727348) and 561.5m2 (Lot 3 DP2772) and will result in two lots of 434.72m2 each.

 

b)      Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards

Clause 4.6 of Byron LEP 2014 is accessible via: http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/epi+297+2014+pt.4-cl.4.6+0+N?tocnav=y

 

c)      The Development Standard to be varied

The development standard to be varied is contained in LEP 2014 subclause 4.1(3), which is accessible via: https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/EPI/2014/297/part4/cl4.1

 

The Minimum Lot Size planning control is a development standard in accordance with the applicable definition in the Dictionary and clause 4.5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 because it is provisions of an environmental planning instrument in relation to the carrying out of development, being provisions by or under which requirements are specified or standards are fixed in respect of any aspect of that development, including, requirements or standards in respect of setting a minimum lot size for any land and is not to be less than the minimum lot size shown for the land on the Minimum Lot Size Map

 

d)      Extent of Variation to the Development Standard

The Statement of Environmental Effects indicates that the current lots have an area of 310.4m2 (Lot 2 DP727348) and 561.5m2 (Lot 3 DP2772) and will result in two lots of 434.72m2 each. The proposal seeks a boundary realignment to reconfigure the existing lots into two (2) lots with a lot size of 434.72m2 each. This will result in each allotment being approximately 27.5% less than the minimum lot size identified on the Minimum Lot Size Map.

 

However the proposal will not make the existing non-compliance worse.

 

The extent of the variation to the minimum lot size development standard is therefore 27.5%.

 

e)      Objective of the Development Standard

The objectives of the development standard are stated in LEP 2014 subclause 4.1(1) which states:

(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

 

 

f)       Objectives of the Zone

The objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone which applies to the location of the proposed boundary realignment are stated in the Land Use Table to LEP clause 2.8, which states:

 

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

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

 

 

g)      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 site currently consists of two (2) non-compliant lots. Requiring compliance with the development standard is unnecessary in this instance as there will be no further intensification of the development potential of the site and will maintain the lot sizes of the existing lots with the resultant lots each commanding an area of 434.72m2.

 

a.   The boundary realignment/reconfiguration is a two into two lots development and will average out the existing two lot sizes to lots with an area of 434.72m2.

b.   There currently exists the ability to develop a single dwelling house on each of the existing lots, the current proposal will not increase this development potential and will provide a better and more functional lot layout for future dwellings onsite.

c.   The lots sizes are consistent within the streetscape and character of the surrounding low density residential area. There will be no impact on the streetscape as a result of this development application.

 

 

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

 

The proposed realignment of property boundaries will result in lots which average out the area between the existing two lots and will result in a change to the alignment to the existing dividing lot boundary.

 

There are sufficient grounds to justify the proposal on environmental planning grounds as follows:

·    Better relationship with surrounding subdivision pattern with a more appropriate lot size of 434.72m2 each rather than a 310.4m2 and 561.5m2 lot

·    The development will enable the retention of the exiting dwelling house (on a single lot with no change to the streetscape);

·    The Lot sizes are consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood, and width of lots.;

·    Given the site is located within a Flood Prone Area there will be no increase in intensity of development as a result of this proposal.

·    the proposed reconfiguration enables the allotments to contain an building envelope measuring 12m x 15m; 

·    the proposed rear allotment (Lot 2) is to be provided right of footway to Station Street;

·    the site is located within an existing urban area with close proximity to the Mullumbimby business district and with a level topography, pedestrian and cycling is a common form of transport;

·    pedestrian accessibility and service provision (garbage collection, postal services) are able to be provided from the main street frontage on Station Street;

·    the existing dwelling on the proposed Lot 1 will comply with the floor space ratio of 0.5:1.

There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

(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 proposal provides an opportunity to provide a more suitable lot layout which is capable of contain a building envelope measuring 12m x 15m and will enable the more efficient use of land through enabling a vacant lot of land for development without having the existing dwelling straddling both existing lots.

 

Numerically no additional lots or dwelling entitlements are created as a result of this development.

 

The proposal will enable the future contribution to the provision of residential housing in close proximity to the Mullumbimby town centre whilst preserving, and minimising impacts on, infrastructure provision and maximising utilisation of these resources.

 

Further the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the zone. The proposal will not create an undesirable precedent in the circumstances given there are a number of similar developments proximate to the site which have created similar boundary realignments.

 

The proposed development is not significantly contrary to the public interest because it will not adversely affect the welfare and wellbeing of the broader public.

 

 

The proposed lot sizes are not in accordance with Clause 4.1 of Byron LEP 2014. The development application is supported by a request for a variation pursuant to clause 4.6 of the LEP. The circumstances of the case warrant a more flexible approach to application of the minimum lot size given the site currently comprises two existing lots of less than 600m2. The Applicant’s variation request is supported and the development application is recommended for approval despite the non-compliance.

 

6.1 Acid Sulfate Soils

 

Soil disturbance is proposed and where excavations are greater than 2m in depth a Condition has been recommended requiring the preparation of an Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan.

 

6.3 Flood Planning

 

The existing dwelling house will remain onsite and future dwellings will be subject to requirements to comply with the Flood Planning Levels of 4.72mAHD.

 

 

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

 

Draft SEPP (Coastal Management) 2016

The draft SEPP proposes to replace SEPP 14 (Coastal Wetlands), SEPP 26 (Littoral Rainforest) and SEPP 71(Coastal Protection).  It will redefine the current ‘Coastal Zone’, to be within four coastal management areas:

 

·    coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests area

·    coastal environment area;

·    coastal use area; and

·    coastal vulnerability area.

 

The subject site will be mapped within the coastal use area. The proposed development is not in a wetland, littoral rainforest, coastal environment area or coastal vulnerability area.  The proposed amendments to the consent do not raise any specific issues that apply to the coastal use area provisions under the draft SEPP.

 

 

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

 

Part B Chapters:

B2| B3| B4| B5| B6| B7| B8| B9| B10| B11| B12| B13|

B14

Part C Chapters:

C1| C2| C3| C4

Part D Chapters

D1| D2| D3| D4| D5| D6| D7| D8

Part E Chapters

E1| E2| E3| E4| E5| E6| E7

 

These underlined Parts/Chapters have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP&A Act. The proposed development complies with all sections of these Parts/Chapters (in some cases subject to conditions and/or to the satisfaction of other assessing officers), except in relation to certain prescriptive measures which are considered further (having regard to the DCP 2014 Section A1 Dual Path Assessment) as follows:

 

What Section and prescriptive measure does the development not comply with?

Does the proposed development comply with the Objectives of this Section? Address.

Does the proposed development comply with the Performance Criteria of this Section? Address.

B4.2.5 Car Parking Requirements

Yes

The existing dwelling will have adequate area in the front of the site for 2 car parking spaces – both of which will be uncovered.

 

Yes

The existing dwelling will have adequate area in the front of the site for 2 car parking spaces – both of which will be uncovered.

 

 

C1.4.9 Subdivision

 

To retain the development and subdivision pattern of the Heritage Conservation Areas including their characteristic rhythm and spacings of the built form.

 

Yes

The proposal will retain the existing street frontage and typical subdivision pattern (lot width).

Yes

The proposal will retain the existing street frontage and typical subdivision pattern (lot width).

D6.4.3 Infill Subdivision with Rear Lane Access

 

Legal pedestrian access is to be provided back to the main street frontage by way of a Right of footway, common property or battleaxe subdivision design. This can also be used for the provision of services (water, sewer, power and telecommunications) to the rear dwelling house / lot and enable garbage and postal services to be collected from the street as opposed to the laneway. Where it is to be used for pedestrian purposes only, the handle to be a minimum 1.2 metres wide to facilitate easy access and manoeuvring of a garbage bin, whilst also providing a main street frontage for visitors and delivery services.

 

 

Yes

A consent condition plans as amended in red require the creation of suitable rights of carriageway over the access pathway which connects proposed rear Lot(s) through to Station Street. Minimum width of 1.2m.

Yes

The plans have been amended in red requiring the creation of suitable rights of carriageway over the access pathway which connects proposed rear Lot(s) through to Station Street. Minimum width of 1.2m.

 

The proposed development is demonstrated to meet the relevant Objectives of DCP 2014.

 

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 & 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

No

N/A

N/A

94

No

N/A

N/A

94A

No

N/A

N/A

* Non-compliances and any other significant issues discussed below

 

4.7       Any coastal zone management plan?

 

 

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Not applicable

Is there any applicable coastal zone management plan?

 

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.

 

 

4.9       The suitability of the site for the development

 

The site is a serviced, unconstrained property 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 0 submissions made on the development application:

 

4.11     Public interest

 

The proposed development is unlikely to prejudice or compromise the public interest or create a dangerous 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.

 

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

 

5.1       Water & Sewer Levies

 

No Section 64 levies will be required.

 

The proposed development does not generate additional loading onto Council’s Water, Bulk Water and or Sewer systems beyond the existing ET entitlements.

 

 

5.2       Section 94 Contributions

 

No Section 94 Contributions will be required.

 

Clause 2.13 of the plan states: “This plan assumes that all existing allotments have an underlying credit of one SDU except in the following circumstances:

 

(a)  Lots created without Council approval by way of departmental subdivision by the Crown; or

(b)  Lots created for the purposes of utility installations; or

(c)  [Deleted in amendment 2]; or

(d)  Lots created by way of the closure of a public or crown road; or

(e)  Lots to which clause 15 of the Byron LEP applies and that form part of an existing holding where a dwelling has already been erected upon another lot within that holding; or

(f)   Vacant lots within commercial or industrial zones. 

 

Lots that meet the criteria listed in (a) to (f) do not have any credit and development upon this land that increases population will be required to pay a contribution.” 

 

Each of these lots meets the criteria of this clause and is not excluded by items a-f.  No contributions are payable. 

 

 

6.         DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL DONATIONS AND GIFTS

 

Has a Disclosure Statement been received in relation to this application

No

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

No

 

Provide Disclosure Statement register details here: Not applicable

 

 

7.         CONCLUSION

 

Development consent is sought for Subdivision (2 into 2 Lots) to Create Two (2) Lots over 25 Station Street, Mullumbimby. The proposed lot sizes are not in accordance with Clause 4.1 of Byron LEP 2014. The development application is supported by a request for a variation pursuant to clause 4.6 of the LEP. The circumstances of the case warrant a more flexible approach to application of the minimum lot size given the site currently comprises two existing lots of less than 600m2. The Applicant’s variation request is supported and the development application is recommended for approval despite the non-compliance.

 

The proposed development is considered to be an appropriate response to the characteristics of the site having regard to the provisions of the LEP and Byron DCP 2014, and the development application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. The proposed development is not contrary to the public interest, and the proposal warrants approval.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                 13.21

 

 

Report No. 13.21         Policy: Commercial use of road reserves

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Sarah  Nagel, Community Enforcement Officer

File No:                        I2018/83

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Open Space and Recreation

 

 

Summary:

 

Council considered a report and draft policy ‘Commercial Use of Road Reserves’ at the Ordinary meeting on 26 October 2017.

 

The draft policy was placed on public exhibition for an extended period until 30 November to 17 January 2018. No submissions were received. It is recommended the policy be adopted.

 

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council adopt the Commercial Use of Road Reserves Policy (#E2018/9436).

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Attachment 1 Draft Policy Commercial Use of Road Reserves 22 February 2018, E2018/9436  

 

 


 

Report

 

Council considered a report and draft policy ‘Commercial Use of Road Reserves’ at the Ordinary meeting on 26 October 2017 where it was resolved (17-454):

 

1.       That one Council policy incorporates the commercial use of road reserves authorised under the Roads Act;

 

2.       That the policy incorporates all licenced/approved activities on those areas as authorised under the Roads Act i.e. mobile food vendors, mobile product vendors, footpath dining and goods and chattels;

 

3.       That the policy works in conjunction with Council’s policy “Road Airspace”; and

 

4.       That the policy works in conjunction with Council’s policy 5.52 “Commercial Activities on Coastal and Riparian Crown Reserves”.

 

The draft policy was placed on public exhibition for an extended period between 30 November 2017 and 17 January 2018. No submissions were received. It is recommended the policy be adopted.

 

Separate to the policy, further work will now continue to identify suitable sites where licensed venders can operate, recommend a fee structure and an expression of interest/lease process for the issue of licenses. This will be reported to Council at a later date.

 

Financial Implications

 

Adoption of the policy will provide methodology for Council to approve and collect revenue for the use of Council’s road reserves for a commercial benefit.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

1.    Building Code of Australia

2.    Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014

3.    Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2014

4.    Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

5.    Factories, Shops and Industries Act 1962

6.    Food Act 2003

7.    Local Government Act 1993

8.    Local Government (General) Regulation 2005

9.    Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

10.  Retail Leases Act 1994

11.  Road Transport Act 2013

12.  Roads Act 1993

13.  Work Health and Safety Act 2011

14.  NSW Food Authority – Guidelines for Mobile Food Vending Vehicles

15.  Council’s Road Airspace Policy

16.  Council’s Footpath Dining Policy

17.  Council’s Itinerant Food Vendor Policy

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                                 13.22

 

 

Report No. 13.22         PLANNING - Development Application 10.2017.474.1 Multi Dwelling Housing Consisting of Twenty Five (25) 1 Bedrooms 70 - 90 Station Street Mullumbimby

Directorate:                 Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:           Chris Larkin, Manager Sustainable Development

File No:                        I2018/100

Theme:                         Ecology

                                      Development and Approvals

 

 

Proposal:

DA No:

10.2017.474.1

Proposal description:

Multi Dwelling Housing Consisting of Twenty Five (25) 1 Bedroom Dwellings (Under the Provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009: Infill Affordable Housing. The proposed development would be undertaken in two (2) stages.

Property description:

LOT: 10 DP: 850902

70-90 Station Street MULLUMBIMBY

Parcel No/s:

203540

Applicant:

North Coast Community Housing

Owner:

Byron Shire Council

Zoning:

B4 Mixed Use

Date received:

1 September 2017

Integrated Development:

No

Delegations to Determine:

Council

Public notification or exhibition:

-    Level 2 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications

-    Exhibition period: 21/9/17 to 11/10/17

-    Submissions received: Eight (8) plus one external referral response.

Issues:

·    Compatibility of the proposal with the Mullumbimby Heritage Conservation Area.

·    Compliance with planning controls.

·    Compatibility with the existing built environment and surrounding land uses, including an adjacent pre-school and the disused North Coast railway line.

·    Flooding and stormwater drainage.

·    Timing of the completion of an approved subdivision over the site.

Summary:

The application seeks development consent for a multi-dwelling housing development containing 25 x 1 bedroom units. The layout incorporates five (5) separate buildings each containing five (5) units. It is proposed to undertake the development in two (2) stages.

The proposal was submitted under the provisions of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and consists of 19 units to be offered as entry level home ownership for people on moderate incomes, and six (6) units to be rented at less than 80% of market rent.

The buildings are described as Buildings A – E.  Buildings A, D and E (15 units) would be constructed in Stage 1 and Buildings B and C (10 units) in Stage 2.

All units are accessed via individual entries from ground level (via stairs or a pathway) and contain two (2) living levels with the upper level being a mezzanine lounge within the roof profile.

All buildings are elevated above the finished ground level to achieve minimal habitable floor levels for flooding, with Building E having a higher elevation than the other four (4) buildings to provide parking underneath. The total number of car parking spaces provided is 14 (excluding 5 tandem spaces).

The original publically exhibited plans for the proposal identified that the development would be known as ‘Rail Yard’. Following a suggestion from Councils Heritage Panel, the applicant has agreed to change the name to the ‘Mill Yard’ to strengthen the ties to the original use of the site. The proposal has been reviewed by Councils Heritage Consultant and no objections to the proposal have been raised in relation to heritage issues.

The applicant was notified in accordance with the level 2 procedure of Byron DCP 2014. In response to the public notifications process, Councils records indicate that a total of 8 submissions were received.

The proposal involves non-compliances with various controls of Byron DCP 2014. However, the proposal non-compliance’s are largely the result of designing to the numerical standards permitted by SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

The proposal has been reviewed by the relevant Council Units and no objections have been raised subject to recommended conditions of consent.

The proposal is considered to have sufficient planning merit to be supported subject to the conditions included in the recommendation of this report.

 

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

 

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

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Development Application No. 10.2017.474.1 for Multi Dwelling Housing Consisting of Twenty Five (25) 1 Bedroom Dwellings (Under the Provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009: Infill Affordable Housing, be granted approval subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 2 #E2018/8240.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Proposed Plans NCCH, E2018/8546  

2        Conditions of consent , E2018/8240  

3        Site Waste Minimisation and Management Plan, Lucena Stormwater Assessment and Management , E2018/8551  

4        Confidential - Submissions received, E2018/8295  

 

 


INTRODUCTION

 

1.1.          History/Background

The subject site is a 16,082m2 parcel of land that is owned by Byron Shire Council. It contains the Byron Shire Council administration building, chambers, car park and Mullumbimby Community Pre-School. Following an independent assessment of a development application, Development Consent 10.2014.404.1 was issued on 30 October 2014 for the subdivision of the subject site into 6 lots as follows:

·  Proposed Lot 1 - 11,030.5m2 parcel of land comprising the existing Council administration building, chambers, library, pocket park, car parking areas, and ancillary landscaped land at the northern portion of the site.

·  Proposed Lots 2, Lot 3, Lot 4, & Lot 5 – Four (4) x 804.4m2 lots within the currently undeveloped area between the existing car park and pre-school.

·  Proposed Lot 6 - 1837.4m2 lot containing the existing Mullumbimby Pre-school and associated outdoor areas at the southern portion of the site.

The application has been amended under the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, on two occasions. The modification applications were:

·    10.2014.404.2 -This modification application incorporated the following amendments:

to remove the requirement for a 1.2m wide footpath for the full property frontage.

to remove the requirement for kerb and gutter for the full property frontage.

This application was granted consent on 27 August 2015.

·    10.2014.404.3 -This modification application sought approval to stage the development, and make changes to infrastructure provision. The application was approved on 22 September 2017 and stages the development as follows:

Stage 1 creates 2 lots, which would be further subdivided in Stages 2 & 3. The intention of Stage 1 is to create a serviced ‘development lot’ (i.e. Lot 1), which can then be sold.

Stage 2 - creation of a new lot containing the existing pre-school, separating that site from the remainder of the property.

Stage 3 involves the remainder of the approved development, being the creation of the four lots nominated as Lots 2-5 on the originally approved plan.  If the proposed affordable housing development proceeds, this stage would not occur.

In 2015, Byron Shire Council resolved to sell proposed Lot 1 to North Coast Community Housing (NCCH) at an independently verified market value, for the purpose of an affordable housing project. It is this proposed lot that is subject of the current proposal.

Subdivision work for Stage 1 has commenced however the subdivision certificate has not yet been issued.

Past applications recorded over the subject site relate to the Byron Shire Council administration building and the child care centre. Other than the subdivision mentioned above, there are no other relevant historical applications relating the vacant portion of land known as proposed Lot 1.

1.2.          Description of the site

 

Land is legally described as

LOT: 10 DP: 850902

Property address is

70-90 Station Street, Mullumbimby.

Land is zoned:

B4 Mixed Use

Land area is:

16090 m2

Property is constrained by:

 

Flood Liable Land 

Acid Sulfate Soils Class 4

Mullumbimby Heritage Conservation Area        

As described above, development consent has been issued for the subdivision of the site into six lots. The lots have not yet been created and therefore the development application is lodged over the parent parcel ie. 10 DP 850902. All building work associated with the proposal would occur over proposed Lot 1. If approved, work on the proposal would not be able to commence until such time as the subdivision for Stage 1 is registered.

Proposed Lot 1 is a vacant, relatively flat piece of land which has a proposed area of 3244m2. It does not contain any vegetation of significance other than the large fig tree which is located within the road reserve at the front of the site. The adjoining land comprises:

·    North - Proposed Lot 3 containing the Byron Shire Council administration building, chambers and car park. The car park is located immediately adjacent to the site of the proposed development.

·    South - Proposed Lot 2 containing the Mullumbimby Community Pre-school.

·    East - The dis-used North Coast railway line. Further to the east, on the opposite side of the railway reserve is residential and rural land.

The location of the subject site is shown on Figure 1, and Figure 2 illustrates the approved subdivision and staging layout.

../../../../../../Desktop/Fig%

Figure 1 - Location

 

../../../../../../Desktop/KSTP%20Byron%20SC%20Station%20Street,%20Mullumbimby%20/Approved%20subdi

Figure 2 - Proposed Subdivision Layout and Staging

 

 

1.3.          Description of the proposed development

 

The application seeks development consent for a multi-dwelling housing development containing 25 x 1 bedroom units. The layout incorporates five (5) separate buildings each containing five (5) units. It is proposed to undertake the development in two (2) stages as follows:

·    Stage 1 - 15 units located in Buildings A, D and E.

·    Stage 2 - 10 units located in Buildings B and C.

The layout of the development is illustrated in Figure 3.

All units have a gross floor area of 51m2 and are accessed via individual entries from ground level (via stairs or a pathway). They contain two habitable levels with the upper level being a mezzanine lounge within the roof profile, and the lower level containing an open plan kitchen and dining, bathroom, bedroom and a covered balcony.

All buildings are elevated above the finished ground level on a suspended concrete slab to achieve minimal habitable floor levels for flooding. Building E has a higher elevation than the other four (4) buildings and contains parking underneath. A typical floor plan is provided in Figure 4.

The total number of car parking spaces provided is 14 (excluding 5 tandem spaces). Five of these, plus 5 tandem spaces, are located below Building E, and 9 are located in a communal outdoor parking area.

A single access point is provided from Station Street, adjacent to the proposed boundary with pre-school.

The buildings would be constructed using corrugated steel zincalume roofing and a mix of corrugated steel with vertical timber cladding on the walls.

An identification sign on vertical timber sleepers is proposed at the front of the site. This sign would identify the development name ie. The Mill Yard’.

The fig tree within the road reserve is to remain. A communal open space is proposed to be provided within the site, adjacent to the tree.

The proposal was submitted under the provisions of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and consists of 19 units to be offered as entry level home ownership for people on moderate incomes, and six (6) units to be rented at less than 80% of market rent.

 

../Site%20Plan.pdf

 

Figure 3 - Site Plan

 

../Floor%20plan.pdf

 

Figure 4 - Typical Floor Plan

 

 

 

1.         SUMMARY OF REFERRALS

 

 

Referral

Issue

Environmental Health Officer*

Issues addressed include acid sulfate soils, contaminated land, waste management, land use conflicts, noise impacts and mosquito/biting midge management. No objections, subject to conditions. Refer to Doc # A2017/30104.

Development Engineer

Flood liable land, access, car parking and stormwater management.

No objection to the proposal subject to conditions. See Doc#A2017/23049.

S64 / Systems Planning Officer

Provision of bulk water, water and sewerage services. No objection to the proposal subject to conditions including payment of applicable charges. See Doc #A2017/23050.

S94 / Contributions Officer

Section 94 Contributions are applicable for the proposed development. A condition has been included to require payment of the Section 94 contributions. The applicant has not sought an exemption. See Doc #A2017/23052

Heritage Consultant

Impact of the proposed development on the Mullumbimby Heritage Conservation Area. No objections to the proposal. See Heritage Referral Report dated November 2017.

John Holland Rail

Requested that Council consider noise and vibration in the assessment of the application and ensure that no additional stormwater flows toward the rail corridor, and that the rail boundary is securely fenced.

 

Issues:

The primary issue related to the comments made by John Holland Rail with respect to noise and vibration. This issue is discussed later in this report. It is confirmed that no additional stormwater will flow towards the railway land and that the boundary will be secured with timber lapped and capped fencing.

 

2.         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.

 

2.1       State Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Policy requirement/summary

Proposed

Complies

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

6   Affordable housing

Note.The Act defines affordable housing as follows:

affordable housing means housing for very low income households, low income households or moderate income households, being such households as are prescribed by the regulations or as are provided for in an environmental planning instrument.

(1)  In this Policy, a household is taken to be a very low income household, low income household or moderate income household if the household:

(a)  has a gross income that is less than 120 per cent of the median household income for the time being for the Greater Sydney (Greater Capital City Statistical Area) (according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics) and pays no more than 30 per cent of that gross income in rent, or

(b)  is eligible to occupy rental accommodation under the National Rental Affordability Scheme and pays no more rent than that which would be charged if the household were to occupy rental accommodation under that scheme.

(2)  In this Policy, residential development is taken to be for the purposes of affordable housing if the development is on land owned by the Land and Housing Corporation.

 

 

The proposal consists of 19 units to be offered for people on moderate incomes with 6 units to be rented at less than 80% of market rent as affordable housing.

 

It is normal for such housing to be made affordable for a period of 10 years after which market rates for rent would apply.

 

The applicants have proposed that such housing though will be made affordable in perpetuity. Conditions to apply. 

 

 

Yes

8   Relationship with other environmental planning instruments

     If there is an inconsistency between this Policy and any other environmental planning instrument, whether made before or after the commencement of this Policy, this Policy prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.

 

 

 

The development application has been made under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (AH SEPP) and the provisions of this SEPP prevail over any inconsistencies with Byron LEP 2014. 

Noted

10   Development to which Division applies

(1)  This Division applies to development for the purposes of dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing or residential flat buildings if:

(a)  the development concerned is permitted with consent under another environmental planning instrument, and

(b)  the development is on land that does not contain a heritage item that is identified in an environmental planning instrument, or an interim heritage order or on the State Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1977.

 (3)  Despite subclause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land that is not in the Sydney region unless all or part of the development is within 400 metres walking distance of land within Zone B2 Local Centre or Zone B4 Mixed Use, or within a land use zone that is equivalent to any of those zones.

 

Multi dwelling housing is permissible with consent on the subject site under Byron LEP 2014.

 

The site does not contain a heritage item.

 

The site is zoned B4 Mixed Use, therefore, this Division applies.

 

 

 

 

Yes

13   Floor space ratios

(1)  This clause applies to development to which this Division applies if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is to be used for the purposes of affordable housing is at least 20 per cent.

(2)  The maximum floor space ratio for the development to which this clause applies is the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land on which the development is to occur, plus:

(a)  if the existing maximum floor space ratio is 2.5:1 or less:

(i)  0.5:1—if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing is 50 per cent or higher, or

(ii)  Y:1—if the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing is less than 50 per cent,
where:

AH is the percentage of the gross floor area of the development that is used for affordable housing.

Y = AH ÷ 100

 

 

The proposal seeks to provide 6 of the 25 proposed dwellings (24% floor area) as affordable housing. These dwellings will be managed by a community housing provider. Any consent will be conditioned to require a restrictive covenant be placed on the title to enforce this requirement. As discussed this will be in perpetuity.

The proposed floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.39:1 (which is calculated on the site area of proposed lot 1, not the current site area) complies with the Byron LEP 2014 maximum of 0.6:1. The FSR when calculated over the entire site area is approximately 0.44:1.

The applicant is not seeking to make use of the FSR bonus available under this clause.

 

Yes

14   Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

(1) Site and solar access requirements
A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds:

(b)  site area
if the site area on which it is proposed to carry out the development is at least 450 square metres,

(c)  landscaped area if:

(i)  in the case of a development application made by a social housing provider—at least 35 square metres of landscaped area per dwelling is provided, or

(ii)  in any other case—at least 30 per cent of the site area is to be landscaped,

(d)  deep soil zones
if, in relation to that part of the site area (being the site, not only of that particular development, but also of any other associated development to which this Policy applies) that is not built on, paved or otherwise sealed:

(i)  there is soil of a sufficient depth to support the growth of trees and shrubs on an area of not less than 15 per cent of the site area (the deep soil zone), and

(ii)  each area forming part of the deep soil zone has a minimum dimension of 3 metres, and

(iii)  if practicable, at least two-thirds of the deep soil zone is located at the rear of the site area,

(e)  solar access
if living rooms and private open spaces for a minimum of 70 per cent of the dwellings of the development receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(2) General
A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds:

(a)  parking if:

(i)  in the case of a development application made by a social housing provider for development on land in an accessible area—at least 0.4 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom, at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 2 bedrooms and at least 1 parking space is provided for each dwelling containing 3 or more bedrooms, or

(ii)  in any other case—at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom, at least 1 parking space is provided for each dwelling containing 2 bedrooms and at least 1.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 3 or more bedrooms,

(b)  dwelling size
if each dwelling has a gross floor area of at least:

(i)  35 square metres in the case of a bedsitter or studio, or

(ii)  50 square metres in the case of a dwelling having 1 bedroom, or

(iii)  70 square metres in the case of a dwelling having 2 bedrooms, or

(iv)  95 square metres in the case of a dwelling having 3 or more bedrooms.

(3)  A consent authority may consent to development to which this Division applies whether or not the development complies with the standards set out in subclause (1) or (2).

 

 

 

Site area

The subject allotment has an area exceeding 450m2. Therefore site area is not able to used as a reason for refusing consent to this development application.

 

Landscape area

The total landscaped area proposed is 1180m2, which is equivalent to approximately 47m2 of landscaped area per dwelling. The application is made by a social housing provider. In accordance with Clause 14 landscaped area cannot be used as a ground for refusal of this Development Application.

 

Deep Soil Zones

The total area of deep soil zones proposed on the new lot is 840m2 which is 26% of the total site area of proposed lot 1. Calculations have not been undertaken with respect to deep soil zones over the parent parcel. This would only be an issue if deep soil zones were considered to be inadequate and Council was considering refusal of the application on this basis. The intent of the SEPP is met in this regard as it complies with respect of the proposed lot, which will be created prior to construction commencing.

Sixty percent of the deep soil zone is located behind the building line, however, a large area is also provided at the front of the site, around the communal open space area, adjacent to the existing fig tree.

 

Solar Access

The applicant has advised that over 70% of the proposed dwellings receive the required solar access. Plans have been provided to support this.

 

Parking spaces

At least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom. A total of 14 parking spaces are provided for the proposed 25 single bedroom dwellings, excluding the 5 tandem spaces. The applicant  is also providing a share car for residents of the development, and combined with the istes proximity to shops and other amenities, car parking is considered acceptable. Appropriate conditions to apply. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dwelling size

The applicant has submitted a floor plan indicating that each of the proposed dwellings has a ‘gross floor area’ exceeding 50m2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noted

15   Design requirements

(1)  A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration the provisions of the Seniors Living Policy: Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development published by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources in March 2004, to the extent that those provisions are consistent with this Policy.

 

The proposed development is considered to be generally consistent with the Seniors Living Policy: Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development published by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources in March 2004.

Yes

16A   Character of local area

A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

 

Council’s Heritage Consultant has assessed the proposal in terms of compatibility with the local area and raised no objection to the proposed development. Suggestions were made with respect to proposed building materials to be used, which the applicant has incorporated into an amended design.

The proposed development is considered to be compatible with the character of the local area and Mullumbimby Conservation Area.

Further comments in relation to heritage are made later in this report.

Yes

17   Must be used for affordable housing for 10 years

(1)  A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless conditions are imposed by the consent authority to the effect that:

(a)  for 10 years from the date of the issue of the occupation certificate:

(i)  the dwellings proposed to be used for the purposes of affordable housing will be used for the purposes of affordable housing, and

(ii)  all accommodation that is used for affordable housing will be managed by a registered community housing provider, and

(b)  a restriction will be registered, before the date of the issue of the occupation certificate, against the title of the property on which development is to be carried out, in accordance with section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, that will ensure that the requirements of paragraph (a) are met.

(2)  Subclause (1) does not apply to development on land owned by the Land and Housing Corporation or to a development application made by, or on behalf of, a public authority.

 

The applicant has nominated dwellings 3, 8, 15, 16, 19 and 20 as long term affordable housing.

 

The applicant has proposed that the housing be set aside in perpetuity.

 

Relevant condition(s) will be placed on any consent to implement the requirements of this clause.

 

 

 

*Yes

(Subject to conditions)

 

18   Subdivision

Land on which development has been carried out under this Division may be subdivided with the consent of the consent authority.

 

The subject development application does not seek consent for subdivision at this time. However, the application documentation indicates that strata subdivision is proposed in the future.

 

Noted

State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011

Part 4 - Regional development

This Part applies to development of a class or description included in Schedule 4A to the Act. If applicable, the development application must be determined by the Joint Regional Planning Panel.

 Schedule 4A of the Act identifies the following as ‘regional development’

Council related development over $5 million

Development that has a capital investment value of more than $5 million if:

(a)  a council for the area in which the development is to be carried out is the applicant for development consent, or

(b)  the council is the owner of any land on which the development is to be carried out, or

(c)  the development is to be carried out by the council, or

(d)  the council is a party to any agreement or arrangement relating to the development (other than any agreement or arrangement entered into under the Act or for the purposes of the payment of contributions by a person other than the council).

The proposal is Council related development as the land is currently owned by Byron Shire Council. The applicant has provided an estimated cost less than $4.9875 million for the project including GST. GST is not included in the definition of Capital Investment Value.

 

The costing provided is based on the applicants experience with similar projects in the Shire.

 

The proposal is therefore local development.

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Division 15 Subdivision 2 applies to ‘Development in or adjacent to rail corridors and interim rail corridors - notification and other requirements.

 

85   Development adjacent to rail corridors

(1)  This clause applies to development on land that is in or adjacent to a rail corridor, if the development:

(a)  is likely to have an adverse effect on rail safety, or

(b)  involves the placing of a metal finish on a structure and the rail corridor concerned is used by electric trains, or

(c)  involves the use of a crane in air space above any rail corridor.

(2)  Before determining a development application for development to which this clause applies, the consent authority must:

(a)  within 7 days after the application is made, give written notice of the application to the rail authority for the rail corridor, and

(b)  take into consideration:

(i)  any response to the notice that is received within 21 days after the notice is given, and

(ii)  any guidelines that are issued by the Secretary for the purposes of this clause and published in the Gazette.

(3)  Land is adjacent to a rail corridor for the purpose of this clause even if it is separated from the rail corridor by a road or road related area within the meaning of the Road Transport Act 2013.

86   Excavation in, above, below or adjacent to rail corridors

(1)  This clause applies to development (other than development to which clause 88 applies) that involves the penetration of ground to a depth of at least 2m below ground level (existing) on land:

(a)  within, below or above a rail corridor, or

(b)  within 25m (measured horizontally) of a rail corridor, or

(b1)  within 25m (measured horizontally) of the ground directly below a rail corridor, or

(c)  within 25m (measured horizontally) of the ground directly above an underground rail corridor.

(2)  Before determining a development application for development to which this clause applies, the consent authority must:

(a)  within 7 days after the application is made, give written notice of the application to the rail authority for the rail corridor, and

(b)  take into consideration:

(i)  any response to the notice that is received within 21 days after the notice is given, and

(ii)  any guidelines issued by the Secretary for the purposes of this clause and published in the Gazette.

(3)  Subject to subclause (5), the consent authority must not grant consent to development to which this clause applies without the concurrence of the rail authority for the rail corridor to which the development application relates.

(4)  In deciding whether to provide concurrence, the rail authority must take into account:

(a)  the potential effects of the development (whether alone or cumulatively with other development or proposed development) on:

(i)  the safety or structural integrity of existing or proposed rail infrastructure facilities in the rail corridor, and

(ii)  the safe and effective operation of existing or proposed rail infrastructure facilities in the rail corridor, and

(b)  what measures are proposed, or could reasonably be taken, to avoid or minimise those potential effects.

(5)  The consent authority may grant consent to development to which this clause applies without the concurrence of the rail authority concerned if:

(a)  the rail corridor is owned by or vested in ARTC or is the subject of an ARTC arrangement, or

(b)  in any other case, 21 days have passed since the consent authority gave notice under subclause (2) (a) and the rail authority has not granted or refused to grant concurrence.

87   Impact of rail noise or vibration on non-rail development

(1)  This clause applies to development for any of the following purposes that is on land in or adjacent to a rail corridor and that the consent authority considers is likely to be adversely affected by rail noise or vibration:

(a)  residential accommodation,

(b)  a place of public worship,

(c)  a hospital,

(d)  an educational establishment or centre-based child care facility.

(2)  Before determining a development application for development to which this clause applies, the consent authority must take into consideration any guidelines that are issued by the Secretary for the purposes of this clause and published in the Gazette.

(3)  If the development is for the purposes of residential accommodation, the consent authority must not grant consent to the development unless it is satisfied that appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that the following LAeq levels are not exceeded:

(a)  in any bedroom in the residential accommodation—35 dB(A) at any time between 10.00 pm and 7.00 am,

(b)  anywhere else in the residential accommodation (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway)—40 dB(A) at any time.

 

 

 

As the site is adjacent to the disused north coast railway line, John Holland Rail were notified of the proposal and their comments sought. These comments were outlined in the referral section of this report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The applicant has confirmed that there will be no excavation below 2 metres below existing ground level within 25 metres of the corridor. Therefore, clause 86 does not apply and concurrence is not required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Department of Planning has published the document titled ‘Rail Corridors and Busy Roads - Interim Guidelines’ (December 2008) for the purpose of this clause.

The definition of a ‘rail corridor’ includes

· Land that is owned, leased managed or controlled by a public authority for the purpose of a railway or rail infrastructure facilities, or

· Land that is zoned under an environmental planning instrument predominantly or solely for the development for purpose of a railway or rail infrastructure facility

Whilst this document applies to the proposal as the adjacent land meets the definition of a rail corridor, it is difficult to assess potential impacts as the rail line is not used, it may never be utilised for train services, and if it is used in the future, the type and frequency of service is not known. Therefore, potential noise and vibration levels cannot be accurately assessed.

Notwithstanding, given that the rail line is not used, the development is not likely to be a ‘adversely affected by rail noise or vibration’ as set out in clause 87(1).

These issues are discussed at the end of this Table.

 

Yes, the required referral and assessment has been undertaken.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

Division 2 contains the Advertising and Signage Exempt Development Code. Subdivision 2 relates to Building identification signs.

The proposed identification sign is not exempt development as it is not attached to the building and the land is within a heritage conservation area.

The sign requires development consent.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land

Where a change of use is proposed the Council must consider a report provided by the applicant specifying the findings of a preliminary investigation (and detailed investigation if necessary) of the land in accordance with the contaminated land planning guidelines.

See assessment following this table.

*Yes

(Subject to conditions)

State Environmental Planning Policy No 64—Advertising and Signage

3.   Aims, objectives etc

(1)  This Policy aims:

(a)  to ensure that signage (including advertising):

(i)  is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, and

(ii)  provides effective communication in suitable locations, and

(iii)  is of high quality design and finish, and

(b)  to regulate signage (but not content) under Part 4 of the Act, and

(c)  to provide time-limited consents for the display of certain advertisements, and

(d)  to regulate the display of advertisements in transport corridors, and

(e)  to ensure that public benefits may be derived from advertising in and adjacent to transport corridors.

(2)  This Policy does not regulate the content of signage and does not require consent for a change in the content of signage.

13   Matters for consideration

(1)  A consent authority (other than in a case to which subclause (2) applies) must not grant consent to an application to display an advertisement to which this Policy applies unless the advertisement or the advertising structure, as the case requires:

(a)  is consistent with the objectives of this Policy as set out in clause 3 (1) (a), and

(b)  has been assessed by the consent authority in accordance with the assessment criteria in Schedule 1 and the consent authority is satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impacts, and

(c)  satisfies any other relevant requirements of this Policy.

 

 

The proposal includes an identification sign at the front of the site, within the road reserve.

A condition of any approval will require the sign to be relocated so that it is located wholly within the property boundaries.

The sign would be approximately 1.5m x 1.2 m and contain the wording ‘The Mill Yard’. It would be attached to a 2m x 1.5m (approximate) wall constructed from vertical timber sleepers.

The design of the sign is compatible with the overall design of the development, is suitable in terms of heritage considerations and would not be illuminated.

It is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of the  SEPP. 

 

 

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 - Coastal Protection

Council must have regard for the matters of consideration under Parts 2 and 4 of SEPP No. 71 when assessing development within the coastal zone. These matters include:

-    retention of existing public access to the coastal Foreshore

-    impact of effluent disposal on water quality

-    development must not discharge untreated stormwater into a coastal water body

Public access to the coastal foreshore will not be impeded or diminished.

Effluent is not proposed to be disposed other than to Council’s sewerage system.

The proposed stormwater management plan details the method of treating stormwater runoff and is considered acceptable in this instance by Council’s Development Engineer.

The site is not located within a sensitive coastal location, subdivision is not proposed, a master plan is not required.

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy Building Sustainability Index 2004 (BASIX)

Applies to new residential dwellings and alterations and additions with a value greater than $50 000. Development is to accord with a completed BASIX Certificate.

The plans of the proposed dwellings are consistent with the requirements as detailed on the submitted BASIX Certificate. The applicant has submitted an Assessor Certificate.

Yes

North Coast Design Guidelines

Standards for building design on the North Coast of NSW.

The design is considered to be generally consistent with the guidelines.

Yes

NSW Coastal Policy 1997

The subject site is located within 1km landward of the open coast high water mark and is subject to the provisions of the NSW Coastal Policy.

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Strategic Actions of the NSW Coastal Policy 1997.

Yes

Building Code of Australia

Ability for the proposed development to comply with the requirements of the BCA.

The proposal is considered to be able to satisfy the requirements of the Building Code of Australia. Standard conditions will be imposed on any consent.

Yes

Disability Access (DDA)

Access for persons with disabilities and integration into surrounding streetscapes without creating barriers. (Council Res.10-1118)

The proposal seeks to provide 3 dwellings as adaptable  dwellings.

Yes

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 (Remediation of land)

Council’s Environmental Officer has advised as follows:

 

A Stage 1 Preliminary Contamination Assessment (Environmental Engineering Solutions, (August 2017) identified the presence of lead in composite samples in excess of the Health Investigation Levels for a residential land use (NEPM 1999 (updated 2013).

 

A condition of consent is to be included requiring assessment of individual samples by way of a Detailed Site Investigation and Remedial Action Plan (if required) prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for the proposed development.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

With respect to the issue of noise, Council’s Environmental Officer has advised as follows:

 

The proposed development is located adjacent the disused Mullumbimby Rail corridor and consequently is captured by SEPP Infrastructure - Division 15 Railways - Subdivision 2. It should be noted the SEPP requirements are intended for the control of rail noise from an operating railway rather than a non operational one.

A Preliminary Acoustic Assessment has been conduct by CRG Acoustics (17 August 2017) for the proposed residential development.  The rail line is not in use and there are no definite plans for recommissioning of the rail line, therefore it is not possible to produce accurate noise impact predictions as the variables of: type of rolling stock (electric, diesel etc; speed of traffic; number of carriages and condition or state of track are all unknown.

Conventional treatment options include the construction of an acoustical barrier, building treatment (walls, windows/doors, roof/ceiling and ventilation).

CRG stress that given the level of uncertainty regarding rail services, it is not possible to provide an accurate level of Acoustical treatment.

It is more likely than not that any future reinstatement of rail services would be limited in size, scale and duration to meet local needs.  The subsequent rail noise impacts would envitably be restricted.

The implementation of conditions to restrict a noise source that cannot reasonably be predicted for a future use that is improbable is deemed to be unreasonable.

It is my view that given the improbability of rail services and the inability to predict the noise impacts of any future rail activities, the imposition of conditions to require acoustical treatment would appear to be superfluous.

It should be noted that the whilst the proposed 1800mm hardwood timber to be installed along the common boundary will prevent unauthorized entry to the railway it has not been designed as an Acoustic Barrier.

It is also noted that should the development be affected in some capacity by noise associated with a train in the future, such noise would be intermittent and short lived in comparison to road noise along the Station Street Boundary, which includes trucks, cars and buses from the early morning through the day and into the late evening. No such requirement applies in terms of road vehicle noise. Further, in terms of nexus and applying the Newbury test, imposing a requirement for the attenuation of the development from rail noise when no such noise exists is unreasonable and  unnecessary in this instance.  A similar conclusion could therefore also be reached with respect of vibration

 

 

4.2A  Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP 2014)

 

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

 

Part 1

1.1| 1.1AA| 1.2| 1.3| 1.4| Dictionary| 1.5| 1.6| 1.7| 1.8| 1.8A| 1.9|

1.9A

Part 2

2.1| 2.2 | 2.3 |Land Use Table | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8

Part 3

3.1| 3.2| 3.3

Part 4

4.1| 4.1A| 4.1AA| 4.1B |4.1C| 4.1D| 4.1E| 4.2| 4.2A| 4.2B| 4.2C| 4.2|4.3|4.4 |4.5 | 4.6

Part 5

5.1| 5.2| 5.3| 5.4| 5.5| 5.6| 5.7| 5.8|5.9| 5.9AA| 5.10| 5.11| 5.12|

5.13

Part 6

6.1| 6.2| 6.3| 6.4| 6.5| 6.6| 6.7| 6.8| 6.9

 

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

(a)    The proposed development is defined in the LEP 2014 Dictionary as a ‘multi-dwelling housing’ development, which is:

·    multi dwelling housing means 3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, each with access at ground level, but does not include a residential flat building.

(b)    The land is within the B4 Mixed Use according to the Land Zoning Map;

(c)    The proposed development is permissible with consent; and

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

Zone objectives:

•  To provide a mixture of compatible land uses.

•  To integrate suitable business, office, residential, retail and other development in accessible locations so as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

Comments: The proposal would contribute towards providing a mix of compatible land uses in the locality. The site is suitably located with respect to walking and cycling and its location beside the town centre, reduces the need for the use of public transport services compared to a more distant location for the development type proposed.

The following table outlines other relevant clauses of the Byron LEP 2014 and discusses whether the proposal complies with the relevant requirements.

LEP Summary of Requirement

Proposed

Complies

Clause 4.3 - Height of buildings

Maximum height limit as shown on the Height of Buildings Map is 9.0 metres.

The maximum height of the proposed building is 8.9 metres.

 

Yes

Clause 4.4   Floor space ratio

Maximum floor space ratio for a building on the subject site is not to exceed 0.6:1 as shown on the Floor Space Ratio Map.

·    The total area of the subject allotment (parent parcel) is 16090m2.

·    The total area of proposed Lot 1 is 3244m2

·    The proposed gross floor area of the building is approximately 1275m2.

·    The existing buildings on the site have a GFA of approximately 5770m2 (by interpretation from scaled aerial photograph)

·    Proposed FSR (parent parcel) is approximately 0.44:1.

·    Proposed FSR (proposed lot 1) is approximately 0.39:1.

Yes

Clause 5.5   Development within the coastal zone

This clause applies to development within the coastal zone and requires that development consent is not to be granted unless the consent authority has considered certain matters relating to public foreshore access, visual impacts, environmental impacts, heritage, coastal hazards etc.

The relevant clauses have been examined and the proposal is considered satisfactory with respect to the relevant considerations. The proposal does not raise any significant coastal development issues.

Yes

Clause 5.10(5) Heritage Conservation

The subject site is within the Mullumbimby Heritage Conservation Area and within the setting (100 metres) of the following heritage items identified in Schedule 5 of Byron LEP 2014:

·    Heritage Item - dwelling house at No.87 Station Street (located opposite the subject site).

·    Heritage Item - dwelling house at No.93 Station Street (located opposite the subject site).

The Railway Station (Heritage Item No. I150) is located approximately 120 metres to the northeast.

Pursuant to Clause 5.10(5) the consent authority may require a heritage management document to be prepared.

The applicant has submitted a Statement of Heritage Impact. The application was referred to Councils Heritage Consultant for assessment. No specific objections were raised to the proposal.

 

Yes- refer to

discussion in LEP 2014 Issues section of this report.

Clause 6.1 Acid Sulfate Soils

Class 4 - Works more than 2 metres below the natural ground surface. Works by which the watertable is likely to be lowered more than 2 metres below the natural ground surface.

 

A Preliminary Acid Sulfate Soil Assessment was undertaken by Greg Alderson & Associates (April 2014) as part of the subdivision of the subject site.  A management plan was prepared requiring all disturbed soil at a depth greater than 0.3m to be limed at a rate of 3.9 kg lime/m3.

Council’s Environmental Officer has raised no objection to the proposal subject to a condition being included on any consent requiring the implementation of the ASS Management Plan.

Yes

Clause 6.3 Flood Planning Level

(2)  This clause applies to land at or below the flood planning level.

(3)  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 other matters specified within subclause 3.

 (4)  In determining a development application for development at or below the future flood planning level, the consent authority must, in addition to the matters referred to in subclause (3), also consider other matters in subclause 4.

 

Council’s Development Engineer has raised no objection to the proposal in terms of flooding.  Flooding is discussed further in relation to Byron DCP 2014.

Yes

Clause 6.6   Essential services

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

(a)  the supply of water,

(b)  the supply of electricity,

(c)  the disposal and management of sewage,

(d)  stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,

(e)  suitable vehicular access.

Council’s Development Engineer has examined the proposal with respect to services and has raised no objections subject to conditions of approval. Further discussion regarding servicing the proposed development is made with respect to Byron DCP 2014.

Yes, subject to conditions.

6.7   Affordable housing in residential and business zones

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

(a)  to increase the supply of affordable housing for very low, low and moderate income earning households,

(b)  to provide accommodation to support a diverse residential population inclusive of all income groups within Byron,

(c)  to ensure a housing mix and tenure choice including affordable housing,

(d)  to ensure that affordable housing is identified by the Council as in demand and located close to transport and services appropriate to the intended households.

(2)  Development consent must not be granted for the purposes of residential accommodation or to the subdivision of any land in Zone R2 Low Density Residential, Zone R3 Medium Density Residential, Zone B2 Local Centre or Zone B4 Mixed Use unless the consent authority has considered:

(a)  the need for providing, maintaining or retaining affordable housing, and

(b)  the need for imposing conditions relating to providing, maintaining or retaining affordable housing including, but not limited to, imposing covenants and the registration of restrictions about users.

(3)  For the purposes of this clause, affordable housing means housing for very low income households, low income households or moderate income households.

 

All matters raised in Clause 6.7 have been given consideration. The proposal meets the objective of this clause and the site is suitably located near the town centre to provide access to services and facilities. Demand for affordable housing within Byron Shire is acknowledged.

Conditions have been included in the recommendation to require the provision of six (6) dwellings as affordable housing and for the housing to be managed by a social/community housing provider (as defined under Part 1 Clause 6 of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The applicant has advised in writing that they are willing to provide affordable rental housing as specified above.

 

Yes,

subject to conditions

 

Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 - Issues

 

Mullumbimby Heritage Conservation Area

 

The development application is accompanied by a Statement of Heritage Impact (SOHI) (Urbis, August 2017). It examines the proposal with respect to the relevant clauses of the Byron LEP 2014 and the Byron DCP Performance Criteria. It specifically addresses the proposal with respect to siting and setting, scale and form, design, materials and finishes and roofs and parapets.

The report contains the following ‘Statement of Heritage Impact’:

The proposed redevelopment of the subject site has been designed with specific regard for the heritage significance of the MCA and is sympathetic to the strong residential ‘local character’ of Station Street. The proposed scale and bulk of the concept design is directly responsive to both the height and scale of the prevailing character of traditional residential building stock (Precinct 2) and would bridge the ‘bulk’ differential between this and the modern large-scale Council Administration building and library on the eastern side of Station Street.

The Proposal is designed in a contemporary manner, and does not seek to imitate or replicate any architectural style of buildings/elements within the MCA. Its form, use of materials and finishes, however reference a vernacular architectural aesthetic whilst incorporating design cues from an ‘industrial vernacular’ of railway and light industrial factories. The proposed redevelopment will not physically impact on the MCA or any of its built elements, and will enhance the understanding of the history of the site through built form and materials design, as well as public interpretation devices such as signage (yet to be developed).

Council’s Heritage Consultant has examined the proposal and concluded as follows:

Comments on Proposal

a) The proposed overall design character with high pitched roofs and traditional uncoloured metal and timber detailing provides a link to the historical industrial use of the site and the importance of timber in this region.

The proposed development is considered to satisfactorily address Article 22 from the Burra Charter (Version 2013) regarding ‘New Work’, as outlined below. It is important that this article or part of it, is not read in isolation. The clause states that the work should be ‘readily identifiable as such but must respect and have minimal impact on the cultural significance of the place’. New work also has to be consistent with several other heritage conservation principles in terms of the precautionary approach, values, setting, change and adaption, and the need to respect the significance of the place through its form, scale, character, colour texture and material.

 

 

.           b)  The use of uncoloured metal is supported and is preferred to a colorbond/painted metal finishes due to the traditional aesthetic character of uncoloured metal which works well in a contemporary style as well. The use of galvanised steel is also encouraged as it has a different aesthetic finish to zincalume, and will be less reflective. As discussed during the heritage panel meeting, the final schedule of materials for different elements may need to be further refined to address reflectivity issues in some areas.

.           c)  The proposed buildings to be located on the direct frontage of the development to Station Street are considered to be sympathetic in scale, form, setbacks and spacing and setting to the traditional dwellings on the opposite side of the road without being a direct copy. Building E, which is elevated to provide for flood height and car parking underneath, provides some variety to the building form on the site, is set back from the street frontage and will be considerably softened by retention of the mature tree.

d) Interpretation of the history of the site is to be incorporated through several ways, such as lettering in paving, storytelling and information through plaques or sculpture, use of blank walls, and digital applications as part of a town heritage trail. End walls of buildings could be considered for potential integration in the design of the interpretation. Further details are to be supplied and can be conditioned as part of the application. A name change to Mill Yard was suggested at the Panel meeting in preference to Rail Yard to reflect the timber mill history of the site.

Conclusion

I concur with the findings of the SOHI prepared by Urbis dated 21 August 2017 and consider that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon the assessed heritage significance of the site or the setting of the Mullumbimby Conservation Area.

Recommendations

As per Urbis Report

1.   9.2.1- Management of Unexpected Finds

2.   9.2.2 Integration of Potential Archaeological Items and Interpretive Devices

3.   Materials: A final schedule of external materials and finishes is to be provided for Council approval.

As mentioned Councils Heritage Panel also reviewed the proposal and suggested a name change of the development from the Rail Yard to the Mill Yard, and to also further consider external finishes. In response, the applicant has made the requested name change and also included external finishes in consultation with Councils Heritage Advisor which includes vertical timber cladding to provide a transition from the horizontal painted boards characteristic of the walls on the residential side of the street to the subject site, and zincalume roofing.

 

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

 

Draft SEPP (Coastal Management) 2016

The site is affected by this draft SEPP as it identified on the “Coastal Use Area Map”. The coastal use area is land adjacent to coastal waters, estuaries, coastal lakes and coastal lagoons, where impacts of development on the use land enjoyment of the beaches, foreshores, dunes estuaries, lakes and the ocean needs to be considered. The site is identified on this map due to its proximity to Brunswick River, approximately 640 metres from the site. In this regard, the proposed development would occupy a lot approved as part of a subdivision for residential development and would not impact of the use of beaches, foreshores or other coastal areas.

The site not identified on the ‘Coastal Environment Area Map’ or ‘Coastal Hazard Map’.

The proposal is considered satisfactory with respect to this draft SEPP.

 

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

Part B Chapters:

B2| XB3| XB4| XB5| XB6| XB7|X B8| XB9| XB10|X B11|X B12| XB13|

B14

Part C Chapters:

XC1| XC2| C3| C4

Part D Chapters

XD1| D2| D3| D4| D5| D6| D7| D8

Part E Chapters

E1| E2| XE3| E4| E5| E6| E7

 

The relevant controls are addressed in the Table below.

 

DCP Chapter and Controls

Assessment

Part A - Preliminary

The application was advertised in accordance with the DCP (Level 2 advertising).

Chapter B3 - Services

B3.2.1 Provision of Services

 

Councils Development Engineer has examined the proposal with respect to the provision of services and raises no objections subject to conditions of consent.

Water: Available to the site

Sewer: To connect the site to sewer the existing sewer system will need to be extended approximately 65m from the corner of Fern St and Station St and long the full frontage of the Child Care Centre.

Road Access: Satisfactory.

Electricity and telecommunications: Satisfactory

B3.2.3 Stormwater management

Councils Engineer has advised:

A SWMP has been submitted (E2017/116238) and is acceptable.

The site has two catchments, the southern half of the site and the northern half of the site. A drainage easement / overland flow path bisects the site and runs east west through the site.

The southern catchment discharges to a concrete lid stormwater pit in the road reserve. The northern half discharges into a KIP located at the mid point of the site frontage.

A 5000L OSD tank is proposed for each building block. Given there are 5 building blocks this provides total OSD of 25000L. This meets OSD requirements.

Council’s Comprehensive Guidelines for Stormwater Management requires no more than 15% of the site to bypass the OSD system.  The proposed design captures only 40% of the site with 60% bypassing OSD. This is not considered a concern given adequate OSD has been provided and given the whole stormwater system passes through a SPEL Filter Vault.

The SWMP is based on an old site plan. However, the proposed drainage layout will work for the latest site plan.

Easements:

A drainage easement is to be created along northern half of the eastern boundary, from Council’s car park. This is because of the drainage system leading from Council’s car park to a discharge point mid way along the eastern boundary.

A 2.5m wide stormwater swale runs west to east through the site to provide a flow path for localised storm inundation. It appears buildings A and D will overhang the stormwater swale with piers being constructed within the swale. This is not permitted as an easement must be placed over this swale prohibiting any development within the easement. The swale can’t be easily moved unless they delete the pedestrian walkway along the southern shoulder of the swale.

It should be noted that amended plans have been provided and no objections are raised in relation to drainage. The easement referred to above, is to be created as part of the subdivision creating proposed Lot 1.

Stormwater Quality and Treatment

To meet stormwater quality requirements the SWMP proposes 2 * SPEL Filter Vaults. One at the discharge point for the northern half of the site and one for the southern. While these products are acceptable they require maintenance over time to remove sediment type waste. Reference to the ongoing maintenance of the stormwater system, and in particular the SPEL Filter Vault’s, must be made within the Plan of Management. This can be conditioned.

 

B3.2.4 Sediment and Erosion Control Measures

Sediment and erosion control can be addressed by way of consent conditions.

Chapter B4 - Traffic Planning, Vehicle Parking, Circulation and Access

The proposal does not achieve compliance with the parking rates specified in the DCP. However, compliance with SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 is achieved and therefore, the proposal cannot be refused on this basis.

Parking spaces sizes and manoeuvrability has been assessed and is satisfactory.

In relation to traffic impact, Councils engineer has advised that:

Given the site is to be “Affordable Housing” with a reduced car parking rate of 0.5 spaces per unit, the 25 Affordable housing units are therefore expected to have the same traffic generation as a 12 * 2 bedroom units medium density development. Such a development would have low impact traffic generation.

It is also noted the development is within close walking distances to shops, restaurant, the town pool and other public amenities. The site in terms of traffic and parking generation is well suited for the proposed development.   

Chapter B5 -  Providing for Cycling

Provision has been made for the on-site storage of bicycles. The proposal is satisfactory in this regard.

Chapter B6 - Buffers and Minimising Land Use Conflict

Potential conflicts that need to be addressed relate the adjoining pre-school (south) and railway line (east). In relation to these matters, Councils Environmental Health Officer has assessed this issue and has raised no concerns in relation to potential land use conflicts with the pre-school or railway line. Relevant matters in relation to the location adjacent to the pre-school is that:

·     The closest building is setback approximately 8.5 metres from the southern boundary

·     The closest units are oriented to the east and west, not towards the site.

·     Fencing is proposed for privacy.

·     Management measures are proposed with respect to potential impacts from the garbage bin storage area adjacent to the common boundary. This is discussed further, later in this report..

Potential noise and vibration issues have previously been addressed.

There are no specific buffer distances prescribed in the DCP for these land uses.

Chapter B7 - Mosquitoes and Biting Midges

The following measures are proposed in accordance with recommended measures outlined in Chapter B7 of the BDCP 2014:

All windows are to be screened in accordance with the prescriptive measures contained within the DCP.

Chapter B8 - Waste Minimisation and Management

B8.4.2 Multi Dwelling Housing 

 

The applicant has submitted a SWMMP generally in accordance with B8.4.2.

The proposed development includes a secure bin area for storage of 3 x 1100L waste and 3x11 COL recycling bins and 4 x 240 L green bins.

The bin area is proposed to be located adjacent to the central parking area.

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has assessed the proposal and notes that to ensure the bin area is keep clean and tidy, a provision for a cold water tap will be installed and a quarterly sanitization program is proposed to minimises odours.

The waste and recycling bins will be collected by a nominated commercial waste contractor on a weekly basis.

Further, the applicant has submitted a draft Plan of Management committing to the preparation of an on-going waste management plan in order to maintain cleanliness.

Chapter B9 - Landscaping

B9.4.1and 9.4.2  Multi Dwelling Housing

 

The proposed development is considered to satisfy the landscape requirements of Clause B9.4.1. It is noted that total landscaped area is in accordance with SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

The proposed 25 dwellings each under 55m2 in floor area require a common landscaped area of 1250m2. The proposed common landscape area is approximately 311m2.  As the proposal meets the intent of the AH SEPP (and will comply following registration of the subdivision), it is considered that this non-compliance is justified.

 

B9.4.2 Common Landscaped Areas

 

Over 75% of the common landscape area consists of deep soil zones.

The submitted landscape plan needs to be updated to reflect changes made to the site plan. A revised landscape plan required as a condition of consent.

Chapter B11 - Planning for Crime Prevention

A formal Crime Risk Assessment has not been prepared, which is required for developments greater that 20 dwellings. However, in the circumstances this is considered satisfactory as the development application has been prepared in accordance with SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) and the associated guidelines. Notwithstanding, the applicant has advised that the proposal incorporates the following Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) measures:

·     Windows facing the Station St and the Council carpark as well as the internal common pathways.

·     Delineation between private and communal spaces.

·     The development has a distinct entrance to each dwelling, to assist territorial reinforcement.

The proposal is considered satisfactory in this regard.

Chapter B13 - Access and Mobility

The DCP requires that 10% (rounded up to the nearest whole number) of the units be adaptable housing. Therefore, the DCP requires 3 units be adaptable. The proposal complies in this regard.

Chapter B14 - Excavation and Fill

The proposed development has been designed to comply with the flood planning level of 5.03AHD. Therefore, minimal earthworks will be undertaken during construction of buildings A to D. Construction of the ground level slab associated with Building E and the car park will involve minimal soil disturbance below 300mm from the existing ground level.

The proposal is satisfactory with respect to this Chapter.

Chapter C1 - Non-Indigenous Heritage

The SOHI has addressed this DCP and no objections to the proposal has been raised by Councils Heritage Advisor.

Chapter C2 - Areas Affected by Flood

Councils Development Engineer assessed the proposal as original submitted against the DCP and required additional information and amended plans. The original assessment was:

A flood flow path passes through the southern part of the site from Station St to the Rail line.  The flow path is flood affected from the 20yr ARI event and greater.

Building Block E has been design to be elevated to allow for water flow through the site. The bottom 700mm of the fence along the eastern boundary is to have open grill to allow overland flow through the fence line.

However, this is potentially negated by the fact the applicant proposes to fill the flood path (with the exception of the stormwater swale remaining unfilled). The existing ground level for the southern flood path portion of the site is approximately 3.6m AHD adjacent to the central stormwater swale to 4m adjacent to the preschool. The applicant proposes to fill this southern flood way portion of the site up to 4.15m AHD. This amounts to filling the flood flow path with 0.6 – 0.15m of fill.

The WSL for the 20 and 50 yr storm event is 4.05 and 4.17m AHD. Therefore, filling the site to 4.15m AHD will potentially dam the flood path and result in increased backwater effects for house opposite the site on Station St.

A 2.5m wide overland flow stormwater swale runs west to east through the site to provide a low flow overland flow path for localised storm inundation. If the southern portion of the site is filled then floodwater velocities will be channalised along this swale, thus potentially increasing the Hazard Classification of the site to High. In addition, it appears buildings A and D will overhang the stormwater swale with piers being constructed within the swale. This is not permitted as an easement must be placed over this swale prohibiting any development within the easement.

Therefore, to support the filling of the southern portion of the site the applicant is to model the impact of the proposed development and fill to determine the potential impact the development will have on the surrounding neighbourhood.

In response, the applicant provided additional information and amended plans. The subsequent evaluation advised that:

An amended site plan has been submitted (E2018/2011) and are acceptable. The amended plans propose:

·     To have a maximum RL of 4m south of the overland stormwater swale drain. This will allow for overland flow across the site for the 20yr ARI storm events and greater (20yr ARL WSL = 4.05m AHD). While the southern portion of the site will be

·     To elevate the water tanks adjacent to the utility area to ensure flood overland flow can pass under these tanks

·     Reconstruct the overland stormwater swale drain so it is not located under Building A or D.

While the site is not classified as flood affected in a 10yr ARI storm event there is the potential for the site to be flood affected via backwater affects along the street piped stormwater system. The 10 yr ARI WSL to the south west of the site is 3.75m AHD. The car park RL is proposed to be 4m AHD. This provides 250mm freeboard and is considered acceptable. Normally 300mm is required but given the indirect nature of the flooding (via backwater affects along the stormwater piped system) 250mm freeboard is consider acceptable as the volume of flood water will be chocked by the piped system.

The proposal complies with required minimum floor levels.

Chapter D1 - Residential Development in Urban and Special Purpose Zones

D1.2.1 Building Height Plane

 

 

The proposed development is able to comply with the BHP adjacent to 3 of the 4 boundaries. An encroachment occurs with the elevated Building E, adjacent to the eastern rail way reserve boundary. This is considered to be an acceptable encroachment as the adjoining land is the dis-used railway corridor where there will not be any residential shadowing impacts, a large buffer exists to any other dwellings to the east and it will not result in additional unacceptable visual impacts.

D1.2.2 Setbacks from Boundaries

 

The proposed front setback of 4.5 metres complies.

The minimum side boundary setback is 1.825m, which also complies.

D1.2.3 Screening the Underfloor Space of Buildings

Buildings are elevated to achieve minimum floor levels with respect to flooding. The landscaping proposed provides adequate screening.

D1.2.4 Character & Visual Impact

The character and visual impacts of the proposal has been assessed in the SOHI, with no objections raised by Councils Heritage advisor.

The building height complies with the Byron LEP and the materials proposed to be used are in accordance with the Heritage Advisors advice.

D1.2.5 Fences

 

Lapped and capped fencing is proposed along the common boundary with the pre-school and the rail way line property. The height of the fences are  1.8 metres along the rear boundary  and 2.1m along the southern pre-school boundary. This height (2.1m) exceeds Councils normal requirements (ie. 1.2 m within the building line and 1.8m for the remainder) but has been raised to this height following a planning assessment and request to the applicant to increase privacy and decrease potential impacts with the pre-school. The section within the building line will need to be reduced to 1.2 metres within the building line in accordance with Council policy. Narrow landscaping up to 3 metres high is proposed along this fence.

D1.2.6 Balconies

Proposed balconies would not dominate the visual character of the development and are well integrated into the building design.

D1.2.7 Pedestrian and Cycle Access

The proposed development provides connectivity to the local footpath network. The site is identified as having frontage to a potential off road shared cycleway and footpath in Council’s adopted Bike Strategy and Action Plan.

D1.6.1 Private Open Space Courtyards and 1.6.2 Open Space Balcony

 

 

Private open space is limited to the balconies of each unit, which do not meet the size requirements of the DCP but meets the requirements of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

D1.6.3 Landscaping

This has been addressed with respect to Chapter B9.

 

D1.6.4 On-Site Car Parking

 

Council’s Development Engineer has raised no objection to the proposed parking and circulation areas subject to conditions. In accordance with SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom. A total of 14 parking spaces (plus 5 tandem spaces) are provided for the proposed 25 single bedroom dwellings. A share car is also to be provided. Car parking is considered acceptable.

D1.6.6 Clothes Drying Facilities

External clothes drying areas are available for each unit on their balcony, via a fold down clothes line. These areas will be suitably screened.

D1.6.7 Equity of Access and Mobility 

The proposed development incorporates 3 adaptable housing units in accordance with the provisions of the DCP.

D1.7 Affordable Housing

Refer to Clause 6.7 of the Byron LEP 2014.

The DCP identifies that Council may consider applying a condition to the development consent for affordable housing requiring that the development not be used for the purposes of tourist and visitor accommodation including holiday letting. It is proposed to include a condition containing this requirement.

Chapter E3 - Mullumbimby

E3.3  Character, Bulk and Scale of Development

E3.4   Urban Design and Infill Development

The site is within Precinct 1 of the DCP.

 

Council’s Heritage Advisor has raised no objection to the proposal with respect to urban design issues.

 

 

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 & 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

The proposal is considered satisfactory with respect to compliance with the Coastal Policy

Yes

93

No

 

 

94

No

 

 

94A

No

 

 

* Non-compliances and any other significant issues discussed below

 

4.7       Any coastal zone management plan?

 

 

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Not applicable

Is there any applicable coastal zone management plan?

Consideration:

 

 

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. The proposal is satisfactory with respect to heritage considerations.

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.

 

Relevant development impact issues have been addressed in the context of the statutory consideration above.

 

Issues raised in public submissions are addressed below.

 

4.9       The suitability of the site for the development

 

The preceding statutory assessment demonstrates that the site is suitable for the proposed development. 

 

 

4.10     Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

 

The application was notified in accordance with the Level 2 procedure within Council’s DCP 2014. In response to the public notification process, Council’s electronic records indicate that a total of eight (8) submissions were received.

 

Following is a summary of planning matters raised in the submissions.

 

SUBMISSION 1

Community debate has not occurred regarding best use of the land. Should postpone until after the Mullumbimby Master Plan has been completed.

 

 

 

Price of $1.3million for the purchase of the land is too low.

Doesn’t conform to heritage character

 

Inadequate parking. too many units in the space and insufficient open space.

Site should be retained for a future carpark for the light rail service

A valid development application has been lodged with Council as the owner of the land providing its consent to lodge an application. This report has assessed the proposal under current planning controls and has found it to be a suitable land use. It is a matter for Council to decide whether there needs to be any further community debate concerning potential uses of the land, given that they have previously resolved to consider the site for affordable housing.

The price of the land is not a DA assessment consideration.

As discussed throughout this report, the impact on heritage character is considered to be satisfactory.

Parking and density complies with the requirements of the AH SEPP.

There is no firm committed proposal for a light rail service. If this service does eventuate, other parking options will need to be considered. The site has already been approved for a residential subdivision.

SUBMISSION 2

Inadequate car parking. Council car park and verge is not acceptable for overflow car parking spaces which will affect amenity.

Road surface and line marking along Station Street and Fern Street are already in disrepair.

Profits should be put towards the upgrade of these streets.

As discussed, car parking complies with the SEPP and this issue cannot be used as a reason for refusal.

 

Councils engineers have assessed the road network to be suitable for the proposal.

 

SUBMISSION 3

Excessive Scale contributing to the lack of open space only open space is a private balcony.

No suitable local open space.

Conflict is documents regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit resulting in lack of definite assessment of occupant numbers and need for open space.

Need to commit to some units for the NSW Housing wait list.

The floor space ratio complies with the AH SEPP requirements and no bonuses are being sought. Therefore, scale is considered acceptable.

 

Communal open space will be provided along the site frontage adjacent to the large fig tree.

 

The plans indicate that the development is for one (1) bedroom units.

 

The number of affordable housing units to be managed by NCCH (a social housing provider) complies with the requirements of the AH SEPP.

SUBMISSION 4

Excessive scale and impact on local amenity

Infrastructure not adequate for size of development traffic and parking already a problem

Scale and design not sympathetic with heritage character contrary to LEP

DA documentation is imprecise in relation to number of bedrooms etc. No definite assessment for the number of occupants

DA need to include undertaking of contribution towards NSW Housing Social housing

Lack of open space

Open space in essential to mental health & wellbeing.

Area should be a park

Flooding issues

Unresolved sewerage issues in this part of town

The floor space ratio complies with the AH SEPP. Therefore, scale is considered acceptable.

It is acknowledged that Council’s DCP  2014 requires more on-site parking spaces than what is proposed. The AH SEPP requires the proposed 25 single bedroom dwellings to provide a minimum of 13 spaces. Fourteen (14) spaces plus 5 tandem spaces are proposed. As discussed, the proposal cannot be refused on this basis.

Councils engineers have assessed infrastructure as being suitable for the proposal subject to conditions.

25 x 1 bedroom units are proposed.

As mentioned above, the number of affordable housing units to be managed by NCCH (a social housing provider) complies with the requirements of the AH SEPP.

Issues of open space has also previously been discussed in relation to the AH SEPP and is satisfactory with respect to the standards required.

Councils engineers have assessed the proposal in respect of flooding and have no objections subject to conditions. Refer to comments in the DCP section of this report.

As discussed, provision of infrastructure has been assessed by Councils engineers and this is deemed to be satisfactory subject to conditions.

SUBMISSION 5

19/6 split for affordable housing is a poor split does not address the affordable housing issue

The zinc cladding does not reflect the predominant bunker houses in the area

Lack of open space

Problems with existing sewerage system

Lack of car parking resulting in use of Councils car park.

The number/ratio of affordable housing units complies with the provisions of the AH SEPP.

The external cladding of the units has been amended to include a vertical timber finish on the end walls. The proposed building material are considered to be acceptable and no objections are raised from Councils Heritage Advisor in this regard.

The issues relating to the provision of open space, car parking and infrastructure provision has been discussed and it is considered that Council cannot justify refusal of the application on these grounds.

 

SUBMISSION 6

Oppose if it inhabits the use of the railway line by train services.

Developers and future tenant need to not oppose a restart of the rail line as a condition of approval.

At this time, it is not known what the nature of any future train service would be, if it is used for this purpose at all.

 

The imposition of a condition as suggested in this submission is not considered practical or enforceable.

SUBMISSION 7 Mullumbimby Community Pre-School

There are examples of discrepancies within DA, including the number of bedrooms, fence heights, car parking numbers and number of adaptable housing units.

Fence height of 1.2m or 1.8m – both not adequate for privacy.

There are windows facing the pre-school. Concern with privacy, (Building E)

How will kids be protected from noise, fumes – who will deal with OH&S issues.

Smell of rubbish

Unsightly view of the bins from pre-school

Exposure to the kids of the bin sanitation process.

Amenities issues

Concern with waste collection arrangements.

Increased flooding of school yard.

Increase traffic on road.

Reversing vehicles will back towards the pre-school fence – fumes

Screen plants are not adequate

Some of the examples of discrepancies are clarified elsewhere in the DA documentation, through direct consultation with the applicant and by way of amended plans as part of the DA assessment process.

To further reduce potential privacy impacts, the fence along the common boundary has been since been increased in height to 2.1 metres. Conditions to apply.

The windows facing the common boundary with the pre-school are in proposed Unit 25 (Building E) which is set back approximately 8.5 metres from the common boundary. The windows include a high narrow window in the mezzanine lounge and a dining room window on the lower floor level. Potential for privacy impacts or overlooking is limited.

The windows from Unit 1 in Building A are setback over 32 metres from the common boundary.

Potential impacts on privacy are considered satisfactory.

The garbage bin area will be screened from the school by the proposed fence.

In relation waste management impacts, the applicant has submitted a draft Plan of Management for the ongoing management of the development. 

The Body Corporate Manager will be responsible for the day to day operations of the development, including enforcing the Body Corporate By-Laws.

The Body Corporate Managers phone number will be made available to neighbours who wish to register a complaint or comment about the premises.

The management plan includes a commitment that prior to construction, the applicant will hold a pre-start meeting with the school.

Any consent will be conditioned to require compliance with the Plan of Management.

It is considered that the issues raised in relation to potential amenity impacts do not warrant refusal of the application given that the design complies with the AH SEPP, setbacks along the common boundary comply with Councils DCP, the car parking area is designed to comply with manoeuvring standards, a substantial fence is proposed along the common boundary and the site is within a mixed use area, close to the town centre.

The proposal is satisfactory with respect to potential flooding.

The screen planting along the common boundary includes plants that grow up 3 metres in height which is considered adequate. Further detailed landscaping plans will be required as a condition of any consent.

SUBMISSION 8

How will excess stormwater be managed

·    No detail in SEE

·    Remedial work is required

Concerns with density

Lack of car parking for demographic target

Amenity impacts

No community consultation prior to sale to NCCH

Additional stormwater detail was provided by the applicant and assessed by Councils engineers as satisfactory.

Density and car parking issues have previously been discussed.

The proposed development is buffered from the property of the objector by the railway line. Given this substantial setback, direct amenity impacts on this resident are considered to be satisfactory.

Concern regarding consultation prior to the Council resolution to sell the land is not a matter for consideration in the assessment of this application.

 

 

4.11     Public interest

 

The proposal to increase the stock of affordable housing in the Byron Shire is considered to be consistent with the public interest.

 

The proposed development is unlikely to prejudice or compromise the public interest or create an undesirable precedent.

 

As the development application is satisfactory with respect to compliance with statutory planning controls, and potential impacts can be satisfactorily managed by complying with consent conditions, it is considered that it is in the public interest to issue consent.

 

 

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 existing disturbed nature of the land.

 

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

 

5.1       Water & Sewer Levies

 

Section 64 levies will be payable.

The existing ET entitlement for the property is 1ET for water and 1 ET for sewer.

Councils ET Engineer has assessed the additional ET load as follows:

Calculation of Proposed Development Water & Sewer ETs

Ref

Development Type

Standard

Unit

Quantity

ET Rate (ET/unit)

ET Load

Water

Sewer

Water

Sewer

3.7

Units - 1 bedroom (Stage 1)

Dwelling

15

0.4

0.5

6.0

7.5

3.7

Units - 1 bedroom (Stage 2)

Dwelling

10

0.4

0.5

4.0

5.0

TOTAL

10.0

12.5

 

 

Calculation of Additional Water & Sewer ET Load

STAGE 1

 

Water

Sewer

DA 10.2014.404.3 ET Entitlements (Table 1)

1

1

Proposed Development ET loading (Table 2)

6.0

7.5

Additional ET loading

5.0

6.5

 

STAGE 2

 

Water

Sewer

Proposed Development ET loading (Table 2)

4.0

5.0

Additional ET loading

4.0

5.0

 

Therefore, this development generates an additional load onto Councils Water and Sewer System

 

Council requires Payment of Developer Servicing Charges (prior to issue of a construction/subdivision certificate) of:

·    9.0 ET for Water &

·    11.5 ET for Sewer.

 

5.2       Section 94 Contributions

 

This proposal will increase the demand for public facilities and amenities and a condition of consent will require the payment of contributions, where applicable.

 

6.         DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL DONATIONS AND GIFTS

 

Has a Disclosure Statement been received in relation to this application

No

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

No

 

Provide Disclosure Statement register details here: Not applicable

 

 

7.         CONCLUSION

 

The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant provisions of the Byron LEP 2014, SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and other relevant State Environmental Planning Policies. It is also generally is consistent with and the Byron DCP 2014, with any variation justified by site conditions or compliance with the AH SEPP, which prevails over the DCP.

The proposal is considered to have sufficient planning merit to be supported subject to the conditions included in the recommendation of this report.

 

8.         RECOMMENDATION

 

It is recommended that pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, development application No. 10.2017.474.1 for Multi Dwelling Housing Consisting of Twenty Five (25) 1 Bedroom Dwellings to be constructed in two stages be granted approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

  


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                               13.23

 

 

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services

 

Report No. 13.23         Mafeking Road and other requests to enact Council Policy 4.17

Directorate:                 Infrastructure Services

Report Author:           Joshua Provis, Road and Bridge Engineer  

File No:                        I2018/17

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Local Roads and Drainage

 

 

Summary:

 

Council has received a request to construct and seal the 1.4km unsealed gravel section of Mafeking Road by enacting Council Policy 4.17.

 

There have also been several other requests from residents wishing to enact Council Policy 4.17 at Cedar Road, Wilsons Creek; Grays Lane, Tyagarah; and potentially Settlement Road, Durrumbul.

 

Council Policy 4.17 states that Council will bring the standard of a road pavement up to a level ready for sealing, should a resident or residents be able to pay for the cost of a bitumen seal.

 

This report details the previous discussions with residents on other roads where payment has been made for construction and sealing of roads ; discusses the requests that have been made recently and outlines the scope of each of the projects, resident’s contributions and indicative costs for Council and potential funding sources.

 

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.   That Council note:-

 

a.   That a proposed revised Policy 4.17 is expected to be reported to Council in the near future; and

 

b.   That there are no road projects in the current approved 2017/18 capital works program or the 10 year planned program for construction and sealing of gravel roads and asset renewal projects would need to be deferred to free up funding to be allocated towards the construction and sealing of these unsealed road projects.

 

2.   That the consideration of these requests by the residents for the construction of sealing of these roads proceed after the review of Policy 4.17.

 

3.   That the residents be thanked for their initiative to contribute towards the upgrading of the roads adjacent to their property at their cost but be advised of Council’s decision that there is no Council funding currently or in the immediate future to undertake these works in accordance with the current Policy 4.17.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Letter received from Patrick Morrisey in regards to road surface deterioration and requesting advice on a solution - 230 Mafeking Road, GOONENGERRY, S2017/17596  

2        Letter received from Patrick Morrisey in regards to Sediment Pollution and request Number: 9763 at Mafeking Road, GOONENGERRY, S2018/275  

3        Cost Estimate for Mafeking Road and Cedar Road Sealing, E2018/11016  

4        PDF of E2017 32558  24.2015.20.1 Grays Lane Upgrade - 2017 Presentation on options, E2018/11004  

5        24.2015.20.1 - Grays Lane Upgrade Option - Works Project Estimate (PDF), E2018/11013  

6        Memo to Councillors from Director Infrastructure Services - Grays Lane Upgrade Update, E2017/50120  

7        PDF of I2017 1699  Action Memo Item - Settlement Road Proposed Actions Council 02 11 2017, E2018/11009  

8        PDF of I2017 1316  Report 02 11 2017 Council Settlement Road Proposed Actions Extraordinary, E2018/11010  

9        Settlement Road SPW Presentation, E2017/94174  

 

 


 

Report

 

Council Policy 4.17

 

The copy of the Council policy can be found at the following link, but is repeated in the report:

 

http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/policies

 

Policy 4.17

 

POLICY TITLE: CONTRIBUTION TO THE COST OF SEALING OF UNSEALED

ROADS ADJACENT TO PROPERTIES AT REQUEST OF OWNERS

FILE REFERENCE: COR050505

Date Adopted 28 November 1995

Date of Review -

 

1. OBJECTIVES

1.1. To minimise dust nuisance to residents.

 

1.2. To improve the amenity of the road reserve adjacent to properties.

 

2. POLICY STATEMENT

2.3. Where a property owner requests to have the road surface adjacent to their property

bitumen sealed and the road is not listed on a current works programme, the owner pays

for the cost of sealing and Council contributes the cost of the pavement upgrading

necessary before the sealing work can be applied.

 

2.4. This offer is conditional upon:

 

a) The Council road making plant is working in the area and the work is carried out as

part of normal activities at Council’s convenience.

 

b) The sealing of the section of road would not preclude future works, or be negated by

future realignment, etc.

 

c) The landowner is to contribute the full cost of a two (2) coat bitumen seal (prime/seal).

 

d) The full width of the existing payment is to be sealed.

 

e) Where more than one landowner fronts the section of the road to be sealed then

arrangements for apportioning the costs is to be agreed by all landowners fronting that

section of road prior to any work occurring.

 

It should be noted that Council Policy 4.17 is currently under review and is expected to be reported in Council in March or April 2018.

 

The aim of the policy review is to strengthen the design standards, provide a better framework for quality assurance of construction works, review apportionment of costs between Council and Residents, and bring the policy in line with Council’s ‘Fit for the Future’ outcomes.

 


 

Resolutions from Council meeting on 1 February 2018

 

At this Council meeting, a Notice of Motion was considered regarding the construction and sealing of Mafeking Road and following is the Council resolution:

 

Res 18-026

 

Resolved that Council:

1.    Note the submissions and proposals to contribute funds provided by residents regarding the sealing of Mafeking Road.

 

2.    Provide in principle support for the application of Council Policy 4.17 Contribution to the cost of sealing of unsealed roads adjacent to properties at request of owners, for the remaining 1.4 km of Mafeking Road.

 

3.    Receive a report at the 22 February meeting:

 

a)    detailing cost estimates for works involved in sealing 1.4 km of Mafeking Road up to a 5 meter seal with essential only reformation to achieve this width; and

 

b)    identifying funding options.                                                                                                     

 

At the same Council meeting, a Notice of Motion was considered about the allocation of the paid parking money generated in Byron Bay and following is the Council resolution:

 

Res 18-023

 

Resolved:

1.    That Council note: 

 

i)   the commitment to ensure ‘at least 50%’ of paid parking revenue from Byron Bay is committed to projects in Byron Bay has been met;

 

ii) Shire-wide community support for paid parking is based on an equitable distribution of revenue throughout the Shire to address impacts on infrastructure from tourism.

 

2.       That Council affirm that 50% of all non-Crown paid parking revenue from Byron Bay continue to be used to fund projects in Byron Bay.

 

3.       That the distribution of all paid parking revenue be reviewed should additional paid parking schemes be implemented.

 

4.       That in order to provide information on the projects funded by revenue obtained from paid parking, Council produce a paid parking information table on its website that clearly displays: estimated revenue, particular projects, estimated cost of project, actual cost of project, and completion status of project.      

 

Resolution 18 – 023 is important as it affects the potential source of funding that Council can consider towards the allocation for the construction and sealing of gravel roads under the existing apportionments in Policy 4.17.

 


 

Recent works for the construction and sealing a gravel roads

 

In the last five years or so, Council has been approached by the residents and engaged in substantial discussions over time for the construction and sealing of gravel unsealed roads at Skinners Shoot Road, Skinners Shoot and Seven Mile Beach Road, Broken Head.

 

The initial requests were for Council to fund 100% the construction and sealing of these gravel roads. The discussions then progressed to enacting Policy 4.17 with Council to pay the costs for the preparation and construction of the gravel pavement and the property owner to pay for the bitumen seal. This was not achievable as Council at that time or in the immediate future did not have funding to undertake the preparation and construction of the gravel pavement. The final result in both instances were that the residents either paid 100% or the majority of costs associated with the preparation, construction gravel pavement and the bitumen sealing.

 

At Skinners Shoot Road, the total cost of the actual works was about $105,000, resident contributions were greater than $90,000 and the balance paid for by Council using S94 contributions. The works were undertaken by a contractor with Council’s staff supervising the contractor and the wages of those staff were costed to existing Council operational budgets. The residents undertook the consultation and arrangements for the paying of their contributions, which Council learnt were not equal by all residents along the length of the roadworks of Skinners Shoot Road. The exact information and details of the negotiations, arrangements, etc were confidential and is retained by the property owners.

 

At Seven Mile Beach Road, two residents paid for the preparation, construction of the gravel pavement and the bitumen sealing of a 400 m section of the road immediately adjacent to their properties. Total cost of the works was about $30,000, which equated to approximately the full cost of the works, which were undertaken by Council roads construction staff.  The works were supervised by Councils Team Leaders who normally supervise Council staff during these works, however, the wages of the Team Leaders were not costed to the project but rather to existing Council operational budgets.

 

The final outcome in both the circumstances was that the importance of sealing the road was greater to the residents than Council’s ability to provide the funding for its share of the works under policy 4.17 and resulted in the residents paying either 100% or the vast majority of the total construction costs for these works.

 

The standards of construction of both roads was a basic width seal, limited road shoulder and minimal but necessary table drains and any required down slope and upslope batters but built to contemporary road pavement design and construction standards.

 

Requests

 

Council has received requests from residents for a number of roads.

 

1.   Mafeking Road, Goonengerry

2.   Cedar Road, Wilsons Creek

3.   Gray’s Lane, Tyagarah

4.   Potentially Settlement Road, Durrumbul.

 

Mafeking Road, Goonengerry

 

The correspondence received by the local resident, Mr Morrissey,  is attached and raises a number of issues in support of sealing the road. These issues were also raised in Notice of Motion No. 9.3 at the Council meeting on 1 February 2018 and further in the address during public forum at the same Council meeting by two other residents of Mafeking Road:

·    There is a negative environmental impact resulting from gravel and dust sediment washing away from the road into environmentally sensitive habitat, due the steep topography and high rainfall.

·    There is a negative environmental impact resulting from dust and its effect on endangered flora and fauna.

·    There is a negative health impact to residents resulting from dust from the unsealed road

·    Vehicle numbers are exacerbating the problems as it is used by tourists as an alternative to Repentance Creek Road.

 

The annual average daily traffic (AADT) for Mafeking Road and Repentance Creek Road is shown in the table below. The data cannot be used to determine whether vehicles are using Mafeking Rd as an alternative to Repentance Creek Road but does show that heavy vehicles are tending to avoid the unsealed road.

 

Road

AADT (2 way)

% Heavy Vehicles

Year of Count

Mafeking Road

312

2.8%

2015

Repentance Creek Road

337

4.8

2015

 

From the same traffic count data collected above, vehicle speeds were measured. It should be noted that the data was collected over seven days.

 

Road

Maximum Speed

Minimum Speed

Average Speed

Mafeking Road

68 km/h

12.6 km/h

41.9 km/h

Repentance Creek Road

72.4 km/h

11.3 km/h

42.9 km/h

 

Under the request made, a number of residents have indicated to Mr Morrisey that they are willing to contribute approximately $50,000-$60,000 or 58% of the approximately $95,000 that comprises the cost of the bitumen seal. The request from the residents is obviously that Council pays the balance of approximately $35,000 -$45,000 or 42% of the cost of the bitumen seal.

 

It is noted that this is outside the current requirements of Policy 4.17.

 

The total estimated cost of the works to construct and seal the 1.4 km section of Mafeking Road has been estimated at $204,000.

 

Estimates have been prepared that allow for only bringing the pavement up to standard of optimum compaction, moisture content and suitable gravel thickness, ready for sealing. It does not allow for any formation of table trains, any widening, vertical and horizontal curve improvement, geometric design, signage, guardrail and line marking in line with relevant standards.

 

These estimated works will not have the same longevity as if the works were undertaken to the normal and required standards, constructed by Council staff.

 

Following a detailed geotechnical investigation and pavement design, it may be determined that existing pavement structure needs more improvement to achieve the desired design life and asset lifecycle maintenance costs, further increasing the cost to Council.

 

The cost of the bitumen seal is based on actual rates under the contracts Council has with suppliers.

 


 

Cedar Road

 

In October 2017 a local resident on Cedar Road, Wilson Creek wrote to Council requesting that a portion of the road be sealed under Policy 4.17.

 

A second resident has recently contacted Council about the dust issue on the same road and contributing towards the cost of the bitumen sealed under Policy 4.17.

 

The issues raised by the initial resident were in regards to significant dust on their properties and houses. The area requested to be sealed is relatively small being about 50m in length.

 

The total estimated cost of the works in Cedar Road to construct and seal the short 50 m section has been estimated at $26,825. The cost of the seal to be paid by the residents has been estimated at $15,226. The cost estimates for Cedar Road has only recently been reported back to the residents and they have also been advised that the matter is being included in this report to Council on 22 February 2018.

 

Estimates have been prepared that allow only bringing the pavement up to standard of optimum compaction, moisture content and suitable gravel thickness, ready for sealing. It does not allow for any formation of table trains, any widening, vertical and horizontal curve improvement, geometric design, signage, guardrail and line marking in line with relevant standards.

 

These estimated works will not have the same longevity as if the works were undertaken to the normal and required standards, constructed by Council staff.

 

Following a detailed geotechnical investigation and pavement design, it may be determined that existing pavement structure needs more improvement to achieve the desired design life and asset lifecycle maintenance costs, further increasing the cost to Council.

 

The cost of the bitumen seal is based on actual rates under the contracts Council has with suppliers.

 

Compliance with Policy 4.17 would require the two landowners to fund the full cost of the bitumen seal.

 

Settlement Road

 

In November 2017, Council resolved 17-549 as follows;

 

Res 17-549

1.   That the Engineering report recommendation is clarified so that preliminary or first stage road work - including work required to be completed by Lot 3 as a Community Title DA consent condition - can commence even if the funds for latter stage work are not yet confirmed.

 

2.   SRAG proposes the formalisation of a road community/council working group to meet quarterly to ensure an efficient and mutually satisfactory resolution to the long-standing road hazard. This working group would comprise a representative from SRAG, Djambul Community, Byron Council Engineering, and Byron Council councillor or director.

 

3.   That the RFS standard is accepted as the only realistic option to progress road improvement steps and reduce the hazard faced by road users.

 

It is unclear if Council Policy 4.17 applies to this road, and to date no residents on Settlement Road have specifically requested to enact Policy 4.17.

 

Works will continue on Settlement Road as per the Council resolution.

 

Grays Lane

 

Following a presentation to Council’s Strategic Planning Workshop on 7th September 2017 the following actions are currently being worked towards by staff.

 

1.   Investigate the legality of narrowing the road to save cost and protect the Koala population. This would include a lower speed limit.

2.   Further review construction estimates, including the above option.

3.   Write to NPWS requesting they contribute funds towards upgrading Grays Lane because the nation park users generate significant amount of traffic on Grays Lane. Letters is to detail the options Councils in considering, the likely costs and funds Council has available.

4.   Write to residents to provide an update on works to date and advise on the options being investigated. Letter should include a link to a survey asking, how much property owners would be willing to contribute in order to bring the project forward, their design standard desires, including flood immunity preferences.

5.   Report back to Council once the above has been investigated and a preferred way forward can be recommended.

 

Attachments 4, 5 & 6 detail information previously provided to Council in 2017 regarding Grays Lane.

 

At this stage it is unknown what costs may be required from Council for the construction and upgrading of Grays Lane. 

 

Financial Implications

 

The following table outlines the estimate of costs for both the road pavement and bitumen seal component, and the amount of contributions being proposed all required from the residents.

 

Road

Estimate for preparation works (Council)

Estimate for bitumen seal (Residents)

Resident Contribution

Shortfall for Bitumen Seal

Mafeking Road

$110,000

$94,500

$50,000-$60,000

$35,000 - $45,000

Cedar Road

$26,825

$15,226

$15,226

Potentially $0

TOTAL

$136,825

$109,726

$65,226 – $75,226

$35,000 - $45,000

 

All prices are exclusive of GST.

 

The funding available to Council for works on local roads is complex and constrained by the many requirements upon which the funding is provided. This report does not list these reasons but rather identifies whether the funding source is available to use on these for projects and provides comments.

 

The following table outlines the funding sources that Council has and their availability for use in enacting Policy 4.17:

 

Funding Source

Availability of Funds

Comment

General Revenue

No.

Current approved projects in 2017/18 or a programmed project over the next 10 years would need to be removed and the funding be allocated for the construction and sealing of any of these for roads.

Infrastructure Renewal Reserve

No.

Current approved projects in 2017/18 or a programmed project over the next 10 years would need to be removed and the funding be allocated for the construction and sealing of any of these for roads.

Resolution 18 – 023 will require a further review of proposed planned works the next 10 years to ensure compliance with the allocation of funding within and outside of Byron Bay. This may reduce the ability to use these funds for these types of projects.

Section 94

Potentially

Dependant if road is in a S94 catchment area but unlikely for Mafeking Road, Cedar Road and Settlement Road.

Special Rate Variation

No

Cannot be spent on Policy 4.17 as these funds are for asset renewal only.

Grants - RTR

Yes

These funds traditionally have been used by Council for resealing and asset renewal of failed road pavements and associated assets. It would be a change in direction for Council to use these funds to construct and seal gravel roads

Grants – Other

No

There are no known grants available for these types of projects on local roads unless they are associated with traffic Blackspots, which has not been the situation for these roads to date.

Loans

No

It is unlikely that loan funds would be utilised for these works as they are to a lesser standard than Council would normally construct and hence their longevity is reduced

Byron Pay Parking (50% outside Byron)

Yes

Subject to a review of the ten-year capital works program to ensure compliance with Res 18 – 023, Council’s Financial Sustainability Plan and Continuous Improvement Plan associated with the Special Rate Variation recently approved by the NSW government.

 

 

In Councils report – Special Rate Variation – Funding Our Future, sealing the remaining 1.4km of Mafeking Road was identified as ‘New Essential Infrastructure Gap’ based on the highest rate rise option. However the full rate rise was not the option selected by Council with the 7.5% option being adopted which is to maintain, noting there will still be deterioration of our road and other general fund assets.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

The request made by residents at Cedar Road is the only request that complies with the current Policy 4.17 as they are proposing to pay the full cost of the bitumen seal.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services                                                               13.24

 

 

Report No. 13.24         Contributions for Secondary Dwellings

Directorate:                 Infrastructure Services

Report Author:           Christopher Soulsby, Development Planning Officer S94 & S64

File No:                        I2018/16

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Asset Management

 

 

Summary:

The purpose of this report is to respond to items 5 and 6 of Council Resolution 17-191 with respect to the evaluating the waiver of developer contributions on secondary dwellings and consideration of use of the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing as a mechanism to exempt certain types of development from paying contributions. 

 

The review of the impact of the wavier on rents has found that the waiver has had no impact on the rate of increase of median rents for single bedroom dwellings.  It is recommended to remove the waiver and charge contributions on secondary dwellings. 

 

With respect to the use of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP as a mechanism to allow for a waiver of contributions, there is an existing provision in the section 94 plan to provide for a suspension of payments for certain types of the development are used for affordable housing.  It is not proposed to change this provision.  There is currently no provision in Council’s ET policy or Development Servicing Plans for a waiver or suspension of section 64 contributions for affordable housing under the terms of the SEPP.  This is consistent with the Section 64 Determinations of Equivalent Tenements Guidelines 2017 issued by the Water Directorate. 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.       That a draft amendment to the Byron Developer contributions plan be prepared and placed on public exhibition in accordance with the regulations.  (The draft plan shall delete clause 2.14 from the plan.)

 

2.       That the draft plan and submissions be reported back to Council for consideration. 

 

3        That Council notify the public and seek submissions on the proposal to terminate the waiver of section 94 and section 64 contributions for secondary dwellings. 

 

 

 

 


 

Report

 

Council considered Notice of Motion No. 9.5 Secondary dwelling conditions at the

Ordinary Meeting 25 May 2017 and resolved as follows:

 

17-191 Resolved:

 

1. That Council recognises community concerns regarding the lack of affordable housing in Byron Shire and concerns that secondary dwellings, as defined and facilitated by the NSW State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, are being used for tourism purposes via short term letting, holiday letting Air Bnb and similar online platforms.

 

2. That Council responds to concerns and compliance issues by:

 

a) contacting all property owners with a secondary dwelling (granny flat) approved since the

passage of Council Resolution 11-268 and seek property owners’ confirmation that they

are complying with their approval and/or conditions of consent with the regard to the

Environmental Planning Assessment Act and to Byron Shire Council Resolution 11-268.

 

b) developing a form that seeks the owners signature regarding compliance with consent

and Resolution 11-268 for inclusion with the correspondence to be returned to council

within 30 days.

 

3.  That a report be received from staff informing Council as to the outcome of 2(a) and (b).

 

4.  Request staff to commence the process to amend clause 2.14 in the 2012 Byron Developer Contributions Plan to provide that the clause does not apply to secondary dwellings used for tourism purposes.

 

5.  Request staff to commence an evaluation of Council’s policy of waiving Council S64 and S94 contributions for secondary dwellings as a means to support affordable housing and provide recommendations to strengthen affordability outcomes of secondary dwellings.

 

6.  Request staff to identify how the Affordability Housing SEPP 2009 could be applied to establish an exception from Council S64 and S94 for ‘affordable rental accommodation’.

 

7. That a further report be furnished to Council on points 5 and 6 above.

 

This report is in response to items 5 and 6 of this resolution. 

 

In early 2011 Council resolved to waive the requirement to pay section 94 and section 64 charges for secondary dwellings. 

 

The purpose of the waiver was to promote housing affordability.  The waiver applied to secondary dwellings approved under the terms of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPP). 

 

As the waiver only applied to secondary dwellings under the SEPP that cannot be subdivided and sold, the best indicator that the waiver is having a positive impact is the median weekly rent.  The NSW Department Family and Community Services (FACS) collates and reports on the median weekly rent by type of dwelling by local government area.  This is based on the rental bonds lodged with the NSW Department of Fair Trading.  The latest data from FACS is dated June 2017. 


 

 

Staff have evaluated the data sets downloaded from FACS for Byron Shire and the neighbouring local government areas (LGAs).  These statistics are released quarterly.  Comparisons have been done by LGA and dwelling type and the rent indexed into 2017 dollars.  June 2017 is the latest available data. 

 

Median Weekly Rent for 1 Bedroom unit

 

Mar-11

Jun-17

Change

Ballina

205

280

26.71%

Byron

285

380

25.00%

Lismore

168

193

12.88%

Richmond Valley

154

193

20.26%

Tweed

262

280

6.36%

Median Weekly Rent for 2 Bedroom unit

 

Mar-11

Jun-17

Change

Ballina

314

325

3.54%

Byron

365

470

22.38%

Lismore

254

250

-1.46%

Richmond Valley

205

250

17.92%

Tweed

325

350

7.17%

Median Weekly Rent for 3 Bedroom House

 

Mar-11

Jun-17

Change

Ballina

422

488

13.57%

Byron

502

600

16.40%

Lismore

359

355

-1.15%

Richmond Valley

319

300

-6.40%

Tweed

419

460

8.92%

 

Source: https://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/about-us/reports-plans-and-papers/rent-and-sales-reports/issue-120

 

In 2015 it was reported to Council that in the time between March 2011 and December 2014 there had been a slight decrease of $22 in the median weekly rent for single dwelling dwellings in Byron Shire.  At that time this was evidence that the waiver of developer contributions was having a positive impact on reducing the cost of rent for single bedroom dwellings.  This decrease has been eliminated and rents for single bedroom dwellings have been rising at 4.53% PA above inflation for a total increase of 25% over 6 years.  This is a significant increase above the rate of inflation and shows that the waiver of developer contributions has not had a significant impact on housing affordability. 

 

With the exception of single bedroom dwellings in Ballina Shire, Byron Shire has seen the largest increases in rent across all forms of housing from 2011 to 2017.  The waiver generally doesn’t apply to the two and three bedroom dwellings.  These dwelling types pay contributions and have seen increases in rent.  If the reduction in the cost of production of single bedroom dwellings via the waiver is not flowing though to the renter through reduced rent then it is reasonable to assume that this value is being captured by the land owners as a one off windfall gain at a cost to Council. 

 

The waiver of section 94 and section 64 contributions has not impacted on the rate of increase in rents for single bedroom dwellings.  In fact these rents have increased faster than two and three bedroom dwellings.  This calls into question the merit of continuing with a policy that comes at a significant cost to the water and sewer fund and the section 94 fund.  On this basis it is recommended to remove the waiver. 

 

The process to do this is an amendment to the section 94 plan by deletion of clause 2.14 from the plan.  Clause 2.14 is set out as follows:

 

2.14   Secondary Dwellings

Development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling as defined in State Environmental Planning Policy will be exempted from the obligation to pay a contribution under this Contributions Plan where the secondary dwelling is integral and subordinate to the primary dwelling. Where the secondary dwelling is subject to the following requirements

 

a.      That the maximum size of the secondary dwelling does not exceed 60m2.

b.      That the floor space ratio for the whole development of the site does not extend beyond 0.5:1 and that 25% of the site must be covered by absorbent surfaces such as lawn or landscaping.

c.      That the secondary dwelling does not increase the overall number of bedrooms on the site to greater than 5.

d.      That the applicant has an approval for a secondary dwelling subject to a condition of consent that the development is not to be used for tourism purposes.

 

The savings and transitional provisions of the plan would mean that any development applications lodged before the commencement date of the plan still have access to the waiver.  The amendment would require public exhibition as required by clause 28 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. 

 

The removal of the waiver of section 64 contributions can be done by resolution.  The termination of the waiver for the section 64 contributions would come into effect on the date of adoption of the amended section 94 plan.  A separate resolution on the waiver of section 64 contributions would be required.  This would be done when the exhibition of the draft section 94 plan is reported back to Council.  It should be noted that no separate amendment of the Development Servicing Plans (DSP) or ET policy are required. 

 

SEPP Affordable Housing 2009

Point 6 of the resolution requires staff to identify how the Affordability Housing SEPP 2009 could be applied to establish an exception from Council S64 and S94 for ‘affordable rental accommodation’. 

 

The section 94 plan already does this via clause 2.15 as set out below:

 

2.15   Exemptions for Private Boarding Houses, Group Homes and Affordable Housing

Unless superseded by legislation or direction, in the case of private developments such as hostels, group homes and boarding houses, this type of development may be able to justify a case for an exemption so long as it meets State Government criteria for a tax exemption for low-cost residential accommodation. 

 

An applicant may as part of their development application make application for the suspension of contributions.  An applicant must comprehensively argue the case for suspension including the specific circumstances that would distinguish the subject proposal’s merit case from others. 

 

Applications for merit suspension will be referred to Council for formal determination and accompanying submissions will be made public as part of that process.

 

Applicants should liaise with Byron Shire Council in relation to Development Applications of this nature.

 

This clause captures all the other types of affordable housing in the SEPP, except for secondary dwellings. 

 

Council’s policy no. 13/005 Water and Sewer Equivalent Tenements does not provide for a reduction or waiver of charges for affordable housing.  These types of housing place a demand on the water and sewer infrastructure and should pay the contributions.  This is consistent with the Water Directorate Guidelines. 

 

Financial Implications

There is a significant benefit to both the water and sewer fund and the section 94 funds in the collection of the developer contributions for secondary dwellings. 

 

The waiver of the bulk water section 64 contributions by Rous Water would still apply. 

 

The following table sets out what the developer contributions will be, if the waiver is removed for an additional single bedroom dwelling in each catchment, assuming there is an existing 3 bedroom dwelling on the site. 

 

Charges for an additional single bedroom dwelling

 

Proposed S94

Proposed S64

Total

Byron Bay Suffolk Park

7,141.66

5,425

12,566.66

Bangalow

5,428.35

5,425

10,853.35

Mullumbimby

10,485.75

5,425

15,910.75

Ocean Shores / South Golden Beach

3,789.63

5,425

9,214.63

Rural North

9,810.65

0

9,810.65

Rural South

9,810.65

0

9,810.65

Brunswick Heads

5,090.77

5,425

10,515.77

 

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

Amendment of the section 94 plan will be undertaken in accordance with the regulations.  The termination of the waiver of the section 64 contributions may be done by resolution and does not require separate amendment of the DSP. 

     


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Reports of Committees - Infrastructure Services                                             14.1

 

 

Reports of Committees - Infrastructure Services

 

Report No. 14.1           Report of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 16 January 2018

Directorate:                 Infrastructure Services

Report Author:           Evan Elford, Team Leader Infrastructure Planning  

File No:                        I2018/101

Theme:                         Community Infrastructure

                                      Local Roads and Drainage

 

Summary:

 

The attachment to this report provides the minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 16 January 2018 for determination by Council.

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.       That Council note the minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 16 January 2018. 

 

 

 

2.       That Council adopt the following Committee Recommendation:

 

Report No. 6.1   Local Traffic Committee Resolutions and recommendation processes

File No: I2017/2009

 

Committee Recommendation 6.1

That the advice and comments of the Local Traffic Committee in relation to the procedural processes required to execute its roles and responsibilities be provided to the Council.

 

 

 

3.       That Council adopt the following Committee Recommendations:

 

Report No. 6.2   Ewingsdale Road Roundabouts - Signs and Linemarking

File No: I2017/2009

 

Committee Recommendation 6.2.1

1.      That the Local Traffic Committee be provided with clear documentation showing the Pavement Marking and Signage Plans for the Ewingsdale Road roundabouts as detailed below:

         

a)      Sunrise Boulevard roundabout as per Attachment 1 (E2017/115555)

b)      Bayshore Drive roundabout as per Attachment 2 (E2017/115586)

 

2.      That the members provide comments, concurrence or otherwise through the chair within 7 (seven) days.

 

3.      That separate, large format, hard and electronic copy of the plans be provided to the RMS, Police (addressed to Highway Patrol) and members in advance of meetings to allow for proper and detailed consideration.

 

 

4.       That Council adopt the following Committee Recommendation:

 

Report No. 6.3   Byron Bay Pay Parking Time Limit Review - Endorsement of Council Resolved Changes to Time Limits in Byron Bay

File No: I2017/2071

 

Committee Recommendation 6.3.1

That the Local Traffic Committee approve the time limits as detailed below:

 

a)      Wordsworth Street – modify 2P zone to OP (no limit) zone.

b)      Shirley Street – modify 4P zone to OP (no limit) zone.

c)      Lawson Street North and South Car Parks – modify from OP (no limit) to 4P.

e)      Butler Street – modify 4P zone to OP (no limit) zone.

f)       Byron Street – modify 2P zone to 1P zone.

g)      Fletcher Street – modify eastern side from 4P to 2P.

h)      Jonson Street – modify Carlyle to Kingsley zone from 1P to 2P.

 

5.       That Council adopt the following Committee Recommendation:

 

Report No. 6.4   Traffic - The Esplanade 13 - Regulatory Signs - Formalise parking in cul-de-sac

File No: I2017/2081

 

Committee Recommendation 6.4.1

That the Local Traffic Committee recommend to Council to regulate parking in the Southern cul-de-sac end of The Esplanade, New Brighton through the installation of “No Parking” and “Parallel Parking” and other relevant and appropriate signage to improve access for residents and service vehicles.

 

 

6.       That Council adopt the following Committee Recommendation:

 

Report No. 6.5   Traffic - Cowper St 34 - Regulatory Signage - No Parking 1am - 6am

File No: I2018/11

 

Committee Recommendation 6.5.1

          That Council regulate parking around the Byron Recreation Ground including Tennyson, Carlyle and Cowper Streets by installing ‘No Parking 1am to 6am’ signage when funds become available.

 

7.       That Council adopt the following Committee and Management Recommendation:

 

Report No. 6.6   Traffic Complaints on Clays Road and Coral Ave

File No: I2018/13

 

Committee Recommendation 6.6.1

That a Give Way sign not be placed on western approach to the T-junction on Clays Road until traffic counts on Plover Parkway and Southern end of Tuckeroo Ave have been completed.

 

8.       That Council adopt the following Committee Recommendation:

 

Report No. 7.1   DA 10.2017.510.1 - Mixed Use development, Jonson and Browning Streets, Byron Bay

File No: I2017/1906

 

Moved 7.1.1

That the Local Traffic Committee’s comments relating to DA 10.2017.510.1 be provided to the Council Planning Team.

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        PDF of I2018 32  Minutes 16 01 2018 Local Traffic Committee, E2018/11023  

 

 


 

Report

 

The attachment to this report provides the minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 16 January 2018 for determination by Council.  The agenda for this meeting can be located on Council’s website at:

 

http://byron.infocouncil.biz/Open/2018/01/LTC_16012018_AGN_721_AT.PDF

 

Committee Recommendation

 

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

 

Financial Implications

 

As per the Reports listed within the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 16 January 2018.

 

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

 

As per the Reports listed within the Local Traffic Committee Meeting of 16 January 2018.

  


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Questions With Notice                                                                                                         15.1

 

 

Questions With Notice

 

Question with Notice No. 15.1     Bangalow Parking Strategy

File No:                                           I2017/1899

 

  

 

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on 23 November 2017, Jenny Coman asked the following question which was taken on notice:

 

Given the strong opposition to paid parking in Bangalow, as demonstrated in the various consultation forums, and the unreliability of revenue predictions based on inadequate and biased data;

a) why did Council decide to introduce paid parking before the trial of changed parking time limits, recommended by Council's consultants as the first option, was held,

b) why was a clause requiring consultation with Bangalow's Guidance (Master Planning) Group, passed as part of the relevant motion on 24th August, not actioned while there was ample time thus rendering it meaningless and denying community input and

c) whom should the community hold responsible for both of the above ?

 

At the same Ordinary Council Meeting, Joanne Millar asked the following question which was taken on notice:

 

Why has Council ignored recommendations from the commissioned report into traffic and parking issues in Bangalow, and advice from Council staff, relating to the introduction of paid parking in the Bangalow CBD?

 

Response Director Infrastructure Services:

 

Council staff undertook community consultation in May 2017 in combination with the Movement and Parking review, which involved street stalls, workshops with relevant stakeholders and an online survey. The information gathered through these outlets indicated that the majority of respondents would support a Pay Parking scheme if Council resolved to spend all net revenue raised in Bangalow.

 

Staff then recommended that Council proceed direct to Pay Parking with the proviso that all revenue would be spent in Bangalow as this was on the basis that the majority would be supportive of Pay Parking if extra revenue would be spent in Bangalow. Whilst it is true that the majority on base merit indicated they would not support Pay Parking in Bangalow, most agreed that it would be a valuable source of revenue that is much needed for the community and would support the scheme if the funds were spent in Bangalow.

 

Staff have not consulted with the Bangalow Village Plan Guidance Group yet regarding the identification of projects that Pay Parking could fund, as it was deemed not relevant until after it is introduced and there is an idea of the amount of revenue that could be allocated.

 

 

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Questions With Notice                                                                                                         15.2

 

 

Question with Notice No. 15.2     Sewer inspection reports

File No:                                           I2017/1784

 

  

 

 

Patricia Warren asks the following question:

 

What and where, as identified by Council document reference or otherwise, are the findings of the follow-up inspection reports on the repairs to illegal domestic and/or industrial connections, identified by Water and Recycling engineers in Mullumbimby, done by either Council or private contractors in the 2000s?

 

Response Manager Utilities:

 

Below is an excerpt from the Mullumbimby Sewerage System Inflow and Infiltration Programme PRP 1 Integrated Strategy Final Project Review June 2010 report to Council in August 2010. Attached is a list of all inspections undertaken up to and including July 2011.

 

Overflow Relief Gully “Pop Tops” were installed in boundary shafts throughout catchment 4002 during November and December 2007.

 

Inspections of the private sewerage infrastructure commenced in February 2008.  The process was as follows:

 

§ enter the property;

§ undertake a physical above ground inspection of the plumbing system;

§ undertake a CCTV inspection of the underground pipes and fittings;

§ identify defects (note it cannot be guaranteed that all defects will be identified as in some cases a defect is not noticeable unless it is raining at the time);

§ send the property owner a letter advising of defects found and requesting repairs to be undertaken;

§ if repairs not done, a follow up letter advising repairs must be done within 28 days;

§ if repairs not done a follow up letter with a quote for Council to effect the repairs;

§ once repairs done, a follow up inspection undertaken by Council.

 

In total, there are 766 properties in catchments 4001, 4002 and 4003a and b.  Since February 2008, 704 properties were inspected.  The results are:

 

Week Ending 30/07/10

Total Inspections

704

 

Defective

321

46%

Repaired

239

74%

Repairs in progress

34

11%

No response

48

15%

 

A critical point from this data is that 46% of the properties had defects that permitted the ingress of stormwater.  This statistic gives credibility to the statement that private sewerage infrastructure can potentially contribute up to 60% of stormwater inflow and infiltration in a sewerage system.

 

Please find attached the database identifying the properties inspected and whether defects were found.

 

Attachments:

 

1        Mullumbimby Inflow Infiltration Spreadsheet of Inspections 2011, E2017/113492   


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Questions With Notice                                                                                                         15.3

 

 

Question with Notice No. 15.3     General Manager delegations

File No:                                           I2018/104

 

  

 

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on 1 February 2018, John Anderson asked the following question which was taken on notice:

 

Would any councillor who was at the relevant Council meeting last Sept who was aware that it was the intent of the relevant staff report to that meeting for Council to give all Council powers to the GM that it could legally give him, to give this meeting reasons for supporting that recommendation, or, alternatively to provide such reasons for publication in the next agenda; given that the public has a right to know the reason for your decision?

 

Response Legal Counsel:

 

Council may, by resolution, delegate to the General Manager any Council function other than the matters specifically set out in section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993. It is therefore within Council’s power to delegate to the General Manager some or all of the power it could “legally give him”.

 

A report as to the General Manager’s delegation came, inter-alia, before Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 21 September 2017.

 

The report was put to that meeting because Council is required to review its delegations within the first 12 months of an election. 

 

Also included in the report was information as to the General Manager’s authority in respect of the approval of tenders. Under changes brought about by the Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning) Act 2016 the authority to accept a tender can be delegated to General Managers, other than for services currently provided by Council staff members.

 

It was the intention of the Government, gleaned from the second reading speech that “more routine tendering functions will be delegated to General Managers, while ensuring that any major decision on outsourcing that might affect current Council staff remains a decision for the Councillors”.


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

 

It remains a requirement that all accepted tenders are required to be publically reported on Council’s notice board and website.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

In addition, staff recommended a minor modification to limitations previously imposed on the General Managers delegations, namely an increase of the financial limit on bad debt write offs. This was in order to improve processing efficiency.

 

Council debated the report and resolved  to revoke its previous delegations and adopt:

 

b)    Instrument of Delegation to the General Manager amended as follows:

 

i)   under Tender Acceptance, that the upper limit of projects is set at $250,000

 

The best way to glean what was in the mind of Councillors, when debating the matter is to go to the meeting transcript. The transcript is reproduced as follows:

 

Cr Cameron:

 

13.8 – which is a review of Council delegations. That’s with me. I’ll put the staff recommendation up to start with. Thank you. And looking for a seconder, there are a couple of questions and slight adjustments I’ll probably be making. Cr Coorey, thank you.

 

Cr Ndiaye:

 

Do we know what they are?

 

Cr Cameron:

 

Yes. Now that I’ve got a seconder. I have been seeking advice on this today, so lets just have a quick look here umm Mila can you just have a look at 1A where it’s got that revoke the previous delegation and adopt instrument of Delegation for - sorry 1B – instrument of delegation for the General Manager as per attachment 2 and amended as follows.

Umm lets just find the right one. Reference… Was half was there. Ok. Does that table in there have a number, that general table in that? I just want to put a reference number in there. Ah, ok. That’s not referenced to this, so look what I’m going to say, as follows under tender acceptance that the value of projects - the upper limit of projects- let’s put it that way - be set to $250,000. Now that’s my, that was one thing I had and I think there might be a couple of us, maybe my seconder will have some issues in a minute, but I’ll just talk to this one at the moment. This is actually - I was really trying to look back on the history of it - advice I have is that there has been a change to the legislation which provides for this type of delegation to be given, so there is actually no history on it in the past, there is no comparable, there’s no going back, so I’m thinking that the figure that I have put in there is a good start for umm testing this delegation. I’m noticing, you know, I see that a lot on the tenders that do come before us are if there not up to about that there a little bit over that. Umm the requirement for tender starts at $150,000,so it does provide scope for those small tenders to be accepted under delegation but I think at this stage until it settles in that that upper limit should be set at that quarter of a million and we’ll see how we go. That’s my feeling on it, that’s what I’m moving and as I say Councillor Cooery might have some other questions in a minute but before we go there I will ask if there speeches against.

Cr Coorey, did you want to –

 

Cr Coorey:

 

Yes, I did have a question, umm just with regards to the delegation I have to say I’m not, I feel a little bit under umm informed on this process somewhat and back in November when we first came in we had a late report with regards to the General Manager delegation and it went from 3 million to 10 million, umm and I wasn’t sure about the understanding around that, so I’m wondering if because I don’t  necessarily have a problem with it, but I would of liked to have understood it better. So I’m just wondering could someone kinda give me some information on that, whether that needs review or… thank you.

 

Ms. Burt:

 

Now I suppose the importance for that report was that we have had an increasing cost of development and as a consequence of I suppose just bigger developments and of construction costs increases, umm and that increase in delegation enables to deal with dwelling houses and alterations and additions under delegation, rather then report them to Council, that was the intent of that. I mean the planning review committee still can call any application for review at this stage as well.

Cr Coorey:

 

But if the planning review – so we have to see a DA – the DA would come in the DA’s listing. But we don’t get the costing’s on those usually when they come up in the list if I recall.

 

Ms. Burt:

 

No you normally –

 

Cr Coorey:

 

In the schedule of DA’s I don’t think we get the value of them.

 

Ms. Burt:

 

No you just normally get the property description and the applicant details.

 

Cr Coorey:

 

Yeah

 

Ms. Burt:

 

We can provide the cost of development –

 

Cr Coorey:

 

Look, I think that would be helpful, because I think that sometimes things come through and we don’t know what they’re going to cost and umm I, you know, like some clarity around this, I don’t necessarily have an issue with it. But I feel that there’s some oversight required as to expenditures of those kind.

 

Ms. Burt:

 

Just to clarify that information is publicly available on the website in any case, so the actual application forms and all the relevant details are there as well, so we’re not disclosing it, it is available

 

Cr Coorey:

 

I know you’re not disclosing it but we also need, as Councillors, we need it to make decisions that are informed and it’s very, if I have to look at every DA to see what it costs every time it comes up, that’s kind of rather tricky in terms of the amount of work we already do. So, I feel that somehow, that there might need to be some alteration around this situation. I don’t feel that it’s, it works that well, maybe we can put the dollar value on the DA’s and when they come up, because when you put in a DA you have to put the dollar value in then, yeah. So maybe umm, we don’t necessarily need to have that in this. It’s just something that you could do as a department, thank you. Umm, so that was my only question, thank you.

 

Cr Hunter:

 

Question, to the mover.

 

Cr Cameron:

 

Cr Hunter, yes.

 

Cr Hunter:

 

Umm, with the tender acceptance, is your intention to reduce it from $500,000 project to a $250,000 that gets automatically reported to Councillors. Is that what it is?

 

Cr Cameron:

 

Yeah –

 

Cr Hunter:

 

Anything over $250,000. Today, that’s not much more than a granny flat.

 

Cr Coorey:

 

I don’t know what kind of granny flats you’re building.

 

Cr Cameron:

 

Yes, I appreciate what you’re saying Councillor and umm, I get that taking it as a question I would say that as this is – that’s the point I made before – this is a new delegation, it’s not something that was there before. So, all tenders above $150,000 were coming to us before today. In effect, we’re actually moving it up to $250,000 but given this is a new level and a new delegation, I’m just being cautious to say well let’s see how it works because I still think there’s probably an appetite for the bigger tenders to be provided to Council for determination. That’s my feeling. That’s what the motion is proposing in effect. I hope that answers your question. So, where are we?

 

Cr Coorey:

 

I’m – I just wanted to see if I could make a small addition Cr Cameron?

 

Cr Cameron:

 

Yes

 

Cr Coorey:

 

Umm. I note that in the guidelines for the appointment and oversight of general managers in delegations, it says that um, it’s important that councils governing body ensure that proper records are kept of applications that are determined under delegation, and that there is regular reporting on the implementation of delegated functions. So could I perhaps put some wording in there along that we get, say a quarterly assessment of how the delegation is used, that way, at the moment I feel like we’re flying blind here, we’re making decisions about delegations without understanding of how they’ve been used in the past year. So could I add in the following wording –

 

Cr Cameron:

 

Yes. We can work on some words. I’m going to ask staff for how this might be dealt with already if it’s not dealt with already? Mr Arnold, do we report, do we have a reporting regime on delegations?

 

Mr. Arnold:

 

There’s no formal reporting regime. I’m not sure how you would deal with that because every day there would be hundreds of decisions made under delegation through the General Managers delegation to staff, so I’m just, I’m not even, I don’t even know where you’d start to collect that. If it was in relation to a particular exercise of delegation, such as in relation to planning, you might be able to do it but for instance, every time we sign a purchase order, that is a delegation through from the delegation from the General Manager. Now it could be 50, 60 100 of those a day.

 

Cr Cameron:

 

That’s exactly why I’m asking, you know, if it’s sort of went into the system somewhere and you could just go, press the button, and every time a delegation was exercised it would pop up for you, that’s great, but if you have to go and compile it, that’s a different story. Umm, so Cr Coorey, you might want to re-think that and General Manager –

 

Cr Coorey:

 

I’m happy to re-think that but can I also ask can we amend a delegation because it is something that again, I must convey, this is again a rather last minute way to be dealing with delegations that we were supposed to have dealt with in the first year and we were supposed to have had a strategic planning workshop on this that didn’t eventuate, so, my, we’re asked –

 

Cr Cameron:

 

The General Manager’s ready to answer your question –

 

Cr Coorey:

 

*laughs* Could the General Manager please answer my question?

 

Mr. Gainger:

 

Oh, look, I was just going to suggest that we’d be happy to bring a report back on, I mean, I think the point has been made that there are some of the delegations where there would be a limited number of decisions made using those delegations, there are others, such as Mr Arnold referred to, the delegations under the Act, delegations, Council can only delegate to the General Manager, so basically the General Manager then is the front of delegations throughout the staff of the organisation. So, no one can do anything without those delegation. And, you know, a lot of it’s about day to day, week to week, operations, hundreds of decisions a day, it would be impossible to report those up but there are some such as the one that you’re considering for tenders, there would be limited number of decisions made using that. Similarly the one under the planning legislation amendment that you raised earlier. So, I mean, what we could do is maybe have a look at the delegations and come back to you with a report which suggests which of those would be relevantly straight forward for us to report back to you and we can periodically come back to you and give you a summary of decisions made under those particular delegations.

 

Cr Coorey:

 

Thank you. I mean it is under the guidelines in the department of premier and cabinet that we do this, so I’m assuming a way can be found of us. For the larger decisions where council would likely have an interest, we could find and get something about that. So, um, we can amend, my other question was we could amend a delegation if that alone at a date we can work out some reporting, so that we put that into this motion? This recommendation for the review of delegation?

 

Mr. Gainger:

 

Through you chair, delegations can be amended or changed at any time. They’re not fixed for 12 months or whatever, so, you know, we can, Councillors can bring a matter forward or staff can bring a report to council at any time suggesting variations to the delegations.

 

Cr Coorey:

 

Ok. Thank you.

 

Cr Cameron:

 

So, maybe Councillor Coorey, number 6, to pick up on what the General Manager’s saying, could say that council receive a report with advice on how delegations that are exercised can be reported to council, I’m going to use that term, efficiently and effectively, but I think it serves what we need to say here. Ok, umm, so where are we up to with the speeches, because I’ve spoken for. We’ve had a lot of questions. You’ve spoken. Did you question or speak, Cr Coorey? Ok, in that case, it’s up to an against. Do we have an against? No further discussion. Right of reply. No. so I’ll put that to a vote. Those in favour? And yes, we’re all in favour. Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Questions With Notice                                                                                                         15.4

 

 

Question with Notice No. 15.4     Sewer Pump Station 5004

File No:                                           I2018/109

 

  

 

 

Alan Dickens asked the following question which was taken on notice:

 

What was the total cost of the rebuild of sewer pump station 5004 in Tarrara Court Ocean Shores? Why is all the electrical equipment raised above flood level? Why hasn’t the pump well been similarly raised above flood level?

 

Response Director Infrastructure Services:

 

The sewer pump station in Terrara Court Ocean Shores is pump station 5012 – not 5004.

 

Council resolved 17-016 in February 2017 to award the contract for this work to Ledonne Construction. The total budget allocated is $1,250,000.

 

The pump station has been set at the 1 in 100 year flood level. The electrical cabinet is required to be set at this level plus 600mm minimum in accordance with Country Energy requirements.

 

There is no justification to raise the pump station wet well higher as the pumps are submersible pumps and are designed to work under water and the existing pump well has not been flooded in any recent significant events.  From an engineering perspective the 1 in 100 year flood level is an efficient design basis.

 

The electrical equipment however, cannot be submerged without failure. The safety factor in relation to height location is much higher.

 

 

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Questions With Notice                                                                                                         15.5

 

 

Question with Notice No. 15.5     Crown Recreation Reserve 33876 (Lot 407 DP728640)

File No:                                           I2017/1816

 

  

 

 

Virginie Hemmery asks the following question:

 

Council staff have repeatedly denied conducting tree removal and vegetation management activities in land zoned 7(b) Coastal Habitat Zone and W1 Natural Waterways and on Crown Recreation Reserve 33876 (Lot 407 DP728640) including provided false and misleading information to Councillors in Record No. E2017/61432 on the 6th of June.  Given that this position is untenable and cannot be sustained in the face of clear and compelling aerial imagery will: (a) Council now admit its error and submit the appropriate Development Application that cover these activities retrospectively and undertake compensatory plantings for the trees removed and  (b) will Council engage with the Arakwal Native Title claimants of the land is relation to Councils activities and its failure to properly notify them of Council proposed future act under the Native Title Act and begin negotiations to properly compensate them for Councils unauthorised activity and (c) will Council notify the NSW Marine Parks Authority and NSW Fisheries in relation to their unauthorised in Cape Byron Marine Park and in a gazetted Key Fish Habitat.

 

Response Director Infrastructure Services:

 

Council undertook vegetation works, referred to as stage 1 in May 2016.  No treatment of vegetation was scheduled or undertaken within Lot 407 on 728640.  Please note the assertions made at public access on the 23 November 2017 that Council staff had treated vegetation as presented in photos is false.  Please also note that the Photos as displayed and dated, pre-date stage 1 treatment works undertaken by Council staff / contractors and that no tree works was undertaken by Council or its contractors between the dates as presented within the Crown Recreation Reserve 33876.

 

Council will continue to assess and follow the appropriate approval pathways for airfield safety vegetation treatment work.

 

 

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Questions With Notice                                                                                                         15.6

 

 

Question with Notice No. 15.6     Simpsons Creek

File No:                                           I2017/1817

 

  

 

 

Matthew O’Reilly asks the following question:

 

Why has Byron Council never implemented the Simpsons Creek Rehabilitation Review of Environmental Factors and Detailed Design Document which was publicly exhibited by Byron Council in September and October 2010?  http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/public-exhibition/2010/10/07/simpson-s-creek-rehabilitation-detailed-design-and-community-information.  The Simpson's Creek Site is also registered as Site 14 in the Brunswick Estuary Management Plan 2007.  Further why has Council not required the recommendations and detailed designs of this report be integrated into the Vegetation Management Plan for the Terrace Reserve Holiday Park or the Terrace Reserve Holiday Park Plan of Management.  Council spent significant time and resources preparing this design and review and community members from Brunswick Heads provided input into its drafting yet it has never been implemented.

 

Response Director Sustainable Environment and Economy:

 

In 2009, Council received funding through the NSW Environmental Trust for the Simpsons Creek Site 14 Bank Stabilisation and Rehabilitation Project. A detailed Concept Design and Costing, and Review of Environmental Factors (REF) were completed along with a community consultation program. The consultation program included public exhibition of the draft concept design and REF for public and State Government agency comment.

The proposed project area spans two land allotments. One of the land allotments is managed by Council; the other is managed by NSW Crown Holiday Parks Trust (NSWCHPT).

For many months Council staff, whilst progressing this project, attempted to negotiate a funding commitment to this project from NSWCHPT, as per their verbal commitment at the time Council applied for the grant. As 80% of the project site included land owned by NSCHPT, it was hoped that NSWCHPT would up to 80% of the project costs.

A commitment from NSWCHPT to part fund the project (as land owners of a significant section of the proposed project area) was not forthcoming. In addition, variation to the scope of works was also requested by NSWCHPT which was denied by funding body. Hence, in 2012 Council management ceased progression of this project. 

Council’s Brunswick Estuary Management Plan (re-named Coastal Zone Management Plan for the Brunswick Estuary) has recently been updated and re-submitted to the Minister for certification. Site 14 is currently a management action in the plan for on-ground works being bank stabilisation, formalisation of public access and revegetation. This project is pending Council resources and funding.

 

The Plan of Management for Brunswick Heads Foreshore Public Reserves (NSWCHPT, 2014) outlines the principal issues to be addressed within Simpsons Creek Reserve (p. 32), being bank erosion, foreshore access and vegetation management.  As detailed in section 5.2.1 (page 41) reference is made to advice provided to Council from Australian Wetlands Consulting Pty Ltd, being the Simpsons Creek Rehabilitation Review of Environmental Factors (incl. Concept Designs) completed 2010. 

 

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Questions With Notice                                                                                                         15.7

 

 

Question with Notice No. 15.7     Ocean Shores STP and Brunswick Valley STP

File No:                                           I2018/110

 

  

 

 

Patricia Warren asked the following question which was taken on notice:

 

What easements and when, have been purchased by BSC across  private property between Ocean Shores STP and Brunswick Valley STP, under what authority, from what budget at what total cost and for what purpose?

 

Response Director Infrastructure Services:

 

In February 2010, Council considered a report on the potential to procure easements for the proposed pipeline to transfer Ocean Shores STP effluent to the new Brunswick Valley STP for use within the Mullumbimby effluent reuse scheme and resolved:

 

10-90

Resolved that in relation to affected private property parcels being 12390, 96030, 124450, 239590 and crown land road reserves, that council authorise subject to the parties entering an acceptable deed of agreement:

 

a)          the acquisition of the easements as detailed in this report; and

 

b)          the affixing of the crown seal to all necessary documents that affect the acquisitions.

 

Staff arranged professional independent valuations of the easements and proposed the valuations to all four private property owners. Three of the four private property owners provided signed agreements to compensation, which were reported to Council at the 15 December 2011 meeting.

 

The matter was dealt with in a Confidential session due to the commercial nature of the report. Council resolved:

 

11-1086

1.   That Council resolve to delegate to the General Manager authority to negotiate the purchase of the 3 properties, in accordance with and up to the amounts described in this report.

 

2.   That Council authorise the affixing of the Council seal to all documents necessary to acquire the properties.

 

3.   That the report is to remain confidential until Council becomes the registered proprietor.

 

The total cost for the 3 easements was $60,000.

 

The budget for the purchase of these easements was the Brunswick Area Sewage Augmentation Scheme.

 

 

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Questions With Notice                                                                                                         15.8

 

 

Question with Notice No. 15.8     Drain Clearing at Billinudgel

File No:                                           I2018/111

 

  

 

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on 1 February 2018, Matthew Lambourne asked the following question which was taken on notice:

 

Why has there been no apparent progress on drain clearing at Billinudgel since the SES meeting at Billinudgel on 24 September 2017 at which SES reports that “Council rep looking at drains and work out a plan for cleaning up?”

 

Response Director Infrastructure Services:

 

To date trees have been removed from the drain along Wilfred Street to allow the drains to be cleaned using the excavator which has been completed.  This work is now planned to be undertaken annually.  A drain cleaning truck has cleared many of the side entry pits in the industrial estate of sediment and rubbish - this work is ongoing following inspections.

 

The drain running from Wilfred Street along the Pocket Road for approximately 100 metres has also been cleared and mowed using a flail mower on an excavator.  The general up keep of mowing along these drains has been contracted with the ‘House With No Steps’ contractors for monthly maintenance.

 

Council has been in discussions with John Holland Rail (JHR) regarding the drains and easements controlled by State Rail to have the rail corridor maintained to allow proper flow of stormwater. To date there has been no action by John Holland Rail. Council is reviewing its options in this area.

 

 

 

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Questions With Notice                                                                                                         15.9

 

 

Question with Notice No. 15.9     Bangalow Paid Parking and the NSW Heritage Register

File No:                                           I2017/1840

 

  

 

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on 23 November 2017, Peter Mortimore asked the following question which was taken on notice:

 

Are you, the Councillors, aware that the introduction of paid parking in Bangalow will seriously damage any application Bangalow is making to have Bangalow placed on the NSW Heritage Register?

 

Response Director Sustainable Environment and Economy:

 

Staff have advised of some discussion of this occurring at the Bangalow Guidance Group meetings but nothing formal has been presented to staff to date. Staff are unaware of whether councillors have knowledge of this proposal.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the introduction of paid parking is unlikely to have any adverse impact on a proposal to submit an application to the NSW Heritage Council for consideration of State Heritage Listing.

 

The Heritage Council has developed criteria to help establish whether an item is state significant.

 

To be assessed for listing on the State Heritage Register an item will, in the opinion of the Heritage Council, meet one or more of the following criteria:

 

a) an item is important in the course, or pattern, of NSW’s cultural or natural history;

b) an item has strong or special association with the life or works of a person, or

group of persons, of importance in NSW’s cultural or natural history;

c) an item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high

degree of creative or technical achievement in NSW;

d) an item has strong or special association with a particular community or cultural

group in NSW for social, cultural or spiritual reasons;

e) an item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of

NSW’s cultural or natural history;

f) an item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of NSW’s cultural or

natural history;

g) an item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of

NSW’s

- cultural or natural places; or

- cultural or natural environments.

 

Some places and items may not reach the threshold for listing on the State Heritage Register but may be of local heritage significance within a local government area for example ‘Central Tilba’ and ‘Tilba  Tilba’ in Eurobodalla.

 

An example of a township listed as State Significant on the State Heritage Register is ‘Braidwood and its setting’.

 

 

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Questions With Notice                                                                                                       15.10

 

 

Question with Notice No. 15.10   Rural Accommodation Figures

File No:                                           I2018/112

 

  

 

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on 1 February 2018, Matthew O’Reilly asked the following question which was taken on notice:

Can Council please provide figures for the number of new dwelling or rural tourist accommodation approvals in the 2015, 2016 and 2017 calendar years.  Can these figures be divided into:

§ Rural primary dwellings

§ Rural dual occupancies

§ Rural secondary dwellings

§ Urban detached dwellings

§ Urban secondary dwellings

§ Urban dual occupancies

§ Urban multi dwelling housing approved as strata title developments

§ Shop top housing

§ Rural tourist cabins, farm stay accommodation or eco tourism accommodation

NB please count total dwellings not total approvals as often multiple dwellings are included in a single approval such as multi dwelling housing dual occupancies or a new house and secondary dwelling

 

Response Director Sustainable Environment and Economy:

 

There are various sources of information already publicly available that contain demographic and housing information about Byron Shire relevant to the above queries.

 

Links to these are provided below:

 

·  Supporting documents for the residential strategy -

http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/residential-strategy

·  Demographic and Housing data – ABS based

https://profile.id.com.au/byron

·  Department of Planning local development performance monitoring statistics

https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/local-development-performance-monitoring

·  Department OF Planning North Coast Plan

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Plans-for-your-area/Regional-Plans/North-Coast

 

Should the above links and documents not specifically address all of the above queries, then a written planning request needs to be lodged for this information, and a fee for service under Council’s adopted Fees and Charges paid for a staff member to undertake the appropriate research to respond to the queries.


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Questions With Notice                                                                                                       15.11

 

 

Question with Notice No. 15.11   Byron Bay Bypass

File No:                                           I2017/1844

 

  

 

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on 23 November 2017, John Anderson asked the following question which was taken on notice:

 

1)    Is it the case that the figure given in the agenda for the ‘latest’ cost estimate for the Butler Street Bypass actually predates the recent court cases about this matter and that it therefore fails to take into account costs flowing from the conditions attached to the wetlands consent by the Court?

 

2)    Either way would Council please be kind enough to provide individual estimates for the works specified by the Court, including:

 

i.      baseline modelling and studies of existing water flow

ii.     measures to ensure that the road works do not affect drainage from the C.B.D

iii.    height clearance below the road dock to allow for flightless fauna & bridges or tunnels

iv.    assessment and management of geotech issues such as acid sulphate

v.    measures to capture and filter contaminated runoff from the road dock

vi.    the purchase of bio-banking off-set credits

 

3)    In the interests of transparency (and in the absence of a cost-benefit analysis) might Council also please give a breakdown of costs in relation to the Butler Street section of the Bypass and the non-wetland section?

 

4)    Does the General Manager intend to seek delegated authority to spend these further monies?

 

Response Director Infrastructure Services:

 

1)      The report to the 14 December 2017 meeting of Council advises that the current total cost for the project is $22.5M

 

2)      Subject to the consideration and resolution of Council on 14 December 2017, further work will be completed on the proposed implementation of the works in association with RMS.

 

3)      Subject to the consideration and resolution of Council on 14 December 2017, further work will be completed on the proposed implementation of the works in association with RMS.

 

4)      It is anticipated the resolution of Council on 14 December 2017 will direct further implementation of the project.

 

 

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Questions With Notice                                                                                                       15.12

 

 

Question with Notice No. 15.12   Council Compliance regarding Tree Removal

File No:                                           I2017/1847

 

  

 

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on 23 November 2017, John Lazarus asked the following question which was taken on notice:

 

Regarding the removal of trees in Railway Park. What is the proposed Council compliance action against the developer regarding the developers breach of his DA Consent Conditions to protect the adjacent park trees, and what is the proposed compliance action against Council for Council cutting down the trees in breach of Councils own DA Consent Conditions?

 

Response Director Sustainable Environment and Economy:

 

Railway Park is zoned RE 1 (Public Recreation) under the Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014.

 

The removal of vegetation in Railway Park is guided by Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2014, Chapter B2 Preservation of Trees and Other Vegetation.

 

Within table B2.1 of Chapter B2 “Vegetation removal required to construct, maintain or protect public infrastructure” does not require development consent.

 

There is no development consent relevant to the land in which works were performed. Therefore no consent conditions were breached.

 

Council carried out tree works in accordance with an approval pursuant to the 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.

 

No compliance (enforcement) action is presently contemplated.

 

 

 

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Questions With Notice                                                                                                       15.13

 

 

Question with Notice No. 15.13   Tyagarah Aerodrome

File No:                                           I2017/2083

 

  

 

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on 14 December 2017, Matthew O’Reilly asked the following question which was taken on notice:

 

I can find no record of Development Consent ever being applied for or granted relating to the operation of an aerodrome at Tyagarah.  As the crown land for the aerodrome was leased to Byron Council in 1971 and construction of the aerodrome commenced after that can Council please provide evidence of development consent being granted to construct the aerodrome.  Additionally, I can find no record of Byron Council ever going through the formal process to convert the Council owned land and the Crown owned land at Tyagarah aerodrome from Community Land to Operational Land.  Given that the formal conversion from Community Land to Operational land is a requirement before land can be sub-divided and that if the land is still Community Land then a Management Plan is required can Council please provide evidence that both Council and Crown owned land at Tyagarah Aerodrome is not Community Land.

 

Response Director Infrastructure Services:

 

Historical Aerial photography confirms that the airfield was in existence in 1971.

Council at this time has not determined the exact age of Airfield, however it has been suggested that it was constructed around the time of the Ocean Shores Development and may have been constructed as early as 1969.

 

Because of the airfield’s age, it is not surprising you can ‘find no record of development consent’. The EP&A Act did not commence until 1979. However, the absence of EP&A development consent doesn’t indicate the airfield is unlawful. In the absence of any other substantive claim, Council presumes that the airfield was lawfully constructed under the planning regime which applied at the time.

 

Regarding the airfield’s land classification, based on Council’s asset management system, Council confirms that Lot 49 on DP881232 is Council Owned Operational Land and Lot 181 is Crown Land Special Lease Aerodrome. Under the Local Government Act, Crown Land cannot be classified.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Questions With Notice                                                                                                       15.14

 

 

Question with Notice No. 15.14   Byron Bypass

File No:                                           I2017/2084

 

  

 

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on 14 December 2017, John Anderson asked the following question which was taken on notice:

 

To what extent were you, the Mayor, and/or Shannon McKelvey involved in the decision to finance the Butler Street Bypass defend to the tune of well over $500k to date, and, if you weren’t actually involved, to what extent were you at least aware of the ongoing proposed expenditures after the appeal was served on Council?

 

Response Legal Counsel:

 

Q1.To what extent were you, the Mayor, and/or Shannon McKelvey involved in the decision to finance the Butler Street Bypass defend to the tune of well over $500k to date?

 

The Land and Environment Court proceedings were an objector appeal brought pursuant to 

s 98(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) by the  Butler Street  Community Network Incorporated against the Northern Region Joint Regional Planning Panel, GHD Pty Ltd and Byron Shire Council. The appeal was against the grant of consent by the JRPP on 22 June 2016 for Development Application No 10.2016.77.1 lodged by GHD on behalf of the Council, for the construction of a bypass road and associated works (‘the Byron Bay Bypass’).

 

The objector appeal was lodged on 20 July 2016 and sought that development consent be refused to Development Application number 10.2016.77.1

 

Both the JRPP and GHD filed submitting appearances.

 

Council’s active role in the proceedings was authorised by the General Manager who was, in the relevant period, delegated (emphasis added):

 

to give effect to the provisions made by or under the Act and any other Act and any ordinance, regulation and by-law conferring powers or imposing duties on the Council including the exercise of any power and discretion conferred thereby and the performance of any duty imposed thereby, and to give effect to any resolution, minute, report, or policy which has been passed or adopted by the Council;

 

to take such actions and do such acts or things (not inconsistent with the Act or any Act, ordinance, regulation, or by-law conferring powers or imposing duties on the Council or with any resolution or minute which has been passed or adopted by the Council) as he deems necessary to generally manage, control and administer the affairs of the Council including exercise of the powers and discretions of the Council and performance of its duties.

 

Council had resolved twice to progress with the preferred by pass route along Butler Street. The General Manager and staff at his direction were obliged to implement Council’s resolutions.

 

Q2.To what extent were you at least aware of the ongoing proposed expenditures after the appeal was served on Council?

 

The Class 1 Application in respect to the Byron Bay Bypass DA was served on Council on 3 August 2016. Judgement was delivered on 2 June 2017

 

Councillors and the Executive Team, of which Ms McKelvey is a member, were informed of the appeal on 12 August 2016.

 

Thereafter the Councillors and the Executive Team were updated as to the matter and as to the ongoing costs incurred on 9 September 2016, 17 October 2016,11 November 2016, 16 December 2016, 10 February 2017, 10 March 2017, 18 April 2017, 12 May 2017 and 22 June 2017.

 

Councillors and the Executive Team were updated as to Councils costs application concerning a failed Notice of Motion on 14 July 2017 and 15 September 2017.

 

All of the above information is tabled in attachment 1 hereto.

 

In addition Councillors and the Executive Team were provided with the following memoranda updating the proceedings in greater detail:

 

Memorandum dated 9 November 2016-attachment 2 hereto.

 

Memorandum dated 16 November 2016. This memorandum is not attached as it reports on the conciliation conference which was held on 2 December 2016. Matters raised at a conciliation conference are confidential between the Commissioner, the legal representatives, the expert witnesses involved and the parties. This update was detailed, running to 5 pages.

 

Memorandum dated 2 June 2017-attachment 3 hereto.

 

In all, over the 10 month life of the proceedings, the Councillors and the Executive Team received 10 reports updating the proceedings and the costs incurred together with 3 additional detailed memoranda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        Information on Byron Bay Bypass proceedings provided to Councillors and to the Executive Team, E2017/97930  

2        Memorandum to Councillors and Executive Team updating as to bypass litigation, E2016/98253  

3        Memorandum to Councillors and Executive Team as to finalisation of the appeal hearing, E2017/60303  

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Questions With Notice                                                                                                       15.15

 

 

Question with Notice No. 15.15   Brunswick Valley STP

File No:                                           I2017/2085

 

  

 

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on 14 December 2017, Patricia Warren asked the following question which was taken on notice:

 

What are the daily inflow and rainfall figures for Brunswick Valley STP at EPA Monitoring Point 5 from 31.5.17 to date and why is this data no longer on line for all STPs?

 

Response Director Infrastructure Services:

 

Monitoring data for the period requested is provided (attached).

 

The content of Council’s website is currently under review and the merits of posting daily data will be reported to Council’s Water Sewer and Waste Advisory Committee.

 

Staff have advised that this data was not previously available as live data on the website and that with the implementation of the new web site there would need to be an assessment on how existing data can be incorporated into the website.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1        BVSTP Flow Data Requested by Ms Warren, E2018/7302  

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Questions With Notice                                                                                                       15.16

 

 

Question with Notice No. 15.16   Byron Bay Ballooning

File No:                                           I2017/2086

 

  

 

 

Virginie Hemmery asked the following question which was taken on notice:

 

Can Council please advise on whether the new owner of Byron Bay Ballooning will be required to submit a Development Application to operate the business from Tyagarah Airfield or if Development Consent exists or is required for the existing operations of Byron Bay Ballooning from its current take off point adjacent to Tyagarah Airfield?

 

Response Director Infrastructure Services:

 

The following planning advice has been received by Infrastructure Services in relation to this question.

 

‘Hot air ballooning’ is not specifically covered by Council planning controls. Only aeroplanes and helicopters.

 

Any ‘hot air balloon’ launching, landing or tethering must be operated by a licensed commercial balloon pilot.

 

Legislation specific to the operation of ‘hot air balloons’ is regulated by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) including but not limited to CASR Part 101.  Adherence to all EPA noise level standards is also required.

 

Balloons may be launched from land only with the landowner’s permission.

 

There is also an Australian Ballooning Federation’s ‘Code of Conduct for Landowner Relations’ which applies generally to balloon operations.

 

 

 

 

 

              



[1] www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/jul/10/helsinki-shared-public-transport-plan-car-ownership-pointless