Agenda of Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disclosure and participation in meetings

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

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

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

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

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

Participation in Meetings Despite Pecuniary Interest (S 452 Act)

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

Non-pecuniary Interests - Must be disclosed in meetings.

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

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

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

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

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

RECORDING OF VOTING ON PLANNING MATTERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 4.1

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services

Report No. 4.1 Transport Asset Management Plan - Customer Levels of Service Survey

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Blyth Short, Asset Management Coordinator

File No: I2018/1315

Theme: Infrastructure Services

Asset Management Planning

Summary:

As a part of the communication strategy for the Transport Asset Management Plan council consulted with the community on Transport Customer Levels of Service via a survey during the public exhibition period. This was available online from 18 May to 15 June 2018. The report analyses the results of the 20 questions. The report analyses the results of the 20 questions. The purpose of the survey was to assess and support the levels of service documented in Section 4 (Table 4) of the TAMP

Outcomes from the survey include:

· The outcomes of the survey in an overall context support the documented levels of service in the TAMP. In particular the importance of maintaining the road surface performance (Key Performance Measure 1 – Quality).

· The comparison of satisfaction to importance clearly indicates that the customers are dissatisfied and heavily weight the importance of potholes/edge breaks.

· Based on question 20 (qualitative comments) the respondents had not read the supporting documentation which means key messages were not communicated as effectively as hoped.

· The community provided 262 written comments totalling more than 8,000 words and once again the majority are greatly distressed about the poor state of the roads.

· Facebook links to the survey provided 211 out of a total of 331 responses. This social media medium has proven very efficient and cost effective.

· Producing the Transport Asset Management Plan and the Visual Summary did not achieve as wide a target audience as hoped even though the community are passionate about articulating their concerns around this issue. Council needs to consider other mediums to communicate the transport asset management challenges ahead. Council has prepared 2 short videos as a trial to bridge the gap with an alternative education medium starting with ‘Pothole Repairs’ and ‘Pothole Priorities’.

· The process and outcomes from the survey highlight the challenge of communicating meaningful and agreed community based levels of service.

· Linking levels of service measurement to review cycles of the 10 year capital program and Long Term Financial Plan will assist in prioritising funding for road renewals and road reconstructions. This process will deliver the desired level of service whilst limiting the escalating cost pothole and edge break patching.

RECOMMENDATION:

That:

1. The Transport Customer Levels of Service Report is noted.

2. Council pursues other mediums such as short videos to continue to educate and engage with the community about customer levels of service, asset condition and challenges associated with the transport network as detailed in the draft Transport Asset Management Plan.

3. The Levels of Service detailed in the Transport Asset Management Plan (Section 4) are adopted in accordance with the requirements of the 2018/19 adopted Operations Plan, Action 1.1 (b).

Attachments:

1 Draft Transport Asset Management Plan FINAL FOR PUBLIC EXHIBITION, E2018/30888[v1] , page 26⇩

The following analyses the Customer Levels of Service survey results. Nineteen qualitative questions and one quantitative question was asked. A total of 331 completed responses were received. The average completion rate was 70% in 7 minutes. The $500 prize giveaway provided incentive for particpants to complete the entire survey with 263 providing their contact details to be eligible to win.

The survey was structued to ask the level of satisfaction using a star rating system and to rank the overall importance of 11 criteria for a quadrant analaysis comparison. The questions were compiled using criteria from the NSW Roads and Maritime Services levels of services key performance indicators, the Austroads Guidelines and the Infrastructure Public Works Engineering Australasia Levels of Service & Community Engagement Practice Note 8. Council also researched Customer levels of service criteria from 8 other councils. For further detail refer the Byron Shire Council draft Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP), Section 4 (E2018/30888).

QUESTION 1

Have you read the Transport Asset Management Plan on exhibition?

A large percent of respondents (66%) replied ‘no’ they had not read the TAMP and 34% replying ‘yes’. This data is not considered 100% reliable. This assumption is based on reading the comments from Question 20. The community are still very misinformed about the extent of the long term asset issues associated with the transport asset portfolio. Refer to question 20 for further detail.

QUESTION 2

Have you read the Visual Summary of the Transport Asset Management Plan on exhibition?

A large percentage of the respondents (62%) replied ‘no’ they had not read the Visual Summary and 38% replying ‘yes’. Once again this is not considered 100% repliable data. This assumption is based on reading the comments from Question 20. The community are still very misinformed about the extent of the long term asset issues associated with the transport asset portfolio. Refer to question 20 for further detail. It was intended that the visual summary being 14 pages of info-graphics be consumed by a larger number of customers to assist with this education process. The fact that the yes response for reading the visual summary was much the same as reading the TAMP was disappointing because the visual summary was designed to be more accessible and easy to read.

The following 12 questions asked to respondents to select a star ranking satisfaction with 1 star low satisfaction and 5 starts high satisfaction.

QUESTION 3 – SEALED ROAD SURFACE

How satisfied are you with the 508 km of SEALED road surface e.g. potholes and edge breaks?

For sealed road surface the respondents indicated an overwhelming low satisfaction 1 star rating of 60%. This is the highest ranking dissatisfaction of service out of all questions asked. Combined the community scored 79% for the 1 to 2 star rating (low to medium satisfaction) for the sealed road surface and this is consistent with previous community consultation.

QUESTION 4 - UNSEALED ROAD SURFACE

How satisfied are you with the 96 km of UNSEALED road surface e.g. gravel roads?

By comparison the unsealed road surface to the previous sealed road question is different. Customers are far more evenly dis-satisfied from a 1 to 3 stars rating (low to medium satisfaction) score with the total 87%. Whilst it is still worth noting that 37% ranked a 1 star rating (low satisfaction). It is also worth noting that 6% replied not applicable as they don’t use unsealed roads.

QUESTION 5 – LINE MARKING

How satisfied are you with the line marking? (Line marking and cats eyes includes centre lines and edge lines. They make the road safer when it is dark and there are no street signs.)

When questioned about linemarking satisfaction 34% scored a 3 stars satisfaction. With 21% 2 stars and 24 % 1 star. The 4 and 5 star satisfaction totaled 20%. Linemarkings has a general bell curve distribution of scores.

QUESTION 6 – ROAD SIGNAGE

How satisfied are you with the road signage? (Have you noticed missing signs, graffiti, poor reflective stop signs, street signs etc?)

When questioned about road signage satisfaction 34% scored 3 stars satisfaction. With 20% 2 stars and 17% 1 star. The 4 and 5 stars satisfaction totaled 29%. The signage and line marking have very similar bell curve distributions scores.

QUESTION 7 – ROAD BARRIERS /GUARDRAIL

How satisfied are you with the road Barriers / Guardrails? (Guardrails prevent a vehicle colliding with dangerous obstacles, going down steep slopes or entering deep waterways. If wire guardrail is damaged and is not under tension it cannot work properly.)

When questioned about guardrail satisfaction 44% scored a 3 stars satisfaction . This is the highest ranking satisfaction out of all categories. With 15% 2 stars and 18% 1 star. The 4 and 5 stars satisfaction totaled 23%. The signage and line marking have very similar bell curve distributions scores.

QUESTION 8 - GUIDEPOSTS

How satisfied are you with the Guideposts? (Guideposts outline the edges of roadway, causeways or culverts to indicate the road alignment when it is dark and there are no street lights.)

The guideposts scored 36% with a 3 stars satisfaction. With 21% 2 stars and 1 star equally. The 4 and 5 stars satisfaction totaled 22%. The guideposts, signage and line marking have very typical bell curve distributions scores.

QUESTION 9 – WET WEATHER SURFACE

How satisfied are you with the road surface in the wet weather? Have you experienced slippery surfaces when driving 10 km below the designated speed in the wet?

The wet weather slippery surface scored 31% 1 star satisfaction. Closely followed by 29% 3 stars and then 19% 2 stars. The 4 and 5 stars satisfaction totaled 21%. It appears respondents are either very dissatisfied or have a medium satisfaction with this service.

QUESTION 10 – URBANS STORMWATER

How satisfied are you with the storm water system when it rains; does it allow you to continue to use the footpaths and roads? e.g. water ponding and localised flooding

For urban stormwater flooding roads and footpaths respondents rated 1 star rating at 42%. This is the second highest dissatisfaction score. Then 2 stars rated 24% and 3 stars rated of 23%. The scores are indicating a straight line linear distribution from 1 star to 5 stars tipping higher towards the low satisfaction score.

QUESTION 11 - ACCESS

How satisfied are you with the road access 24 hours, 7 days a week? (Except where there have been road closures and a media release of a special event, road maintenance or construction programmed.)

Road access scored 31% with a 3 stars satisfaction followed by 24% with 4 stars. Two stars received 13%. The 4 and 5 stars combined totalled 13%. Road access scored the highest level of satisfaction from all questions. Considering council has had very little road closures it is surprising that respondents ranked 19% with a 1 start rating. This could be contributed to the generally low overall satisfaction for the road service which has influenced this question.

QUESTION 12 – FOOTPATHS & SHARED PATHS

How satisfied are you with the footpaths and shared paths? E.g. concrete paths for pedestrians, cyclists etc.

Footpaths and shared paths scored 35% 1 star then 3 stars 27%. It appears respondents are either very dissatisfied or have a medium satisfaction with this service. The 2 star ranking scored 17%. Combined the 4 and 5 stars scored 18% and 2% indicating not applicable. From the qualitative comments in question 20 customers are very passionate about the shared paths (cycleways) in the shire. There is a strong desire for more throughout the shire.

QUESTION 13 – BUS SHELTERS

How satisfied are you with the bus shelters?

For bus shelters the respondents ranked a medium 3 stars satisfaction 26% or indicated that it was not applicable with 22%. With a high score of 22% not applicable it indicates that this service is not widely used by all road users. It is also worth noting that the ranking of importance was the lowest for bus shelters out of the 11 criteria (Refer to Question 15).

QUESTION 14 – STREET SWEEPER

How satisfied are you with the street sweeper service. The sweeper has town center schedules for Byron Bay, Brunswick Heads, Bangalow, and Mullumbimby and responds to customer requests.

Street sweeping scored 3 stars rating 39% at the highest point followed by 24% 4 stars. Overall this service ranked the highest level of satisfaction with a combined score of 71% for 3 to 5 stars.

QUESTION 15 – RANKING IMPORTANCE OF ROAD CRITERIA

Rank the road and transport services in order of importance: (Click/drag and move in order of importance. If you number them they will reorder.)

When respondents were asked to rank 11 criteria in order of importance overwhelmingly the road surface ranked the highest score of 10 (Note 1, below). Equally traction/slippery and footpaths/shared paths ranked the same score of 7. With, urban stormwater, rural stormwater, line marking and road barriers scored 6. Then, street signs, street sweeping and guideposts scored 5. The lowest important criteria were bus shelters with a score of 3. This data generally reflects the same result as the 2018 Community Solutions Panel infrastructure priorities and as such confirms the quality of this dataset. It is worth noting that 5 respondents out of 331 were confused with the order of importance and ranked in the wrong order. This assumption can be made from the comments in question 20 as they indicated that the potholes were a priority to them (With such an error of 1.5% it has not impacted upon the overall results of the quality of the survey dataset).

Average Ranking Note1:

The ranking question regarding importance calculates the average ranking for each choice to determine which answer choice was preferred overall. The answer choice with the largest average ranking is the post preferred choice. The average ranking is calculated as follows, where:

w = weight of ranked position
x = response count for answer choice

Weights are applied in reverse. In other words, the respondent's most preferred choice (which they rank as #1) has the largest weight, and their least preferred choice (which they rank in the last position) has a weight of 1. You can't change the default weights. For example, if a Ranking question has 5 answer choices, weights are assigned as follows:

· The #1 choice has a weight of 5

· The #2 choice has a weight of 4

· The #3 choice has a weight of 3

· The #4 choice has a weight of 2

· The #5 choice has a weight of 1

Weights are applied in this way to ensure that when the data is presented on a chart, it's clear which answer choice is most preferred.

Importance vs Satisfaction

The ranking importance and satisfaction has been compared (Figure 1). These values are calculated using weighted averages. (The satisfactory values are presented in the bottom right hand corer of each chart above pertaining to each question.)

This comparison clearly indicates that the customers are dissatisfied and heavily weight the importance of potholes/edge breaks. Then the following features closely cluster in the middle: road traction/slipperiness, footpaths/shared paths, stormwater, line marking, guardrails/barriers, street signs, guideposts and street sweeper. The only other outlier is the bus shelters that had the lowest ranking order of importance.

Figure 1 Satisfaction vs Importance comparison

QUESTION 16 – CONGESTION DELAY

If you are sitting in traffic, what delay do you consider reasonable caused by congestion and queuing traffic?

Congestion and queuing traffic delay scored the highest of 38% in a 3-5 minute and 35% for 2-3minute range. The next range of 5-7 minutes scored 17%. Then the combined totals of 10% were willing to wait longer than 7 - 13 minutes.

QUESTION 17 – RESPONSIVENESS

If you have contacted council about a road or transport matter how responsive have we been to your questions and concerns about a service?

Respondents were asked to score their satisfaction regarding response to road related enquiries. The majority of respondents indicated this was not applicable (NA) and this scored 44%. The 1 to 3 stars rating was equally distributed with an average of 15%. The combined 4 and 5 stars ratings were 9% satisfaction. The high NA of 44% indicates that the customers who are not satisfied are not necessarily informing council of their particular dissatisfaction. Considering the overall dissatisfaction from the survey questions i.e. low star ratings, the customers are not communicating this to council with formal customer enquiries. From a key performance indicator data analysis it is difficult for an organisation to measure customer changes to service standards other than conducting ongoing surveys. The use of Customer Requests Systems is essential to measure responsiveness and key performance indicators for customer levels of service such as those asked in this survey.

QUESTION 18 – ROAD USER CATEGORY

As a road user please select the most appropriate below:

The road user categories were dominated by 65% of respondents being residents/homeowners, 18% commuters and 10% renters. The commercial user was 6% and 1% tourists. This data is supported by the majority of postcode data residing inside or adjoining shire boundaries (Refer Figure 2).

QUESTION 19 – VEHICLE CHOICE

Has the road surface influenced your vehicle choice?

Road vehicle choice scored 71% saying that they road surface influenced their vehicle choice and 29% saying no. This data is further confirmed with comments in question 20 indicating damage to vehicles from the road surface condition.

Responses by Postcode

Using the data collected from the survey repondents postcodes the map below has been produced. The findings indicate the majority (83%) of post codes and localities are within Byron Shire. With the top 3 areas being: Byron / Suffolk Park (2481), Ocean Shores areas (2483), and Mullumbimby (2482). Some postcodes extend into the adjoining shires. A full locality list of the areas outside of the Shire is not available.

Figure 2 Map Responses by postcode

Postcode	2481	2483	2482	2479	2480
Locality	Broken Head	Wooyung	Montecollum	Newrybar	Nightcap
	Hayters Hill	Yelgun	Koonyum Range	Nashua	Clunes
	Skinners Shoot	New Brighton	Huonbrook	Possum Creek	Eureka
	Tyagarah	South Golden Beach	Upper Main Arm	Coopers Shoot	Booyong
	Ewingsdale	Ocean Shores	Palmwoods	Binna Burra	Whian Whian
	Talofa	The Pocket	Upper Coopers Cr	Bangalow	Federal
	Myocum	Brunswick Heads	Goonengerry	Mcleods Shoot
	Byron Bay	Billinudgel	Wanganui	Coorabell
	Suffolk Park	Middle Pocket	Upper Wilsons Cr
			Main Arm
			Mullumbimby Creek
			Wilsons Creek
			Mullumbimby

QUESTION 20 – COMMENTS SUMMARY

Do you have any further comments relating to this survey or the Transport Asset Management Plan?

Answered: 262, Skipped: 68.

In summary the community have provided 262 written comments that equates to more than 8,000 words. This is a clear indication that the community are passionate about articulating their concerns around this issue. The following is a summation of the customers themes:

· Pothole patching will solve the road surface problem [101].

· The majority are greatly distressed about the state of the roads.

· Roads are damaging vehicles and believe it directly related to the road conditions [17].

· The quality of pothole patching in Byron Shire is of poor standard compared to neighbouring councils [4].

· They want the roads fixed and no further consultation with the community. The community have spoken on a number of occasions that their priority is the road assets.

· More shared paths (cycleways) need to be installed [10].

· Roads need to improve for motorcycles [5].

· Cyclists are not abiding by road rules [3].

· Encouraging cyclists will improve the road condition.

· Tourists should be charged to fund the transport assets [3].

· Some respondents said council is working in the right direction to address the issues.

· The Visual Summary was useful.

· Appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback.

· The minority have understood that the issues are complex and not easy to ‘just fix’.

· The street sweeper is noisy in the morning.

· Increase rates to fix the roads.

Summary

The outcomes of the survey in an overall context support the documents levels of service in the TAMP. In particular, the importance of maintainging the road surface performance (Key Performance Measure 1 – Quality). This finding is supported in the following summary comments regarding the survey questions.

The following is a summary of questions 1 – 19 quantiative questions:-

1. A large percent of respondents (66%) replied ‘no’ they had not read the TAMP and 34% replying ‘yes’. This data is not considered 100% reliable.

2. A large percentage of the respondents (62%) replied ‘no’ they had not read the Visual Summary and 38% replying ‘yes’. Once again this is not considered 100% reliable data.

3. For sealed road surface the respondents indicated an overwhelming low satisfaction 1 star rating of 60%. This is the highest ranking dissatisfaction of service out of all questions asked. Combined the community scored 79% for the 1 to 2 star rating.

4. By comparison the unsealed road surface to the previous sealed road question is different. Customers are far more evenly dis-satisfied from a 1 to 3 stars rating (low to medium satisfaction) score with the total 87%.

5. When questioned about linemarking satisfaction 34% scored a 3 stars satisfaction. With 21% 2 stars and 24 % 1 star. The 4 and 5 star satisfaction totalled 20%.

6. When questioned about road signage satisfaction 34% scored 3 stars satisfaction. With 20% 2 stars and 17% 1 star. The 4 and 5 stars satisfaction totalled 29%.

7. When questioned about guardrail satisfaction 44% scored a 3 stars satisfaction. This is the highest ranking satisfaction out of all categories. With 15% 2 stars and 18% 1 star. The 4 and 5 stars satisfaction totalled 23%.

8. The guideposts scored 36% with a 3 stars satisfaction. With 21% 2 stars and 1 star equally. The 4 and 5 stars satisfaction totalled 22%.

9. The wet weather slippery surface scored 31% 1 star satisfaction. Closely followed by 29% 3 stars and then 19% 2 stars. The 4 and 5 stars satisfaction totalled 21%.

10. For urban stormwater flooding roads and footpaths respondents rated 1 star rating at 42%. This is the second highest dissatisfaction score. Then 2 stars rated 24% and 3 stars rated of 23%.

11. Road access scored 31% with a 3 stars satisfaction followed by 24% with 4 stars. Two stars received 13%. The 4 and 5 stars combined totalled 13%.

12. Footpaths and shared paths scored 35% 1 star then 3 stars 27%. It appears respondents are either very dissatisfied or have a medium satisfaction with this service. The 2 star ranking scored 17%. Combined the 4 and 5 stars scored 18% and 2% indicating not applicable.

13. For bus shelters the respondents ranked a medium 3 stars satisfaction 26% or indicated that it was not applicable with 22%. With a high score of 22% not applicable it indicates that this service is not widely used by all road users.

14. Street sweeping scored 3 stars rating 39% at the highest point followed by 24% 4 stars. Overall this service ranked the highest level of satisfaction with a combined score of 71% for 3 to 5 stars.

15. When respondents were asked to rank 11 criteria in order of importance overwhelming the road surface ranked the highest score of 10. Equally traction/slippery and footpaths/shared paths ranked the same score of 7. With, urban stormwater, rural stormwater, line marking and road barriers scored 6. Then, street signs, street sweeping and guideposts scored 5. The lowest important criteria were bus shelters with a score of 3.

16. Congestion and queuing traffic delay scored the highest of 38% in a 3-5 minute and 35% for 2-3minute range. The next range of 5-7 minutes scored 17%. Then the combined totals of 10% were willing to wait longer than 7 - 13 minutes.

17. Respondents were asked to score their satisfaction regarding response to road related enquiries. The majority of respondents indicated this was not applicable (NA) and this scored 44%. The 1 to 3 stars rating was equally distributed with an average of 15%. The combined 4 and 5 stars ratings were 9% satisfaction.

18. The road user categories were dominated by 65% of respondents being residents/homeowners, 18% commuters and 10% renters. The commercial user was 6% and 1% tourists.

19. Road vehicle choice scored 71% saying that they road surface influenced their vehicle choice and 29% saying no.

In summary, based on question 20 (qualitative comments) the repondents had not read the supporting documentation. The following key messages have not been received by the majority:

· Pothole patching will not solve the road surface problem

· There are services that form part of the transport network e.g. bridges, causeways, culverts, barriers, bus shelters, street sweeping etc. mentioned in survey introduction.

· Respondents have a low level of understanding of the council’s financial position in relations to transport assets.

· The overall condition of the road network is poor with 41% of the roads have failed and approximately 200km potentially require reconstruction.

· Council needs to invest heavily long term into the reseal program.

· Increasing the footpaths/shared paths will not improve the road network.

· The damage of roads is primarily caused by heavy vehicles and road fatigue as a result of insufficient maintenance over many decades.

Whilst the feedback exceeded all expectations with 331 responses the information to educate the community has not been achieved. Facebook links to the survey provided 211 out of a total of 331 responses. This social media medium has proven very efficient and cost effective.

Producing the Transport Asset Management Plan and the Visual Summary did not achieved a wide target audience even though the community are passionate about articulating their concerns around this issue. Council needs to consider other mediums to communicate the transport asset management challenges ahead. Council has prepared 2 short videos as a trial to bridge the gap with an alternative education medium starting with ‘Pothole Repairs’ and ‘Pothole Priorities’.

The comparison of satisfaction to importance clearly indicates that the customers are dissatisfied and heavily weight the importance of potholes/edge breaks. The community then generally indicated the remainder of the criteria to be closely cluster in the middle of the rating scale. The only other outlier is the bus shelters that had the lowest ranking order of importance.

Council has opted to not provide the actual comments from respondents who were not aware that this data could be published as apart of this report and their participation in an open quantitative and qualitative survey.

Overall the survey was very successful and details the start of very long levels of service journey with the community and staff. This is a clear indication that the community are passionate about articulating their concerns around this issue. To keep this momentum going Council can use the Customer Requests Systems to measure responsiveness and key performance indicators of customer levels of service such as those asked in this survey.

Financial Implications

Not Applicable

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Not Applicable

Purpose:

Inform ET of the process involved in facilitating the development consideration of an FNA for Tyagarah Airfield as per Council resolution below.

Information/Background:

Council at the 21 September 2017 Meeting Resolved:-

Res 17-406

That Air Services Australia (ASA), the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman(ANO), non-profit tenants at Tyagarah Airfield, commercial tenants at Tyagarah airfield, Tyagarah Progress Association, land owners within 3km of Tyagarah airfield and interested residents be invited to participate in an initial stakeholder meeting facilitated by Council to consider the development of an FNA agreement in the next three months.

Initial Meeting Invitations for participation

As per Council’s resolution invitations were sent as below and TRIM references above.

684 mail invites were sent to landowners and/or residents within a 3 km radius of Tyagarah Airfield. If the land owner’s postal address differed from the residential address a separate invite was sent to capture not only the land owners but also the residents.

Non-profit tenants, commercial tenants and Tyagarah Progress Association were sent in total 12 invites via email or mail depending on communication preferences.

Air Services Australia (ASA), Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO) and CASA OAR department were all contacted via email and some by telephone where possible and invited to participate and attend this meeting.

RSVP’s Received

Council received 49 RSVP’s of attendance from land owners, residents, non profit tenants, commercial tenants and Tyagarah Progress Association out of a possible 696 invitees.

ASA and ANO declined the invitation before the meeting date. CASA OAR department officially responded post meeting date.

12 December 2017 FNA Meeting Outline, Attendees & Minutes

Meeting Outline

FNA initial stakeholder meeting took place at the Cavanbah Centre on 12 December 2017 10 -11am. The agenda included an introduction and presentation by Lloyd Isaacson (Acting Open Space & Resource Recovery Manager), presentation by the main airfield user Skydive Australia and discussion and question time with the community.

Council’s presentation highlighted the Airfield and Council’s role, what a FNA is and alternative programs available, considerations for developing a program, submissions form for community considerations and ET report process.

Skydive presentation outlined their current operations at Tyagarah, aircraft flown, local airspace and noise minimisation.

Attendees

Attendee lists 41 attendees out of a possible 696 attendees.

Minutes

Minutes were taken by Byron Council staff.

The Resolution indicates consideration of the development of an FNA only.

It was apparent within the question and answer time attendees were generally unaware of a number of airspace regulations that the airfield users are bound by.

It was evident many residents assumed the skydivers and Tyagarah Airfield users make all aircraft noise within the vicinity of Tyagarah. Gliding Club representatives, Council and skydive representatives explained to the attendees that all aircraft noise within the vicinity of Tyagarah was not from Tyagarah. The actual airspace above and around Tyagarah is a training airspace for Coolangatta operators.

Submissions

Received

Submissions were invited by the Council to attendees.

The submission process is intended to outline attendee’s inclusion on items they wish Council to consider when developing an FNA or alternative.

To date 41 submissions have been received by Council.

It is noted, 15 of the submission received were duplicated submissions from the residents/land owners in the Mevlana Property of Bilin Road, Myocum.

Content Summary

Within each submission received there was an average of 11.5 items per submission.

An exhaustive submission item table is attached.

In summary

229 items received would fall outside of CASA, CAAP and Advisory Regulations. As the OAR stated in their response to Council “some of the issues as raised by the petitioners are impractical or are not in accordance with aviation legislation”. For example, no flying below 1500 ft and only one aircraft in airspace at a time.

138 items have the possibility of inclusion into any FNA. These particular items revolve around operating times at Tyagarah. For example, request no take-offs before 7 am and no operations on Christmas day. CASA’s Airspace Risk and Safety Management Manual highlights opportunities for aircraft operators to vary their operations to reduce noise disturbance, but recognises this to be implemented without unreasonably penalising operators by doing so.

A further 32 items could be included into an FNA where operationally possible. It should be noted the Skydive operations at Tyagarah already adhere to their FNA developed for Tyagarah and these 32 submissions regarding climbing and descending over the beach are already within this FNA.

Consultation:

Air Services Australia, CASA, ANO & CASA OAR Department involvement.

Air Services Australia formally replied and indicated no role regarding the creation of Fly Neighbourly Agreement.

ANO formally replied stating they do not have any formal role in facilitating such agreements and suggested the OAR within CASA has a co-ordinating role on how to prepare a FNA.

OAR department within CASA requested further information in order to complete a risk assessment decision for Tyagarah. They requested minutes from the meeting held on 12 December 2017, presentation information, petition information regarding Tyagarah, submissions received from the meeting, the Skydivers FNA already actioned and ANO’s response. OAR’s official response is

“The outcome of the review is the following:

· A FNA supported by the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) is not the most suitable airspace solution;

· It is recommended that the Byron Shire Council, as the Aerodrome Operator, engage with users of the airfield and the public to arrive at a suitable local fly neighbourly advice that will meet the needs of local residents and ensure that there is no reduction in safety of navigation of aircraft;

· If a change in circuit procedures is contemplated, then this will need a full safety case and risk assessment to be prepared and will need to be discussed with the CASA Sydney Region office prior to any changes being effected and published:”

It should be noted the official response from OAR also states:-

“Some of the issues as raised by the petitioners are impractical or are not in accordance with aviation legislation such as requesting that aircraft do not operate lower than 1500 feet.”

Considerations

Council resolved to consider the development of an FNA. It is clear from the submissions received there is an expectation from the community that Council can control to some degree airspace. This is an unrealistic expectation by the Community and CASA recognises this impracticable view as outlined in their response. Council has no regulatory authority over airspace.

Skydive operations contribute to 95% of the movement activity on the airfield at Tyagarah. The skydiving operations from Tyagarah have an Air Services Letter of Agreement which includes Noise Minimisation Requirements. The skydive business already has a FNA for Tyagarah that their operations abide by.

Many submissions received and items highlighted within these submissions would fall outside of a FNA. Class G airspace, aircraft noise regulations for CASA registered aircraft within Australia, aircraft from other local aerodromes or Gold Coast Airport, training aircraft from Gold Coast as

Tyagarah vicinity is within the assigned flying training area, any operations at Tyagarah are at the mercy of prevailing winds, weather conditions, local traffic and Coolangatta Air Traffic Control at certain flight levels. For these submission items introduction of an FNA would not provide a solution. Some submission items could be included into a FNA with agreement by operators at the airfield including operating times that would directly affect business operations. Operations from Tyagarah aeroplane landing area are permitted aviation activities governed by Federal rules and regulations.

There is both opposition and support for the FNA development by the community and stakeholders.

Related documents:

1 Invitation Template, E2017/100947

2 Invitation List - FNA RSVP - SUBMISSION REFERENCE - 12 December 2017 - Tyagarah Notifications 3k .csv, E2017/112083

3 Tyagarah Stakeholders Invitation List, E2014/7739

4 Agenda - FNA - 12 December 2017 Cavanbah, E2017/112738

5 Attendance Sheet - FNA Stakeholder Meeting - 12 December 2017 - Tyagarah, E2017/116087

6 Minutes - Fly Neighbourly Advice - Meeting - 12 December 2017, E2017/113185

7 E-mail from CASA OAR official response to facilitation of FNA for Tyagarah FNA - Office of Airspace Regulation Guidance [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] - No involvement from CASA, E2018/4766

8 Response from Air Services Australia - Noise Complaints and Information Service submission: Case 9333 - regarding FNA at Tyagarah airfield, E2017/106139

9 E-mail from ANO regarding FNA - Re Fly Neighbourly procedures [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED], E2017/106392

10 YTYH Fly Neighbourly Advice (FNA) - Copy of Suitable FNA for Tyagarah Dec 2017, E2018/5260

11 FNA SUBMISSION ITEM DETAILS, E2018/16697

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 4.3

Report No. 4.3 Status Update - Bike Plan and PAMP

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Daniel Strzina, Project Engineer

File No: I2018/1520

Theme: Infrastructure Services

Local Roads and Drainage

Summary:

This report provides a status update on the development of the Bike Strategy and Action Plan (Bike Plan) and Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP).

PSA Consulting have been engaged to develop the Bike Plan and PAMP concurrently. This status update is part of a commitment to provide regular updates to every ordinary TIAC meeting.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the status update on the development of the Bike Strategy and Action Plan (Bike Plan) and Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) be noted.

Report

The PAMP and Bike Plan are in early stages of development. The previous status report to TIAC provided draft project delivery schedules and informed of the collaboration between PSA Consulting and Council Staff on the development of the Consultation and Engagement Plans for both projects.

These Consultation and Engagement Plans were reported to the Communications Panel, who provided feedback highlighting that a more personal and in-depth approach should be adopted for stakeholder consultation. As such, the Consultation and Engagement Plans have been revisited and modified.

Consultation Stage 1: Have Your Say Campaign

This stage will involve an online survey using Council’s Bang the Table Platform and will engage members of the public by first educating them of the plans and the development processes involved, and then inviting them to contribute their ideas on what they would like to see included during the development process.

During this stage of consultation, the desired outcomes are:-

· Input from members of the broader community

· Initial engagement of potential stakeholders

· Delivery of an understanding of the project and the process timeline.

· Preliminary input from community and stakeholders on:

o Strategic concepts for consideration.

o Infrastructure projects for consideration.

This stage is planned to begin in August 2018 and conclude in September 2018 prior to Stage 2.

Consultation Stage 2: Stakeholder Charrette

This stage will be undertaken during the initial phases of each project to assist PSA with direction and content for further development of each plan.

During this stage of consultation, the desired outcomes are:

· A high level of community and stakeholder involvement.

· Delivery of an understanding of the project and the process timeline.

· High quality input from community and stakeholders on:

o Strategic concepts for consideration.

o Infrastructure projects for consideration.

This stage involves the identification and engagement of key stakeholders and to invite them to participate in a charrette for their area. Four (4) charrettes will take place around the shire for each project, each charrette consisting of workshops with defined goals and target outcomes to allow participants to contribute toward the development of each plan for their geographical area. Participants will include facilitators, Councillors, members of TIAC, PSA Consulting, Council Staff and relevant key stakeholders such as representatives from local associations, community groups, schools, etc.

The four geographical areas we intend to focus on for each charrette are:-

· South eastern towns: Byron Bay to Suffolk Park including Belongil, the Industrial Area, Ewingsdale, Broken Head

· South western towns: Babgalow, Clunes, Eureka, Federal, Coorabell, Possum Creek etc.

· North western towns: Mullumbimby, Myocum, Goonengerry, Wilsons Creek, Main Arm, The Pocket, etc.

· North eastern towns: Billinudgel, South Golden, Ocean Shores, New Brighton, Brunswick Heads and Tyagarah

The identification of key stakeholders will involve internal and external research into relevant local groups and organisations, as well as attracting such groups through the advertisement of an Expression of Interest (EOI) to contribute to the development of each plan. Representatives of each group will be given the opportunity to attend the Charrette and contribute toward the development of each plan on behalf of their organisation.

The Expression of Interest will be publicised through a dedicated web page, newspaper advertising, social media, direct engagement of known stakeholders and media releases.

The Charrettes (8 total) will be scheduled to take place on four separate nights over four weeks from late September to early October. Each night will focus on a separate geographical area, with the Bike Plan charrette taking place from 5:00pm to 7:00pm and the PAMP charrette taking place from 7:00pm to 9:00pm.

Stage 3: Public Exhibition of Draft Plan

This stage of consultation involves a full public exhibition of each draft plan for comment. The goal is to inform the community and stakeholders of each plan, as well as involve them by inviting them to comment prior to the preparation of the final documents.

This campaign will involve the delivery of the draft plans, an engagement survey, a dedicated web page, newspaper advertising, social media, direct engagement of known stakeholders, media releases, advertising in school newsletters, video content for social media and radio interviews.

For each project, a facilitated workshop will also be held to present the draft document and develop outcomes for consideration in finalising the report. Participants will include facilitators, Councillors, members of TIAC, PSA Consulting, Council Staff and members of the community that wish to attend such as representatives from local associations, community groups, schools, etc.

Delivery of the final document in each case will be accompanied by an informative set of communications to thank the community for their input and advise how their input influenced the process. This will be undertaken through the project dedicated web page, social media, direct engagement of known stakeholders, media releases and advertising in school newsletters.

This stage is planned for March to April 2019.

Impact to Project Delivery Schedules

The revised Consultation and Engagement Plans are more intensive and time consuming than initially expected, and this has had an impact on the Project Delivery Schedules for both the Bike Plan and the PAMP.

The expected delivery dates for the finalised plans will be pushed from March 2019 to May 2019, with milestone dates to be confirmed in future updates.

This will not affect Council’s position to apply for the 2019 round of RMS Active Transport Grants, which normally takes place in September 2019.

Both the PAMP and Bike Plan will be complete prior to this deadline.

Impact to Project Budget

The additional Consultation and Engagement works will incur additional costs, which will require budget adjustments that will be included as part of the September 2018 quarterly financial review.

Draft Report Structures

PSA Consulting have completed a draft report structure for the PAMP and Bike Plan and are currently working on compiling information for the first two chapters of each report.

The draft report structures are as follows:-

DRAFT REPORT STRUCTURES

PAMP

Bike Plan

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.2 PAMP methodology

1.3 PAMP team

1.4 Study objectives

1.5 Strategic context

1.6 Structure of report

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREAS