BUSINESS OF ORDINARY MEETING

1. APOLOGIES

2. REQUESTS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST – PECUNIARY AND NON-PECUNIARY

4. TABLING OF PECUNIARY INTEREST RETURNS (s450A Local Government Act 1993)

5. ADOPTION OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS

5.1. Ordinary Meeting held on 9 February 2012

6. RESERVATION OF ITEMS FOR DEBATE AND ORDER OF BUSINESS

7. MAYORAL MINUTE

8. NOTICES OF MOTION

8.1. Reduce single-use plastic bag use in Byron Shire.............................................................. 4

8.2. Traffic: the Psychology of Transport Behaviour Seminar................................................... 7

8.3. Fees and charges increases................................................................................................ 9

8.4. Revised Report of LPMA land swap issues...................................................................... 10

8.5. Refuge for the homeless - Mullumbimby........................................................................ 13a

9. PETITIONS

10. SUBMISSIONS AND GRANTS

11. DELEGATES’ REPORTS

12. REPORTS BY DIVISION

General Manager

12.1. Code of Conduct Complaints for the period July to December 2011............................ 14

12.2. Draft Amended Code of Meeting Practice Policy- adoption following public exhibition 16

Community Infrastructure

12.3. Byron Bay Traffic and Parking Issues Public Meeting held 29 November 2011........... 21

Corporate Management

12.4. Section 356 Donation - Mullum to Bruns Paddle............................................................ 29

12.5. Request for Tender 2012-0002 for Provision of Block Advertising and Associated
Public Advertisements.................................................................................................... 31

12.6. 2012 National General Assembly of Local Government................................................ 34

12.7. Internal Audit Committee - appointment of a further external representative................ 37

12.8. Investments – January 2012........................................................................................... 39

Environment and Planning

12.9. PLANNING - 10.2011.191.1 s82A Review - Use of part of the tourist premises for
up to 14 functions annually limited to a maximum of 70 guests per function at
6/137 Beach Road, Broken Head................................................................................... 44

12.10. PLANNING - 10.2011.306.1 - Two lot subdivision and development of a
tourist facility (four bedroom tourist accommodation facility with a detached
manager’s residence – 139 Beach Road, Broken Head................................................ 48

Organisational Support

12.11. PLANNING - BSC ats Abramovich LEC 10034/2012.................................................... 86

Society and Culture

12.12. Companion Card Program – Council Affiliation............................................................. 90

12.13. 2011 New Year's Eve Report......................................................................................... 92

12.14. Draft Byron Shire Council Safer Community Compact 2012-2016............................... 97

12.15. Adoption of the Positive Ageing Strategy and Action Plan 2012-2016......................... 101

12.16. 2012 Byron Bay Surf Festival - Request for a letter of support................................... 103

Water and Recycling

12.17. Bulky Waste Kerbside Collection.................................................................................. 105

13. COMMITTEE REPORTS

Community Infrastructure

13.1. Report of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 7 February 2012.................. 111

13.1.1. ANZAC Day Parades 2012................................................................................ 111

13.1.2. Traffic Control and Road Closures, Bangalow Billy Cart Derby, 20 May 2012....... 112

13.1.3. Traffic Management, Mullum to Bruns Paddle 27 May 2012................................ 113

13.1.4. Proposed No Parking 1am - 6am, various sites, Suffolk Park.............................. 114

13.1.5. Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Ballina to Byron Bay Charity Walk............ 115

13.1.6. Request for No Parking, Kingsley Lane, Byron Bay............................................ 117

13.1.7. Request to change parking from 4P to 2P, Byron Street, Byron Bay................... 118

13.1.8. Installation of a speed hump, Brandon Street, Suffolk Park................................ 119

13.1.9. Request for accessible parking (disabled) bay, Byron Street, Bangalow.............. 120

13.1.10. Request to relocate and enforce loading zone, Byron Street, Bangalow.............. 122

13.1.11. Proposal for right-turn lane entry at Broken Head Road Quarry............................ 123

13.1.12. Proposed 2012 Meeting Dates.......................................................................... 124

13.1.13. Late Item - Reportable crash statistics............................................................... 125

Society and Culture

13.2. Report of the Tourism Advisory Committee Meeting held on 2 February 2012.......... 126

14. COUNCILLORS’ QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

15. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS

Corporate Management

15.1. CONFIDENTIAL Expression of Interest Old Station Master's Cottage....................... 128

15.2. CONFIDENTIAL Tender Assessment –General Maintenance, Plumbing and
Electrical Services........................................................................................................ 135

Water and Recycling

15.3. CONFIDENTIAL Tender Evaluation 2011-0046 Construction of Sewage Pump
Station in Boondoon Crescent Ocean Shores.............................................................. 140

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

NOTICES OF MOTION

Notice of Motion No. 8.1.

Reduce single-use plastic bag use in Byron Shire

COR405527 #1198136

I move:

1. That Council acknowledge the efforts taken by many local businesses and residents to reduce the number of single-use or non-biodegradable plastic bags used throughout Byron Shire- especially the Say No To Plastic Bag Campaign. This is to be included in Council’s weekly newspaper notice as well as on the Council website.

2. That Council acknowledge that single-use plastic bags are a major litter problem in our parks and waterways, and can result in the deaths of many turtles, Cetaceans, birds, as well as other animal species. This is to be included in Council’s weekly newspaper notice as well as on the Council website.

3. That Council write to the State and Federal Government urging them to introduce legislation that would ban non-biodegradable single-use plastic shopping bags.

4. That Council contact local retailers to encourage them to voluntarily and in a staged approach, reduce and ultimately eliminate non-biodegradable plastic shopping bags from the Byron Local Government Area.

5. That Council ensure all Council owned or controlled business and commercial activities eliminate the availability of non-biodegradable plastic shopping bags

6. That, Byron Shire Council Policy 7.1 Business and Commercial Activities, be amended to reflect this change.

Signed: Cr Simon Richardson

Councillor’s Background Notes:

Byron Shire is looked upon as a leading centre of sustainable and inspiring action, indeed, in the background within the Draft Corporate Sustainability Policy currently on exhibition, it states, “The philosophy of ‘Sustainability’ requires a recognition that all decisions and actions have an impact on present and future generations.” Small actions such as those listed within the N.O.M recognises this impact.

The single-use plastic bag has been banned in many countries and States throughout the world. Recently the ACT legislated a ban on them. Many small towns and cities around the world have also initiated a ‘voluntary’ ban.

Plastic bags are responsible for the death of turtles and countless marine life through ingestion. Birds get entangled in plastic debris, with organisations like Sea Bird Rescue saving 100’s of animals per year. As Byron is a major tourist destination this campaign wants to educate not only our own community but those who come to visit us as well.

It is particularly important for the Byron Shire to reduce single-use plastic bags in our Shire due to our long coast line, proximity to the Cape Byron Marine Park, the Brunswick River and other creeks, and waterways.

It has been widely reported the alternatives to plastic bags including recycled paper, hemp, calico, cotton, etc. It has also been widely reported the devastating effects that plastic bags have on local species of birds, turtles, Cetaceans etc.

Recommended priority relative to other Management Plan tasks:

Though currently in draft form, this initiative fits within the objectives of the Corporate Sustainability Policy, in particular:

2.2. Continually improve the sustainability performance of Council.

2.3. Support the efforts of the wider Byron Shire community in the transition to a low carbon community by fostering greater awareness about sustainability issues.

2.5. Support efforts to reduce Council’s ecological footprint, including corporate energy consumption, potable water consumption, greenhouse emissions and waste generation across all programs, assets and services.

2.7. Meet the challenge of escalating resource prices, including petroleum resources and waste disposal costs.

2.8. Provide leadership to the local and broader community.

It also fits within the commitments listed in the Draft Corporate Sustainability Policy, in particular:

3.3 Identify opportunities for further improvement and adopt programs and strategies accordingly.

3.4 Support and initiate community programs that champion sustainability.

3.14 Support sustainable purchasing practices, including recycled content, waste and energy efficiency.

Definition of the project/task:

Eliminating availability of non-degradable plastic in all Council owned or controlled business and commercial activities and undertaking actions supporting their reduction in the wider community.

Source of Funds (if applicable):

N/A

Management Comments:

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

Clarification of project/task:

The Notice of Motion (NOM) seeks that Council engage in a multi-dimensional approach to reducing single-use plastic bags in the Byron Shire. Specifically, the report would contain information on:

1. Ways to encourage local businesses to reduce and phase-out single-use plastic bags.

2. Acknowledgement of local businesses, residents and community groups that are currently striving to reduce single-use plastic bags.

3. Educational approaches to inform the public about the deleterious environmental impacts of plastic bags.

4. Advocacy to State and Federal Governments in regards to legislative reform that restricts single-use plastic bag use.

5. Compliance across all Council owned or operated facilities to eliminate single-use plastic bag use.

It should be noted that Council has already signed the current ‘Say No to Plastic Bags Campaign’ supported by Byron United, Seabird Rescue and Byron Bay Community Centre and Markets etc. This has already resulted in a small donation and offers of small in-kind assistance.

Furthermore, Council’s published ‘Sustainable Food Business Directory’ identifies food-related businesses/community enterprises that are committed to not using plastic bags.

Executive Manager responsible for task implementation:

Executive Manager Environment and Planning (re corporate sustainability)
Executive Manager Water and Recycling (re responsible waste management)

Relationship to, priority of, and impact on other projects/tasks:

Not specified in Council Management Plan. However, the task is consistent with Council’s recently adopted Corporate Sustainability Policy, as noted in the NOM.

Financial and Resource Implications:

The majority of proposed actions listed in the NOM can be undertaken within existing allocated resources and will not have any additional resource impact. However, in order to achieve some actions, a comprehensive ‘plastic bag free’ program may be required such as Tweed Shire Council’s ‘Plastic Bag Free Village’ program (see: www.tweed.nsw.gov.au/Sustainability/PlasticBagFree.aspx). This would entail a Council-community partnership and may incur costs in relation to street signage, newspaper advertising and other resources in instances where a whole town achieves ‘plastic bag free status’. If such a program was initiated, Council will have to expend funds from the Sustainability Program budget or the annual Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payment (WaSIP).

Legal and Policy Implications:

The NOM is consistent with Council’s adopted Corporate Sustainability Policy, as identified in the NOM.

Notice of Motion No. 8.2.

Traffic: the Psychology of Transport Behaviour Seminar

COR405527 #1198147

I move that Council appoint a Councillor or Councillors to attend the Traffic: the Psychology of Transport Behaviour Seminar, in Brisbane on 16 April 2012.

Signed: Cr Simon Richardson

Councillor’s Background Notes:

Few words need to be expelled about the traffic issues facing this Shire, especially Byron Bay. The future decisions as to how best mitigate the problems involved by our car fuelled obstruction require up to date understanding of both examples of innovative responses and knowledge of travel behaviour.

The conference will provide valuable information on how Council may develop informed, and successful traffic policies. As shown below, the speakers are world class, and the topics addressed are pertinent.

Speakers:

· Tom Vanderbilt: author of New York Times bestseller Traffic : Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us),

· Professor Simon Washington: Queensland Transport & Main Roads Endowed Chair School of Urban Development & Centre for Accident Research & Road Safety – Queensland, QUT.

· Professor Barry Watson, Director, Centre for Accident Research & Road Safety – Queensland, QUT.

Seminar Topics:

· From ‘Forgiving Roads’ To ‘Complete Streets’: Changing The Road Safety Paradigm

· The Windshield View: Understanding How Drivers See The World Around Them

· Behavioural Economics & What It Means For Transport

· The Future Of Driving: Smaller, Shared, & Semi-Autonomous

· Bikes, Beach Chairs & Bus Rapid Transit: Lessons From A Changing New York City

· Travel Behaviour Change & Travel Demand Management

· Determinants Of Sustainable Mobility: The Relationship Between Urban Form, Transport Infrastructure & Travel Behaviour

· Whatever Happened To Walking? The ‘Forgotten Mode’ In The U.S. & Elsewhere

· Mobile Apps & Its Implications For Transport

Further information:

Monday 16 April 2012 9:30am – 4:30pm

Gardens Theatre Queensland University of Technology 2 George Street, Brisbane

Costs: $395 single, 2 people $790

Definition of the project/task:

The attendance to the Traffic: the Psychology of Transport Behaviour Seminar, in Brisbane on 16 April 2012

Source of Funds (if applicable):

Councillor Expenses – Professional Development – Conferences (2145.4)

Management Comments:

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

Clarification of project/task:

This Notice of Motion seeks funding for attendance at the Traffic: the Psychology of Transport Behaviour Seminar, in Brisbane on 16 April 2012.

Executive Manager responsible for task implementation:

Corporate Management

Relationship to, priority of, and impact on other projects/tasks:

There will be no impact on other projects.

Financial and Resource Implications:

Funds currently available in the Councillors – Conferences budget is approximately $5,112, however, there is a report in this agenda regarding attendance at the National General Assembly in June 2012.

The cost of this Seminar is $395 per person. Accommodation will not be required as the seminar is being held in Brisbane.

Legal and Policy Implications:

In accordance with Clause 7.3.1 of Council’s Policy 1.1 Mayor and Councillors Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities “A resolution of Council is required to authorise attendance of Councillors at any other discretionary conference, seminar or training.”

Clause 7.2.1 details the Conferences and Seminars that may be attended by Councillors.

Clause 7.2.1 reads as follows:

“7.2.1. The conferences, seminars, workshops, courses and similar to which this

policy applies shall generally be confined to:

a) Local Government Association Annual (LGA and Australian local Government Association (ALGA) Conferences;

b) Special “one-off” conferences called or sponsored by or for LGA and/or ALGA on important issues;

c) Annual conferences and congresses of the major professions in local government;

d) Australian Sister Cities Conferences;

e) Regional Organisation of Councils Conferences

f) Conferences which advance the professional development of elected members in their role as Councillors.”

g) Any meetings or conferences of organisations or bodies on which a Councillor of the Council may be elected, or appointed to be, a delegate or member of the Council or the LGA.

h) Seminars which further the training and development efforts of the Council and within the budget framework.

Notice of Motion No. 8.3.

Fees and charges increases

COR405527 #1198273

I move that Council receive notes in the report that accompanies the setting of Fees and Charges and identify and explain any increases that exceed a CPI level to ensure that public attention is drawn to increases and that explanation be given as to why these changes are proposed.

Signed: Cr Jan Barham

Councillor’s Background Notes:

In relation to Council's role in setting Fees and Charges there is a responsibility for Council to identify the reasons why the increased charges are proposed and to highlight the increases to allow the public to be aware of the specific reasons why charges that exceed a CPI increase are justified.

This would allow the public attention to be drawn to proposed increases and highlight the issues to inform any submissions.

Recommended priority relative to other Management Plan tasks:

Good Governances

Definition of the project/task:

Accountability of proposed charges

Source of Funds (if applicable):

N/A

Management Comments:

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

Clarification of project/task:

That the reports presented to Council on the fixing of the Fees and Charges for the 2012/13 Financial Year include a table that identifies any fee or charge that is to be increased by more than the CPI increase from the adopted 2011/12 fee or charge. This table will include any new fees and charges and provide an explanation for the reasons that the increase is recommended.

Executive Manager responsible for task implementation:

Executive Manager Corporate Management

Relationship to, priority of, and impact on other projects/tasks:

No impacts on other projects or tasks is identified.

Financial and Resource Implications:

No financial or resource implications are identified.

Legal and Policy Implications:

No legal or policy implications are identified.

Notice of Motion No. 8.4.

Revised Report of LPMA land swap issues

COR405527 #1198309

I move:

1. That Council receive a revised report on the impact of the LPMA land transfer and land swap issues defined in the report to the Ordinary Meeting 24 June 2010 Report No. 14.4 Land Exchange with Land and Property Management Authority (LPMA), specifically the lands at Brunswick Heads.

2. That the revised report includes:

a) photographs and maps of the land parcels;

b) clarification of the impacts in relation to traffic, residential amenity, safety;

c) the relationship to the potential uses of the land as outlined in the LPMA Draft Plan of Management for Brunswick Heads.

Signed: Cr Jan Barham

Councillor’s Background Notes:

The report to the 24 June 2010 in relation to the possible land swap issues has led to considerable concern about the potential impacts on the village of Brunswick Heads. The report did not adequately consider the impact of the change of ownership and the potential for redevelopment of the lands in question as defined in the Draft Plan of Management developed by LPMA. The report did not include analysis of the impacts and did not illustrate the current situation of the lands and the traffic and residential amenity issues. The report did not provide the necessary photographic evidence of the lands to allow for a visual assessment of the potential impacts and did not adequately describe the safety concerns in relation to traffic and pedestrian issues that could result in relation to a transfer of the lands.

Unfortunately, this report has been used to justify that there will be no negative impacts in relation to the land swap issues on the traffic, safety and amenity of the area. This was defined in the Minister for Lands response to a question in Parliament .

It is essential that the issue of potential impacts of a land swap be clarified to ensure that there is a clear understanding of the consequences for the community of Brunswick and the responsibility of Byron Shire Council to address these in the future.

There is a need to clarify for the community that council has been able to assess the potential impacts of the land swap and to convey these issues to the Government to ensure that there is a clear understanding of the reasons why the council and the community have not been able to support the land swaps and or transfer of lands.

Attachments:

A Jan Barham MLC Question in Parliament

B Minister for Lands response to questions

· Report 14.4 from 24 June 2010 Ordinary Meeting #1198351 [10 pages]............................ Annexure 27(a)

· Brunswick Foreshore Protection Group submission to the LPMA Draft Plan of Management
for Brunswick Heads Crown Reserve Caravan Parks – Sept 2010 #1198342 [12 pages]..... Annexure 27(b)

Management Comments:

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

Clarification of project/task:

The Notion of Motion is requesting that Council receive a further report on Brunswick Heads land that is currently being acquired by the Crown Lands Division by Compulsory Acquisition adjacent to the Crown Caravan Parks of Terrace Reserve, Massey Greene and Ferry Reserve.

These parcels of land were part of the Land Exchange proposal negotiated with the former Land and Property Management Authority (LPMA) and approved by Council on 1 July 2010 (refer Resolution 10-555). Resolution 10-555 was rescinded by Council on 7 October 2010.

Council at its Ordinary meeting held on 7 October 2010 also adopted the following resolution:

10-772

1. “That negotiation on the proposed agreements on land transfers with Land and Property Management Authority (LPMA) be suspended pending further consideration by Council of the impacts the proposed transfers are likely to have on the traffic management, safety, general amenity and community land use in Brunswick Heads.

2. That a report be prepared for consideration by the Strategic Planning Committee.”

The report sought by Resolution 10-772 and referred to in the Notice of Motion was presented to the Strategic Planning Committee meeting held on 25 November 2010. As indicated in the report, the report was prepared on the following basis:

“Discussion of the identified impacts of the proposed transfer of the parcels of land on traffic management, safety, general amenity and community land use in Brunswick Heads has been detailed below. This assessment does not consider any future use of the parcels of land, including that which may be proposed in the draft Plans of Management for the Massey Greene and Terrace Reserve Holiday Parks, as the works identified may be varied following consideration of community submissions received during the public exhibition period.”

The further report sought by the Notice of Motion requests that the report includes an assessment of any redevelopment of the adjoining land, including the land being compulsorily acquired, and that the report include the following:

a) photographs and maps of the land parcels;

b) clarification of the impacts in relation to traffic, residential amenity, safety;

c) the relationship to the potential uses of the land as outlined in the LPMA Draft Plan of Management for Brunswick Heads.

The requested report would be prepared on a cross divisional basis.

Executive Manager responsible for task implementation:

Executive Manger Environment and Planning, Executive Manager Community Infrastructure and Executive Manager Corporate Management.

Relationship to, priority of, and impact on other projects/tasks:

There will be a minimal impact on other adopted projects and tasks.

Financial and Resource Implications:

The report would be prepared within existing resources.

Legal and Policy Implications:

The report would consider the Draft Plans of Management prepared and public exhibited by the former LPMA.

Attachment A

1. 20 October 2011

Brunswick Heads Roads

About this Item
Speakers	Barham The Hon Jan; Gay The Hon Duncan
Business	Questions Without Notice, QWN

BRUNSWICK HEADS ROADS

Page: 6822

The Hon. JAN BARHAM: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Small Business. Will the Minister explain the proposed acquisition notice served on Byron Shire Council concerning roads in Brunswick Heads being used for "public purpose recreation" when it is for the commercial purpose of "holiday park expansion" and would result in road safety and amenity issues for local residents?

Attachment B

2. 22 November 2011

Brunswick Heads Roads

About this Item
Business	Deferred Answers, Questions Without Notice, QWN

BRUNSWICK HEADS ROADS

Page: 7512

◦ On 20 October 2011 the Hon. Jan Barham asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Small Business, a question without notice regarding Brunswick Heads roads. The Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Small Business, provided the following response:

◦

◦ The purpose of the acquisition is to add the subject lands to the adjoining public reserves.

◦

◦ The lands utilised as part of the operating caravan parks have been approved by council under section 68 of the Local Government Act for many years. The usage of these lands as caravan park was established by council and is consistent with the reserve purposes.

◦

◦ An independent assessment of the potential impact to road traffic and safety has been undertaken by a qualified consultant and no significant impact has been found.

◦

◦ Amenity issues for local residents will not change as a result of the acquisition process.

Notice of Motion No. 8.5.

Refuge for the homeless - Mullumbimby

COR405527 #1199556

I move that Council:

1. provide a report by Ordinary Meeting 22 March 2012 documenting progress and constraints on actioning outstanding Council resolutions regarding investigating a primitive camping ground at Lot 4 DP 841856 Mullumbimby;

2. provide the required flood study as referred to in the relevant Resolution; and

3. That Council transfer Lot 4 DP841856 from the Sewer Fund to the General Fund the purposes of primitive camping. A valuation has been conducted as per Res 09-137.

Signed: Cr Patrick Morrisey

Councillor’s Background Notes:

Council resolved nearly 3 years ago 26 March 2009 (09-137) unanimously to investigate options for primitive camping on this site. A later resolution ensured that a flood study be finalised for the site prior to progressing Resolution 09-137. That flood study is still outstanding delaying the progression of this 3 year old resolution.

Nevertheless homelessness remains a considerable issue in Byron Shire.

Recommended priority relative to other Management Plan tasks:

High – Council’s Homeless Protocol

Definition of the project/task:

Write a report by March 22 documenting:

1. progress and constraints on actioning outstanding Council resolutions in establishing a primitive camping ground at Island Paddock Mullumbimby;

2. recommending the transfer of Lot4 DP841856 from Sewer Fund to General Fund (valuation $160,000) for the purposes of primitive camping;

3. the required flood study as referred to in the relevant Resolution.

Source of Funds (if applicable):

Sewer Fund ($5,000 - Res 10/808)

Management Comments:

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

Clarification of project/task:

The NOM seeks:

1. A report to Council on the progress of resolutions pertaining to investigating a primitive camping ground at Lot 4 DP 841856 Mullumbimby. This can be provided to the 22 march meeting.

2. Provision of the flood study referred to in resolution:

11-73 - that Council note this report and not progress a Development Application for a primitive camping ground at Lot 4 DP 841856 until the outcomes of a new flood study for

Mullumbimby are known.

Progress of the North Byron Coastal Creeks Flood Study was reported to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 9 February 2012.

The major issue contained in the Report of North Byron Coastal Creeks Floodplain Risk Management Committee meeting held on 13 December 2011, was the Calibration Report, which can be read in full at Annexure 11(c) of that committee report.

The final outcomes of this Study will not be due to Council till later this year.

The outcomes of this Study will provide Council with a substantial amount of flood information including;

1. Flood levels for different flood events

2. Flood flow velocities

3. Flood depths, and

4. Water surface levels

The type of information that will become available for Council, and the community, is as shown in the Tweed Byron Coastal Creeks Flood Study which can be viewed at:

www.byron.nsw.gov.au/floodplain-management

Section 2.2 of the Calibration Study identifies the railway bridge over the Brunswick River, at Lot 4. Details of such structures are essential to the calibration of hydraulic models. Such structures have significant impact on flood flows and the extent to which back-water effects can impact on the overall flood-plain and on individual properties.

For specific consideration of the flood assessment at Lot 4 to be carried out, the completion of the calibration is essential. After that time, it may be possible to get the consultant, BMT WBM, to provide a site specific study of Lot 4 ahead of completing the overall study. However this would come at a cost and it may be up to $10,000, depending on the progress made at time of engagement of this contract variation, and how much details is required.

It is suggested that consideration of the flood assessment of lot 4 should wait until completion of the North Byron Coastal Creeks Flood Study

3. The motion is seeking to transfer ownership of the property from the sewer fund to the General fund. This is possible provided fair value is paid for the land. Council would need to be satisfied that the valuation is relevant given the passage of time. It would also be necessary to identify a funding source from the General Fund.

Executive Manager responsible for task implementation:

Executive Manager Water and Recycling

Relationship to, priority of, and impact on other projects/tasks:

The project is not included in the current management plan

Financial and Resource Implications:

1. Can be completed with staff resources.

2. The current value of the North Byron Coastal Creeks Flood Study is $143,000. if council wishes to fast track an assessment of Lot 4, it may cost up to $10,000 as a contract variation.

3. In relation to part 3 of the Notice of Motion, Council prior to resolving to transfer ownership of the land from the sewer fund to the general fund would need to consider the financial implications of this transfer. The cost of the transfer would for the purpose of the consolidated Financial Statements be cost neutral. There would though be a cost implication to the General Fund and a revenue implication for the sewer fund. Council would need to identify a funding source within the General Fund and then resolve to allocate a budget for the acquisition of the land from the Sewer Fund. The value of the acquisition would need to be based on a current valuation for the land.

Legal and Policy Implications:

Council has a policy regarding the issue of the homeless, Policy 08/106.

Lot 4 DP 841856 is owned by the sewer fund and any consideration of potential uses and outcomes for this property must be in accordance with section 409 of the Local Government Act which states:

(a) money that has been received as a result of the levying of a special rate or charge may not be used otherwise than for the purpose for which the rate or charge was levied, and

(b) money that is subject to the provisions of this or any other Act (being provisions that state that the money may be used only for a specific purpose) may be used only for that purpose

GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORTS

Report No. 12.1.

Code of Conduct Complaints for the period July to December 2011

General Manager

File No: HRM101010 #1186155

Principal Activity:

Governance

Summary:

On 14 April 2011 Council resolved to receive a report on the status of the Code of Conduct Review Panel and this report responds to that request.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the report be noted.

Attachments:

· Public Summary of Current Code of Conduct Complaints Pt #1195818 [1 page]............... Annexure 14(a)

· CONFIDENTIAL Summary current Code of Conduct Complaints Pt #1195818 [2 pages]... Annexure 14(b)

Report

Pursuant to Council Resolutions 11-214 and 11-415, Council resolved to receive a status report on Code of Conduct Complaints and management indicated that it would continue to provide status reports.

Attached at Annexure 14(a) is a public summary of Code of Conduct Complaints finalised since the last report on 11 August 2011 and/or current as at 31 January 2012. As noted in previous reports to Council, the information management is able to provide in this public report is limited for reasons of privacy, probity, procedural fairness and risk management.

Attached at Annexure 14(b) is a confidential summary of Code of Conduct Complaints that contains further information which Council is prohibited from making public, for example by way of restrictions imposed by Private Information Protection Act and industrial laws and/or powers granted by the Local Government Act, eg 10A(2)(a) relating to individual personnel matters being appropriately dealt with in closed sessions of Council meetings etc.

In the event that Councillors wish to debate any information contained in Confidential Annexure14(b) management recommend Council only do so in confidential session pursuant to s10A(2)(a) of the Local Government Act because the annexure contains information about personnel matters concerning particular individuals other than Councillors and it would not be in the public interest to release same because to do so might act as a deterrent against the raising of concerns or lodgement of complaints in the future, in circumstances where Council has statutory obligations to ensure that reporting procedures protect genuine complainants and Council has a commitment to maintaining robust and easily available reporting procedures as an important governance tool.

Financial Implications

None associated with this report.

For complaints about conduct of staff, each complaint investigation consumes significant staff resources. For matters referred to Conduct Reviewers, both staff time and reviewer’s costs are incurred. There is a small budget allocation to meet expenditure relating to the Conduct Reviews.

Complaint investigation is a critical function of Local Government and a valuable tool by which Council can attempt to identify and implement improvements. Council is unable to abrogate its obligations to investigate complaints into the conduct of its staff, delegations or Councillors and/or the operation of its systems and processes and will therefore always have to absorb complaint investigation and management within its daily operations.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Code of Conduct Policy No 1.8 applies.

Report No. 12.2.

Draft Amended Code of Meeting Practice Policy- adoption following public exhibition

General Manager

File No: COR050504 #1150026

Principal Activity:

Executive Management

Summary:

The Strategic Planning Committee at its meeting of 24 November 2011 resolved to place an amended Policy No 1.3 Code of Meeting Practice on public exhibition, with the only change being deletion of references to the Dispute Resolution Committee (Res 11-929).

A further amendment to the Code of Meeting Practice was made by Council on 1 December 2011 (Res 11-979).

This report has been prepared to allow Council to consider submissions received during the public exhibition of the draft amended Code of Meeting Practice.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council adopt the Draft Amended Code of Meeting Practice provided at Annexure 25(a) (#1170146).

Attachments:

· Draft Amended Code of Meeting Practice #1170146 [46 pages]....................................... Annexure 25(a)

· CONFIDENTIAL Submission received 13 February 2012 #1196335 [5 pages]................... Annexure 25(b)

Report

At its meeting of 24 November 2011, the Strategic Planning Committee resolved under delegated authority to:

“1. place on public exhibition, for the required period of 28 days and allowing 42 days for submissions, an amended Policy No 1.3 Code of Meeting Practice with the only change being deletion of references to the Dispute Resolution Committee and, if no submissions are made, that the revised Code of Meeting Practice be adopted at the close of the submission period.

2. If the amended Code of Meeting Practice is adopted, to:

b) repeal Policy 3.34 Role and Protocol of the Dispute Resolution Committee;

c) repeal Policy 3.43 Oversight of Legal Matters;

d) review of Policy No 5.53 Appropriate Dispute Resolution of Development Proposals to remove reference to the Dispute Resolution Committee and to update the Policy to accord with statutory changes and current Court Practice Directions and Guidelines, with a revised policy to be reported back to Council after completion of the review.” (Res 11-929)

Council further resolved at its meeting of 1 December 2011:

“that Council's Code of Meeting Practice (adopted per resolution 11-649) be amended to include the clause, "that supporting notes and comments (from management) pertaining to notices of motion should not include a specific formatted recommendation".” (Res 11-979)

A Draft Amended Code of Meeting Practice, as amended by Resolutions 11-929 and 11-979, was placed on public exhibition and advertised for a period of 28 days commencing on 22 December 2011 and, allowing for a period of up to 42 days for the receipt of submissions, closed on 10 February 2012. This process was undertaken in accordance with Section 361 of the Local Government Act 1993.

One submission was received and is provided at Confidential Annexure 25(b) with a summary of key points provided below, as per Council’s standard practices relating to submissions.

Summary of Submission

Issue	Management Comment
Inclusion of Management Comments in Notices of Motion
Submitter does not accept that the process by which the public exhibition period was put in place was valid.	Resolutions 11-649 and 11-979 appear to be in accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice and statutory requirements. The draft Code of Meeting practice has been exhibited in accordance with s361 of the Local Government Act. Council must take the submission received (full copy attached) into consideration pursuant to s362 of the Act – refer to Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications information below.
As worded the proposal implies that it is ok for the management to offer opinions [in Notices of Motion].	As worded the template Notice of Motion in the draft Code of Meeting practice requires management to include comments in Notices of Motion but prohibits management from including formatted recommendations in Notices of Motion.
The role of management is to effectively and objective present information needed to inform discussions. Management should only provide opinion when specifically asked by a Councillor.	It is correct that it is the role of management to present information and technical and professional opinions and comments to assist Council to make informed decisions. Division of Local Government Meeting Practice Note 16, August 2009, states “each Council can decide ... whether supporting notes or comments [from management] should come with notices of motion.” By resolution, most recently 11-979 Byron Council has decided to require management comments in Notices of Motion. Whatever system a Council adopts for receiving information and comments in relation to Notices of Motions must be open and transparent.
Perhaps provision could be made for Councillors to ask for management opinion at the time they lodge their Notices of Motions but otherwise no comments are provided by management in the Notices of Motion.	To ensure transparency, openness and accountability, any alterative system would need to provide for information and comments provided to be documented and made available to all Councillors. Council would also have to decide whether in an alternative system the documented information and comments would also be made able to be available to the public, and if so, how.
Dissolution of Disputes Resolution Committee
Councillors do not get legal advice that is not filled with jargon and “there is never, ever a summary which gives the opinion in point form.”	Most legal advice reported to Council is privileged and confidential and it is not appropriate to respond to speculation as to its content.
Sometimes a “lengthy rant is presented which appears to be written by a lawyer but has no lawyer’s name on it.”	All legal advice reported to Council is presented on the lawyer’s letterhead and clearly identifies the lawyer who provided the advice to Council.
There is a tendency to ask legal questions of staff who are not lawyers and who are prohibited from giving legal advice because they don’t have a practicing certificate.	No staff member provides legal advice to Council.
All legal advice should be obtained from an independent operator who is answerable to the Council, not to the GM, and who is therefore accountable and covered by the [solicitors] guarantee fund.	Council has a panel of external solicitors who provide legal advice to Council. Council tenders for its legal services and it is Council who determine the award of the tender. Council’s panel solicitors are all appropriately insured.
Councillors handing over management of court cases for management by the General Manager “is a gross abdication of responsibility” because of all of the decisions that have to made along the way eg what evidence to use, which experts, which arguments/concessions to make, whether to settle out of court, who pays costs etc.	Day to day management of litigation is and has always been within the general delegations granted by Council to the General Manager. Specific resolutions of Council relating to particular court cases can confirm the general delegations or provide specific guidance on aspects such as contentions, evidence or settlement negotiations etc.
The priority [of meetings] seems to be to get through the agenda efficiently rather than to defer a matter pending the receipt of necessary information, including legal information.	Meeting efficiency is an important issue for Council. There is however always the ability to defer a matter for further consultation, reporting or information, including legal advice etc and many matters are in fact deferred.
Reports from staff as to how a case is progressing, do not include details as to costs, details of a settlement, reasons for losing a case, the possibility of appeal and so	Initial and final reports to Council on Class 1 and 4 Land and Environment Court appeals do contain this information and intervening bi-monthly status reports provide updates as cases progress.
Resurrecting the Disputes Resolution Committee would assist in educating the Councillors on legal matters	Councillors are entitled to request access to and are provided with information and training on all aspects of the functions, duties and obligations of local government in a variety of different ways.
Committees, where members of the public are involved, enable devolution of power to the community. Committees are clumsy, time consuming entities but the committee system is characteristic of western democracy and are the only way to manage complex issues which need detailed focus.	The Dispute Resolution Committee as previously constituted did not have any community members. Council does, however, have many committees with community members (and encourages public participation through a wide variety of means not just committees). It is a goal to strive to ensure that all of Council’s committees operate legally and efficiently.
Prosecutions, orders, search warrants, fines, etc should all be determined by the elected Council, based on knowledge and information	Council determines the delegations given to management and all of these matters have been delegated to the General Manager as part of the general delegations and, in some respects by specific delegations. The proposal would be impractical and would have adverse impacts on council and the community, for example it would prevent rangers from issuing parking or other fines without first reporting to the Council. Council has an Enforcement Policy 11/005 (available from the website) adopted by Res 11-380 which establishes “clear guidelines on the exercise of discretion in dealing with action requests … about unauthorised activity …[and which] provides workable guidelines on … • Options for dealing with unauthorised activity; • How to decide whether enforcement is warranted; [and] • Dealing with the withdrawal of compliance action once commenced.” Staff acting under delegation on compliance matters are required to comply with the adopted Enforcement Policy.

Financial Implications

None arising from the proposed change to the Code of Meeting Practice.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Council must ensure its Code of Meeting Practice complies with the Local Government Act 1993 including the following sections:

361 Preparation, public notice and exhibition of draft code

(1) Before adopting a code of meeting practice, a council must prepare a draft code.

(2) The council must give public notice of the draft code after it is prepared.

(3) The period of public exhibition must not be less than 28 days.

(4) The public notice must also specify a period of not less than 42 days after the date on which the draft code is placed on public exhibition during which submissions may be made to the council.

(5) The council must publicly exhibit the draft code in accordance with its notice.

362 Adoption of draft code

(1) After considering all submissions received by it concerning the draft code, the council may decide:

(a) to amend those provisions of its draft code that supplement the regulations made for the purposes of section 360, or

(b) to adopt the draft code as its code of meeting practice.

(2) If the council decides to amend its draft code, it may publicly exhibit the amended draft in accordance with this Division or, if the council is of the opinion that the amendments are not substantial, it may adopt the amended draft code without public exhibition as its code of meeting practice.

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE – EXECUTIVE MANAGER’S REPORT

Report No. 12.3.

Byron Bay Traffic and Parking Issues Public Meeting held 29 November 2011

Executive Manager: Community Infrastructure

File No: ENG658730 #1187686

Principal Activity:

Infrastructure Planning

Summary:

Council resolved 11-544, ie to hold a public meeting on traffic, parking and transport matters as they relate to the Byron Bay town centre.

This meeting was held 29 November 2011, with much of the discussion revolving around the easing of congestion and reducing traffic delays on the approach to and within the town centre.

Attendees at the meeting offered various suggestions on the best way this could be achieved, including a “bypass” or “ring road”.

These suggestions are documented in detail at Annexure 19(a) and show that a variety of ideas are on offer. It is suggested a Project Reference Group (PRG) be formed to report back to Council definitive actions for Council to resolve on by August 2012.

Actions for initial PRG consideration are proposed within this report and mapped at Annexure 19(b). It is noted such a group also offers avenue for consultation regarding another Council resolution, ie the potential introduction of on-street paid parking within Byron Bay town centre which is scheduled to be reported back to Council during March/April 2012.

The third Annexure 19(c) provides a record of the white board notes as recorded by the meeting facilitator, while the fourth Annexure 19(d) details copies of the presentations and handouts as provided by community members in attendance, noting that only two of the five community presentations made on the night provided such details.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the meeting notes at Annexure 19(a) (#1198962) be noted as the official record of the 29 November 2011 public meeting as held in Byron Bay.

2. That Council convene a Byron Bay Town Centre Traffic and Parking Management (BBTPM) Project Reference Group that is to meet May, June and July with the last report to Council by August 2012 to provide definitive actions for Council to adopt, including but not limited, to those proposed within Table 1.

3. That in conjunction with the PRG undertaking within Recommendation 2, Council’s Transport Advisory Committee:

a) develop a Byron Bay town centre plan and vision that:

i. considers the proposed actions and is consistent with and incorporates the principles and rationale as detailed within Table 1 of this report;

ii. is guided by the concepts of accessibility, mobility, amenity and have regard for various road users, events and existing urban form and heritage in efforts to help develop a town centre that remains attractive, safe, unique and a desirable place to visit; and

iii. is consistent with Council endorsed aims, such as Council’s urban design principles and relevant resolutions including but not limited to those cited within this report, namely Resolutions 11-336 (4); 11-1052 (e); and 10-834 Parts 2(a) and 2(e); and

iv. is reported back to Council in conjunction with the last BBTPM PRG report in August 2012.

b) provide a report to Council that considers how best to promote and provide alternative transport options within and to Byron Bay in particular:

i. recommends actions required to improve walking, cycling and bus travel within Byron Bay;

ii. outlines the potential role of rail services, including an update on the role and progress of the Council funded and initiated Regional Rail Taskforce and, when available, the NSW government feasibility study into the return of rail services;

iii. have regard to Council’s adopted Transport Policy and provide update on the progress of a shire-wide Integrated Transport Strategy, the development of which, following the disbanding of the Transport Strategy (Stage 2) PRG, is an undertaking now charged to the Committee.

Attachments:

· Staff notes 29 November 2011 Public Meeting #1198962 [5 pages].................................. Annexure 19(a)

· Mapped location and details of proposed actions #1198643 [4 pages]............................ Annexure 19(b)

· Meeting facilitator’s whiteboard notes #1198654 [8 pages]............................................... Annexure 19(c)

· Presentations and suggestions provided by community members #1197434 [4 pages]..... Annexure 19(d)

Report

On 30 June 2011 Council received a report entitled ‘Second Rail Crossing (aka the Mini-Bypass) Byron Bay’. A copy of this report is available from Council’s website, including the project web page as found at http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/projects/byron-bay-bypass.

In summary, the report made a recommendation that the project be provided funds (to the amount of $50,000) to enable the concept to be progressed, via detailed design, and costed.

Both the design and costing were viewed (and remain so) as needed to allow any assessment, approval and / or potential funding from the relevant state authorities, namely those responsible for rail and roads, which at the time of the report was ARTC and RTA.

NB: since that report John Holland Rail Pty Ltd (as from 15 January 2012) due to change of contractual arrangements with the state government, replace ARTC for operational responsibility of the rail line and Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is the new name (since 1 November 2011) for the former Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA).

Council, however, did not support such a recommendation and instead resolved as follows:

11-544 Resolved:

1. That Council hold a public meeting in Byron Bay to provide information and facilitate discussion on Byron Bay traffic management issues, including:

a) Traffic use/management assessments (Improving the Town Centre, Vietch Lister reports and MR545)

b) Alternative options, eg full bypass and secondary rail crossing (mini bypass) and costs involved

c) Paid parking

d) Park and ride

e) Bus parking and transit station options

f) Bicycle usage

g) Pedestrian usage

2. That the community be invited to submit questions prior to the meeting with a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) sheet prepared prior to the meeting and placed on Council’s website.

3. That requests for public presentations be sought from peak representative groups.

4. That the local member, Don Page, be provided with the opportunity for a briefing session prior to the meeting.

Accordingly arrangements were made with the public meeting being held Tuesday 29 November 2011 at the Byron Bay Community Centre, Jonson Street, Byron Bay.

Annexure 19(a) reflects these same minutes via documentation of the main issues as raised by those in attendance (minus personal identification) and as recorded by staff on the night – and thus offered (upon Council adoption) as the official public record of the meeting (see Recommendation 1).

As for attendance, the meeting drew at least seventy (70) people, with fifty-four (54) of them signing in and providing name and contact details as requested, with those providing an email address being kept informed as required.

In addition to these 54 ‘registered’ attendees, which included five community members that made a public presentation as detailed at Item 8 within Annexure 19(a), were most Councillors, the local state member and Minister for Local Government Don Page MP and five members of staff, four of whom were involved in the opening presentation and technical information table established during the evening.

It was also noted that some (ie very few) attendees did not sign in as requested, with some leaving early, while others entered late.

Overall this turn-out, in both number and opinions offered, is believed to provide a good and accurate representation of the broader community, with many well informed after either having followed the “bypass debate” or being actively involved. The number in attendance also reflects both the interest in the topics discussed and the efforts to promote the meeting, which included public notices, use of Council’s E*News email newsletter, a display advert and media releases.

NB: Council’s pre and post meeting media releases are found at:
www.byron.nsw.gov.au/media-releases/2011/11/18/byron-bay-traffic-public-meeting

www.byron.nsw.gov.au/media-releases/2011/11/30/public-meeting-keeps-traffic-debate-flowing

Prior to the meeting Council staff offered and subsequently provided a briefing to Minister Page (as per Part 4 of resolution 11-544) and engaged a local and independent consultant to assist prepare and facilitate the meeting, which subsequently led to their involvement and assistance in a post-meeting debrief which has helped inform the meeting minutes (as previously circulated), the staff notes attached at Annexure 19(a) and this report.

Also in the lead up to the meeting a project web page was established and remains updated at:

www.byron.nsw.gov.au/projects/byron-bay-bypass

As for the meeting itself, and as Council’s post-meeting media release stated, the length of the meeting (near upon four hours) and the input from those present indicated a positive meeting, which was not only welcomed and appreciated but also “reflected the complexity, constraints, complications and potential solutions” regarding the various matters raised.

These various matters are now documented within the meeting notes at Annexure 19(a), with the new addition of a “Response” column with many items (as indicated) captured in Table 1 below which form the basis of Recommendation 2 which if adopted offers Council avenue to consult and develop and consider the very specific actions proposed within Table 1.

Given Recommendation 2 is very specific it also proposed there is benefit of Council’s Transport Advisory Committee (TrAC) undertaking a similar yet broader and more strategic role as outlined within Recommendation 3 with both the PRG and TrAC undertakings to be ultimately reported back concurrently to Council.

Summary of meeting outcomes and proposed actions

As Annexure 19(a) shows, while many different concerns and potential solutions were offered, it makes one thing quite clear; there has been (for sometime) and remains (strong as ever) a desire that something be done. This same sentiment for some action is also expressed within Council’s post meeting media release referred to above.

What that something is, however, is very much at the heart of the debate.

However, if any common thread can be found from the meeting minutes (as previously distributed and now surmised within Annexure 19(a)) it is believed they are as follows:

· overarching principles: five principles (A-E) which offer direction for further endeavours

· rationale: eight points (1-8) that are the basis of the identified principles; and

· actions: with these to be referred to a new PRG as per Recommendation 2.

These principles and supporting rationale and how they relate to the specific actions now proposed are presented as follows in Table 1.

Table 1: overarching principles, rationale and relation to proposed actions

NB: actions are not presented in any particular order of priority and where applicable mapped at Annexure 19(b).

Principle (a): Undertake a road network approach, as opposed to a singular bypass, with key objectives being to improve travel times and reduce traffic congestion and delays
Time frame:			While Principle (a) actions are mostly longer term, work needs to commence on Actions 1 and 2 immediately, while Action 3 offers objectives to guide all actions identified under the five principles.
*Rationale*						*Action*
1	That a single bypass, or any single road or change undertaken in isolation, regardless of its route and location, does not provide the solution to the variety and complexity of the problems raised.					Refer to the PRG and TrAC to assist with and guide their undertakings as per Recommendation#2 and #3
2	That any new roads, road links or extensions consider improving access to the town centre and foreshore areas from all directions, such as from the north-west along Ewingsdale Road, from the south along Bangalow Road and from the east via Tennyson, Marvell, Middleton and Lawson Streets.
3	That a “ring road”, is a preferable concept over a solitary “bypass”, along with any necessary changes to existing local streets, offers potentially more benefit if done in efforts to:
a.	reduce travel times, traffic delays and queue lengths, which in doing so;
b.	improve traffic circulation within the town centre and increase access points into and out of the town centre, including access to car parking within and on the fringe of the town centre.
Principle (b): Modify existing network where needed
Time frame:			While Principle (b) may offer more immediate (a-f) and short term (g-i) actions their ability to be investigated and implemented will remain subject to adequate funding and resources being made available to allow necessary investigations and design. It is also noted that many of these actions, if intention is to construct, could potentially be funded as much as 70 to 80% from s94 contributions already collected and held and that some may attract external funding once developed and endorsed.
*Rationale*				*Action*
4	Use the existing network more efficiently: be it changes to access to car parks and one-way direction through to upgrades of intersections and additional traffic lanes with the following to be undertaken and reviewed as priority, ie the potential of:			That the PRG receive reports on the potential cost, benefits, constraints, feasibility and/or funding options on
a.	making Middleton Street, between Marvell Street and Byron Street, two-way so as to provide greater access to the town centre and beachfront which is to assist in alleviating the pressures and use of the parallel Fletcher and Jonson Streets.			Rationale 4(a) and consideration of resolution 11-336 detailed below
b.	providing a second inbound lane on Shirley Street which is to reduce traffic queues and delay on Ewingsdale Road.			Rationale 4(b) plus consider changes required at the Butler, Shirley, Lawson St intersection
c.	providing a second inbound lane on Lawson Street, between Shirley Street and Jonson Street, plus the provision of a direct access into both (or either) of the north and south Lawson Street car parks, and done in efforts to alleviate the use and delays at the Jonson and Lawson Street roundabout and increase access options to the beachfront.			Rationale 4(c) with consideration and reference also given to 5(a) and 5(d)
d.	a new link road, such as that presented to Council on 30 June 2011 which uses Butler Street and Council and state rail land and a roundabout at Jonson and Marvell Street			Rationale 4(d)
e.	reinstating two-way on Bay Street, between Jonson Street and Fletcher Street, so as to alleviate the use and delays at the Jonson and Lawson Street roundabout and increase access options to the beachfront.			Rationale 4(e) and Council resolutions detailed below, ie 11-106 and 10-834
f.	introducing a second northbound (ie outbound) lane on Jonson Street, between Byron Street and Lawson Street, so as to reduce queue lengths and delays along Jonson Street which are most notable from Lawson Street through to as far south as Marvell Street and at worse Browning Street			Rationale 4(f)
g.	the impact of events, such as (for example) the weekly Thursday morning Farmers Markets as held at Butler Street Reserve, including how their notable impact and delays on traffic can be alleviated			Rationale 4(g)
h.	the greater use of Tennyson Street and Marvell Street including potential links to the town centre and/or beachfront and greater access to existing or new car parking areas so as to reduce the need of northbound traffic to enter the town centre area			Rationale 4(h)
Principle (c): Increase car parking efficiency, access and supply
*Time frame:*			Actions identified under Principle (c), with the exception of Action 5e, are viewed as immediate considerations and are considerations to be made in regard to the potential introduction of on-street paid parking which is currently being investigated and due to Council March/April 2012.
*Rationale*				*Action*
5	That more car parking is needed within and on the fringe of the town centre, including better access to them, and that a greater variety of time restrictions be made available with the following to be undertaken and reviewed as priority, ie the potential of:			That the PRG receive reports on the potential cost, benefits, constraints, feasibility and/or funding options on:
a.	providing direct access for inbound traffic on Lawson Street into the Lawson Street north car park including the potential of a trial of such a proposal and making such access available at select times, for example by provision of removable bollards, etc			Rationale 5(a)
b.	providing more car parking on Butler St, for example east side between the culvert and Somerset Street			Rationale 5(b)
c.	using Butler Street Reserve as a car parking site including potential to gain revenue to improve the site and its surrounds and provide funds for community (not for profit) shire-based organisations willing to provide staff and/or management to assist in such an eventuality			Rationale 5(c)
d	introducing front-in angle parking on the east side of Jonson Street, between Lawson Street and Bay Street, in efforts to increase the number of car parking spaces and improve pedestrian and street amenity in this high pedestrian and traffic volume area			Rationale 5(d) noting potential conflict with either a shared zone or pedestrian mall in this same location as per resolution 10-834 detailed below
e	providing more car parking outside of the town centre and if needed the provision of a shuttle service, including potential sites for a multi-level station preferably within walking distance of the town centre, such as Lawson St north car park, Butler St Reserve, etc.			Rationale 5(e) noting Council has resolved that the BRSCC site is preferred location of any park and ride service
Principle (d): Develop and implement a Byron Bay town centre plan
*Time frame:*			Actions identified under Principle (d) are short to longer term and viewed as broader and having greater implications than the mostly traffic and parking undertakings identified in Principles (a) – (c) which should be progressed as stated above, yet have regard for – but not dependent upon – the development of a town centre plan.
*Rationale*					*Action*
6	A vision for the town centre is required, with that vision directing all efforts in improving traffic and parking management within the town centre.				Refer both to Council’s Transport Advisory Committee as per recommendation #3
7	Alternative transport options to private motorised vehicles needs consideration, including walking, cycling, bus, train, etc noting that little detailed work/study has been done on these modes in regard to the benefits they may have to offer or the cost (from a social cost through to an economic cost) of not providing them.
Principle (e): Involve community
*Time frame:*		Action identified under Principle (e), ie consultation, is believed best considered when Council receives reports back on the various actions noted above.
*Rationale*				*Action*
8	Proactive and targeted consultation is required ensuring stakeholders (and the broader community in general) are informed and provided opportunity to be involved and participate.			As per recommendations #2 and #3 establish a PRG and involve TrAC.

Other Council resolutions

Reference has been made to existing Council resolutions. These include the following.

10-834 Resolved, in part

2 (a) That transport modelling (including pedestrian and cyclist assessments) be carried out to consider the impacts of banning right-turn movements mid-block in Lawson Street between Butler/Shirley Street and Jonson Street, using $5,000 from Section 94 Byron Bay Traffic Management to fund the modelling.

2 (b) That Community Consultation takes place in regards to a proposal to create a pedestrian mall in Jonson Street between Lawson Street and Bay Lane with consideration of: i) a Shared Zone in Jonson Street between Bay Lane and Bay Street ii) changing traffic movements in Bay Street between Jonson Street and Fletcher Street to two-way iii) any other improvements to pedestrian amenity at the intersection of Jonson and Bay Streets iv) consideration of a means by which the project, if endorsed, can be funded

2 (e) That Council consider transport movement issues including pedestrian, sidewalk and public transport movements to inform transport management within the Byron Bay town centre and provide a report to the Traffic Advisory Committee.

11-106, Part 1 Resolved:

That further review and consideration be given to the traffic and pedestrian treatment of the intersection of Jonson and Bay Street, Byron Bay.

11-336 Resolved, in part:

1. The Council endorse the Local Traffic Committee in-principle support of two-way traffic flow on Middleton Street, Byron Bay and recommend that Council undertake the necessary investigations and design work for its implementation between Marvell Street and Byron Street so as to inform further reporting of the matter to the Committee and Council when and as resources permit.

4. That Council support a “master plan” approach commencing most immediately with a staff developed sketch and concept design which maps and highlights relevant Council resolutions and potential further recommendations, all of which is to be reported back to Council so as to provide the opportunity to consider traffic and parking management in Byron Bay town centre in a more strategic and holistic manner.

11-1052 Resolved, in part:

(b) the preferred locality for a park and ride scheme be endorsed at the BRSCC on Ewingsdale Road to the town centre, subject to assessment of conflicts with other uses of the BRSCC;

(c) Council staff research the possibility, in consultation with the RTA, of providing a dedicated bus lane, including a T2 (or more) transit lane into the Byron Bay town centre from Kendall Street to Butler Street;

(d) Council staff assess the impact on kerb side parking along the northern side of Shirley Street if a transit lane is provided and how the impact may be ameliorated; and

(e) the Transport Advisory Committee receives a report that considers the concept of an integrated traffic management system as detailed in the Improving the Town Centre Report (#179156).

Financial Implications

Staff time and resources to undertake the PRG establishment and reporting as recommended.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Nil at this time.

CORPORATE MANAGEMENT – EXECUTIVE MANAGER’S REPORTS

Report No. 12.4.

Section 356 Donation - Mullum to Bruns Paddle

Executive Manager: Corporate Management

File No: ADM481000 #1191218

Principal Activity:

Corporate Management - Governance

Summary:

Council has received a request from the organiser of the Mullum to Bruns Paddle for assistance with road closure costs.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council support the Mullum to Bruns Paddle to be held on 27 May 2012.

2. That the support involves a donation of $450 being offset against Council’s road closure costs under Policy 4.15 Assistance to Festivals and Community Organisations.

3. That the organisers of the Mullum to Bruns Paddle be advised they will be responsible for payment of any other costs associated with Council exceeding the amount donated for road closures.

4. That Council advertise the Section 356 Donation proposed to be made.

Attachments:

· Letter from Mullum to Bruns Paddle #1184200 [1 page]......................................................... Annexure 3

Report

Council has received a request from the organisers of the Mullum to Bruns Paddle to be held on 27 May 2011 for assistance with costs of the road closure for the event.

The Mullum to Bruns Paddle is an annual fund raiser for three local voluntary groups being, Brunswick Volunteer Marine Rescue, Brunswick Volunteer Visitor Centre and Brunswick Volunteer Surf Lifesaving Club.

Note the date for the Mullum to Bruns Paddle has been moved from 22 April to 27 May 2012.

Assistance for this event can be considered under Council Policy 4.15 Assistance for Festivals and Community Organisations to assist with costs incurred with road closure and the application fees.

In line with other events Council has supported throughout the Shire during 2011/12 it has been recommended that the $450 available in budget 2341.16 be set aside to offset Council’s road closure costs to hold the Mullum to Bruns Paddle.

Financial Implications

Council’s budget for Section 356 Donations to be distributed under Policy 4.15 Assistance to Festivals and Community Organisations was $7,000. The following donations to offset Council’s road closure costs have been resolved by Council.

Res No. Event Recommended Actual Costs Incurred
11-547 Byron Bay Writers Festival 2011 $1,500 $1,500

11-671 Brunswick Triathlon 2011 $1,000 $643

11-671 Bangalow Xmas Eve Carnival 2011 $1,500 $1,404

11-671 Bangalow Billy Cart Derby May 2012 $1,500 remains set aside $1,500

11-778 Mullumbimby Music Festival $1,500 $1,500

Total $7,000 $6,547

An amount of $450 remains unexpended within this budget and can be utilised for this event.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Section 356 of the Local Government Act states:

356 Can a council financially assist others?

(1) A council may, in accordance with a resolution of the council, contribute money or otherwise grant financial assistance to persons for the purpose of exercising its functions.

(2) A proposed recipient who acts for private gain is not ineligible to be granted financial assistance but must not receive any benefit under this section until at least 28 days’ public notice of the council’s proposal to pass the necessary resolution has been given.

(3) However, public notice is not required if:

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

(b) the program’s details have been included in the council’s draft management 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 group of persons within the area.

(4) Public notice is also not required if the financial assistance is part of a program of graffiti removal work.

References:

The following Policies referred to in this report are available to be viewed on Council’s Website at http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/policies

§ Policy 4.15 Assistance for Festivals and Community Functions

Report No. 12.5.

Request for Tender 2012-0002 for Provision of Block Advertising and Associated Public Advertisements

Executive Manager: Corporate Management

File No: ADM130000 #1192737

Principal Activity:

Administrative Services

Summary:

Council’s block advertising contract with the Byron Shire News is due to expire on 30 April 2012. Consistent with previous practice, it is proposed to call for tenders for Council’s advertising for a three year period, commencing 1 May 2012, with submissions to be assessed by an independent panel.

As the total value of the contract over three years is anticipated to be less than the tender threshold of $150,000, the General Manager can determine the matter under delegated authority.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That pursuant to clause 166(a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, Council use the open tendering method for its weekly block advertising contract and that the term of the contract be for a period of three years.

2. That the General Manager appoint an independent assessment panel to recommend on tenders submitted for Council’s weekly block advertising, based on the following criteria and weighting:

Short Description	Recommended Weighting
Price	25%
Circulation	20%
Experience and Capability	15%
Innovative Work Practices eg website circulation	20%
Time Performance	5%
Social and economic impact on local economy	15%

3. That Council notes that the General Manager will determine the matter in accordance with his delegation, following the recommendation from the independent assessment panel and that following the determination a memorandum be provided to Councillors advising of the outcome of the tender process.

Attachments:

· Draft Request for Tender 2012-0002 #1192769 [79 pages]..................................................... Annexure 5

Report

The Management Plan identifies Council’s commitment to keeping the residents and ratepayers of the Shire fully informed, which is facilitated by placement of weekly advertising in the local media (refer Principal Activity 6.1).

Council resolved on 12 March 2009 in relation to the process of selection for Council’s block advertising contract as follows:

09-129 Resolved:

2. That the General Manager appoint an independent assessment panel to recommend on quotations submitted for Council’s weekly block advertising, based on the following criteria and weighting:

Short Description	Recommended Weighting
Price	25%
Circulation	25%
Experience and Capability	15%
Innovative Work Practices eg website circulation	15%
Time Performance	5%
Social and economic impact on local economy	15%

3. That in the assessment criteria (page 8 of 32 of Annexure 7 #833269), under part b. ‘Circulation’ the first dot point be amended to ‘circulation/coverage’.

4. That in SECTION D - SPECIFICATION (page 20 of 32 of Annexure 7) under part 2, services to be provided, a new dot point 3 be added, ‘provide internet services’.

5. That Council notes that the General Manager will determine the matter in accordance with his delegation, following the recommendation from the independent assessment panel and that following the determination a memorandum be provided to Councillors advising of the outcome of the tender process.

In view of the transparency required in awarding of Council’s block advertising contract, it is proposed once again to call for tenders under the criteria and weighting as detailed in the recommendation, to appoint an independent assessment panel to assess the tenders received, and for the matter to be determined by the General Manager in accordance with his delegation.

The proposed process, including criteria and weighting, and submission assessment by an independent panel has proved successful to date and provides transparency required for such tenders.

Financial Implications

Budgetary provision has been made in accordance with the current contract price. Budget adjustments may be required to be made if there is a significant change in the price received on the tenders.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

In accordance with the provisions of Section 55 1(h) of the Local Government Act 1993, since the contract term is longer than two years, this process is required to go to tender.

“55 What are the requirements for tendering?

(1) A council must invite tenders before entering into any of the following contracts:

(h) a contract requiring the payment of instalments by or to the council over a period of 2 or more years,”

Clause 166 (a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, is reproduced below in part:

“166 Council to decide whether tenders are to be by open tendering or selective tendering

Whenever a council is required by section 55 of the Act to invite tenders before entering into a contract, the council must decide which of the following tendering methods is to be used:

(a) the open tendering method by which tenders for the proposed contract are invited by public advertisement,”

Report No. 12.6.

2012 National General Assembly of Local Government

Executive Manager: Corporate Management

File No: COR403000 #1193925

Principal Activity:

Administration

Summary:

In accordance with Council’s Policy 1.1 Mayor and Councillors Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities, Clause 8.4.1. “A resolution of Council is required to authorise attendance of Councillors at...b) Australian Local Government Association National General Assembly as a voting delegate.”

Council has received notification that the National General Assembly of Local Government will be held between 17 to 20 June 2012.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council authorise the following Councillors to attend the 2012 National General Assembly of Local Government to be held at the National Convention Centre in Canberra between 17 to 20 June 2012:

Cr A ________________ and Cr B________________

2. That Council determine which Councillor will be the voting delegate.

3. That Council note that any motions for the National General Assembly will need to be submitted as a Notice of Motion for endorsement by Council, either before or at the Ordinary meeting scheduled on 12 April 2012.

Attachments:

· Correspondence - 2012 National General Assembly call for motions #1190472 [18 pages]...... Annexure 6

Report

Council has received program and registration details for the National General Assembly of Local Government (NGA) to be held in Canberra from 17 to 20 June 2012.

In accordance with Council’s Policy 1.1 Mayor and Councillors Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities, clause 8.4.1. states “A resolution of Council is required to authorise attendance of Councillors at…b) Australian Local Government Association National General Assembly as a voting delegate.”

Council is entitled to one voting delegate in the debating session.

Conference Motions

Policy 1.1 Mayor and Councillors Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities also states at clause 8.4.4.(b) that “Submission of motions for consideration by Council will be done by notice of motion, which can be considered during the year.”

As motions to the NGA are to be received by ALGA no later than Friday 27 April 2012, and must first be endorsed by Council prior to submission, Notices of Motions to Council regarding ALGA motions will need to be submitted for inclusion in the Ordinary Meeting Agenda of 12 April 2012 at the latest.

See "Call for Motions" below regarding information that must be included in a motion. Staff will then submit the resolved motions to the ALGA on behalf of Councillors.

Call for Motions

This year’s theme is National Voice, Local Choice – Infrastructure, Planning, Services To be eligible for inclusion in the NGA Business Papers motions must follow the principles:

1. fall under one of the themes – Infrastructure, Planning, Services;

2. be relevant to the work of local government nationally; and

3. complement or build on the policy objectives of state and territory associations.

To assist Councils in preparing motions, a Discussion Paper has been prepared and is available on the NGA website at www.nga.alga.asn.au and is available at Annexure 6 (Annexure 6 also contains guidelines and extra information.

The motions must include the following information:

a) Motion

- Text of the Motion

b) Theme

- Which theme do you believe the motion should fall under?

- Infrastructure, Planning, Services?

c) National Objective

- Why is this a national issue and why should this be debated at the NGA?

- Maximum 100 words

d) Summary of key arguments

- Background information

- Supporting arguments

- maximum of 300 words (additional information should be provided as speaking notes to the council representative who will move the motion at the NGA)

e) Declaration

- Declaration that the motion has been endorsed by Council.

Conference Details

Where: National Convention Centre, Canberra, ACT

Dates: Sunday 17 June to Wednesday 20 June 2012

Costs: Registration Fee (early bird prior to approx 29 April 2012) $950.00

(Approx per delegate) Accommodation (4 nights) $920.00

Travel approximately $600.00

Total: $2,470.00

Financial Implications

Council has an allocation for conferences of $17,000 within the 2011/12 budget. There has been $11,188 committed so far. Council is therefore able to fund the cost of a maximum of two delegates from this budget.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

In accordance with Council’s Policy 1.1 Mayor and Councillors Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities “A resolution of Council is required to authorise attendance of Councillors at …b) Australian Local Government Association National General Assembly as a voting delegate.”

Report No. 12.7.

Internal Audit Committee - appointment of a further external representative

Executive Manager: Corporate Management

File No: ADM302500 #1191871

Principal Activity:

Corporate Management

Summary:

Council at its Ordinary meeting held on 3 November 2011 resolved to increase the membership from two to three relevantly qualified external representatives.

Expressions of Interest for duly qualified external representatives were called and six applications have subsequently been received.

Council has received a recent resignation from an external representative on the Committee and as such 2 people have been recommended for appointment.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the resignation from Sally Tansley be accepted and she be officially thanked for her contribution as a member on this Committee.

2. That Council appoint the persons identified in Confidential Annexure 22(a) (#1191978) as the two new external representatives to the Internal Audit Committee.

Attachments:

· CONFIDENTIAL Assessment of Expressions of Interest and Recommendation
#1191978 [7 pages]....................................................................................................... Annexure 22(a)

· CONFIDENTIAL Expression of Interest #1178884 [8 pages]............................................ Annexure 22(b)

· CONFIDENTIAL Expression of Interest #1189189 [2 pages]............................................ Annexure 22(c)

· CONFIDENTIAL Expression of Interest #1190899 [1 page].............................................. Annexure 22(d)

· CONFIDENTIAL Expression of Interest #1181569 [7 pages]............................................ Annexure 22(e)

· CONFIDENTIAL Expression of Interest #1190931 [10 pages]........................................... Annexure 22(f)

· CONFIDENTIAL Expression of Interest #1190925 [13 pages].......................................... Annexure 22(g)

Report

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 3November 2012 resolved as follows

11-873 Resolved:

1. “That Council note that the current membership of the Internal Audit Committee comprising three councillors, two independent members and Council’s External Auditor as an ex-officio member is not reflective of the guidelines adopted by the Division of Local Government.

2. That Council note that to achieve compliance with the DLG guidelines, Council would have to appoint two additional independent members at cost, or in the alternative appoint one additional independent member and reduce the number of Councillor representatives from three to two.

3. That the Internal Audit Committee Constitution be amended to increase the membership from two to three relevantly qualified external representatives, retain current Councillor membership at three, remove any references to the Internal Auditor, and provide that the Chairperson shall be an external representative (Clause 5.9).”

The current membership of the Internal Audit Committee is as follows:

Councillor Representatives

· Cr Tom Tabart

· Cr Ross Tucker

· Cr Diane Woods

Appointed External Representatives

· Michael Georghiou

· Sally Tansley (resignation received 15 February 2012)

Expressions of Interest for a further external representative were called, with the EOI process directed at practitioners with skills in either financial matters or may have public sector corporate management, legal and risk management qualifications and experience.

Six expressions of interest were received, copies of which are attached at Confidential Annexures 22(b) – (g). Excerpts from those applications and a management recommendation appears at Confidential Annexure 22(a).

Council has recently received a resignation from Sally Tansley from membership on the Internal Audit Committee. As such Confidential Annexure 22(a) recommends two members to be the external representatives on the Internal Audit Committee.

Financial Implications

Council has annually set aside $20,000 for the payment of fees for the services of relevantly qualified external committee members. A balance of approximately $13,000 remains.

It is anticipated that there is sufficient funding in the present budget to appoint 1 further external representative.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Council has adopted the Internal Audit Advisory Committee constitution which can be viewed on Council Web site at http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/committees/internal-audit-committee

Report No. 12.8.

Investments – January 2012

Executive Manager: Corporate Management

File No: FIN252000 #1191438

Principal Activity:

Financial Services

Summary:

This report includes a list of investments as at 31 January 2012.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council receive and note the record of investments for the month of January 2012.

Attachments:

· Investment Valuations and Graphs January 2012 #1191434 [2 pages]............................... Annexure 17(a)

· Dennison January Report #1197025 [9 pages]................................................................ Annexure 17(b)

Report

Council has continued to maintain a diversified portfolio of investments. The average 90 day bank bill rate for the month of January was 4.40%. Council’s performance for the month of January is a weighted average of 4.61%. This performance is again slightly higher than the benchmark. This is largely due to the active ongoing management of the investment portfolio, maximising investment returns through secure term deposits. Council’s investment portfolio should continue to out-perform the benchmark as the capital protected investments earning 0% interest begin to mature or are able to be switched favourably. There are still a number of Council’s capital protected investments being partially and fully allocated to an underlying zero coupon bond. This is part of the “Capital Protection Mechanism” and coupons will not be paid if any allocation is made to this bond.

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.

For the month of January, the current value of investments has remained lower than the principal amount. The table below shows a slight decrease in the unrealised loss for Council from December 2011 to January 2012.

Movement in Principal and Current Market Valuations

Month	Principal	Current Value (at end of month)	Unrealised Gain/(Loss)
DECEMBER	60,336,462.62	58,505,039.56	(1,831,423.06)
JANUARY	59,995,191.04	58,350,399.41	(1,644,791.63)

This unrealised loss is a consequence of the lingering effects of the Global Financial Crisis. Some of Council’s investments are linked to the Credit and Equity Markets which have been adversely affected and are yet to recover. A breakdown of this can be seen in the table below. The figures are for January 2012.

Dissection of Council Investment Portfolio as at 31 January 2012

Principal ($)	Investment Linked to:-	Current Value	Unrealised Gain/(Loss)
35,424,300.00	TERM DEPOSITS	35,424,300.00	0
3,270,891.04	BUSINESS ONLINE SAVER	3,270,891.04	0
3,500,000.00	MANAGED FUNDS	3,116,800.00	(383,200.00)
8,000,000.00	CREDIT	7,699,075.37	(300,924.63)
9,800,000.00	EQUITY	8,839,333.00	(960,667.00)
59,995,191.04		58,350,399.41	(1,644,791.63)

Council uses a diversified mix of investments to achieve short, medium and long-term results. Council’s historical strategy is to use credit/equity markets for exposure to long term growth. It should be noted that Council’s exposure to credit/equity products is capital protected when held to maturity, which ensures no matter what the market value of the product is at maturity, Council is insured against any capital loss. The investment strategy associated with long term growth is now prohibited under the current Ministerial Investment Order utilising credit/equity markets to seek investment products. However, the ‘grandfathering’ provisions of the Ministerial Investment Order provides Council can retain investments now prohibited until they mature. Council is also looking continually at ‘switch’ opportunities for these investments in conjunction with its independent investment advisors. Any ‘switch’ opportunities undertaken are reported to Council in the investment report relating to the month the ‘switch’ occurred. Notwithstanding the current valuations of credit/equity investments, these products will trend toward their full principal value as they approach maturity.

Investments held as at 31 January 2012

Date	Principal ($)	Description	CP*	Rating	M’ty	Type	Rate	Current Value
26/3/07	1,000,000	CARGO II	N	AAA	03/12	CR	6.42%	916,600.00
24/7/07	1,000,000	AVERON II	CP	AAA	07/14	CR	0.00%*	832,100.00
17/1/08	1,000,000	ANZ SUB DEBT	N	AA-	01/13	CR	5.96%	995,004.72
30/1/08	1,000,000	SELECT ACCESS INVESTMENTS	CP	AA	11/12	CR	5.62%	945,660.00
22/4/08	2,000,000	ANZ TRANSFERABLE DEPOSIT	N	AA	04/13	CR	6.00%	2,015,610.65
14/11/08	2,000,000	ANZ TRANSFERABLE DEPOSIT	N	AA	12/12	CR	5.16%	1,994,100.00
26/9/05	1,500,000	EMU NOTES	CP	AAA-	10/15	MFD	0.00%*	1,291,800.00
29/6/06	2,000,000	ALL SEASONS NOTE	CP	AA+	08/14	MFD	0.00%*	1,825,000.00
22/6/06	1,000,000	HIGH INCOME NOTES	CP	A+	06/13	E	0.00%*	933,800.00
5/9/06	800,000	MGD GLOBAL PROPERTY	CP	A+	09/12	E	0.00%*	776,480.00
22/11/06	1,000,000	LIQUIDITY	CP	A+	10/12	E	0.00%*	969,000.00
30/3/07	1,000,000	INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES NOTE	CP	A+	03/14	E	0.00%*	880,200.00
28/9/07	1,000,000	TRI-SECTOR LINKED NOTE	CP	A+	09/14	E	0.00%*	850,000.00
5/11/07	1,000,000	ELN 2	CP	AA	11/12	E	3.00%	988,353.00
28/11/07	3,000,000	CLIENT MANAGED NOTE	CP	A+	11/14	E	0.00%*	2,519,400.00
20/12/07	1,000,000	DANDELION NOTE	CP	AA	12/12	E	0.00%*	922,100.00
25/8/11	1,000,000	HERITAGE BUILDING SOCIETY	P	NR	02/12	TD	6.00%	1,000,000.00
6/9/11	2,000,000	SUNCORP	P	A	03/12	TD	5.88%	2,000,000.00
23/1/12	2,000,000	CREDIT UNION AUSTRALIA	P	NR	04/12	TD	5.78%	2,000,000.00
29/9/08	2,000,000	WESTPAC BANK	N	AA	09/13	TD	8.00%	2,000,000.00
16/12/08	1,000,000	WESTPAC BANK	N	AA	12/13	TD	6.00%	1,000,000.00
28/9/09	785,000	INVESTEC BANK	P	BBB+	01/14	TD	8.02%	785,000.00
2/10/09	1,734,800	ELDERS RURAL BANK	P	BBB	07/12	TD	6.93%	1,734,800.00
13/12/11	1,000,000	CREDIT UNION AUSTRALIA	N	NR	03/12	TD	5.74%	1,000,000.00
17/6/10	786,000	SUNCORP	N	A	06/14	TD	7.30%	786,000.00
27/1/12	1,000,000	ME BANK	P	BBB	04/12	TD	5.85%	1,000,000.00
27/1/12	1,000,000	NEWCASTLE PERMANENT	P	NR	04/12	TD	5.85%	1,000,000.00
7/12/11	2,000,000	SOUTHERN CROSS CR UNION	P	NR	03/12	TD	5.80%	2,000,000.00
12/5/11	1,000,000	INVESTEC BANK	N	BBB+	05/14	TD	7.48%	1,000,000.00
28/11/11	2,000,000	ING BANK (AUSTRALIA)	P	A1	03/12	TD	5.79%	2,000,000.00
4/1/12	4,200,000	WESTPAC BANK	N	AA	04/12	TD	5.75%	4,200,000.00
27/7/11	1,000,000	RABO BANK	P	AAA	5/12	TD	6.30%	1,000,000.00
8/8/11	1,000,000	RABO BANK	N	AAA	8/13	TD	6.50%	1,000,000.00
25/8/11	1,000,000	GREATER BUILDING SOCIETY	P	NR	2/12	TD	6.05%	1,000,000.00
28/11/11	1,000,000	WIDE BAY LTD	P	NR	04/12	TD	5.95%	1,000,000.00
28/11/11	1,000,000	ST GEORGE BANK	P	AA-	02/12	TD	5.80%	1,000,000.00
30/11/11	1,000,000	ST GEORGE BANK	N	AA-	02/12	TD	5.80%	1,000,000.00
30/11/11	2,000,000	NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK	P	AA-	03/12	TD	5.99%	2,000,000.00
13/12/11	2,000,000	BANKWEST	P	AA-	03/12	TD	6.00%	2,000,000.00
4/1/12	918,500	INVESTEC	N	BBB+	04/12	TD	5.89%	918,500.00
5/1/12	1,000,000	ME BANK	N	BBB	04/12	TD	5.85%	1,000,000.00
N/A	3,270,891	CBA BUSINESS ONLINE SAVER	N	A	N/A	CALL	4.75%	3,270,891.04
Total	59,995,191					AVG	4.61%	58,350,399.41

Note 1. CP = Capital protection on maturity

N = No Capital Protection

Y = Fully covered by Government Guarantee

P = Partial Government Guarantee of $250,000

Note 2. Type Description

CR Credit Principal varies based on valuation, interest payable via a floating interest rate that varies except for those capital protected investments that have transferred to their capital protection mechanism

E Equity Principal varies based on valuation, interest payable via a floating interest rate that varies except for those capital protected investments that have transferred to their capital protection mechanism.

MFD Managed Fund Principal varies based on fund unit Price valuation, interest payable varies depending upon fund performance.

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 at the cash rate +0.50%

Note 3. Floating rate notes and Term Deposits can be traded on a day-to-day basis, and therefore Council is not obliged to hold the investments to the maturity dates. Managed funds operate in a similar manner to a normal bank account with amounts deposited or withdrawn on a daily basis. There is no maturity date for this type of investment.

Note 4. The coupon on these investments is zero due to the Capital Protection mechanism working. This occurs when the investment falls below a certain level. This coupon may be paid again in the future as the market recovers.

Other Information – Financial Claims Scheme (FCS)

On 1 February 2012, the Financial Claims Scheme (FCS - or Government guarantee) coverage for any one investor in deposits will reduce to $250,000 from $1,000,000 per Approved Deposit Institution (ADI). The Financial Claims Scheme was introduced as a result of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), essentially to provide investors confidence when taking out deposit's with all ADIs and to ensure that their primary business of lending money was not significantly hindered due to lack of funding. NSW Local Government Councils have under the Ministers Order always been able to invest with ADIs without a dollar limit on any one institution.

Under Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) regulation B uilding Societies and Credit Unions must meet the same capital requirements as a Bank. Whilst the majority are much smaller in terms of balance sheet size to the Banks they are still considered to be strong business' and investing in their term deposits still low risk. Most of Councils’ term deposits have now been amended to show a partial guarantee of this $250,000 per deposit taking institution.

Financial Implications

The reduction of the current value of Council’s portfolio is a result of the downturn in global markets stemming from the global financial crisis. It should be noted that Council’s exposure to the credit/equity markets is supported by capital protection which ensures that the initial value of the investment is not reduced when held to maturity. In downward cycles, the capital is protected by allocating the investment to an underlying bond. If the investment is 100% allocated to this bond, no interest will be paid up to maturity. This will impact negatively on Council’s interest earnings on investments.

Council’s investment strategy is to invest for the long term while maintaining sufficient liquid investments to meet short term requirements. It is important that this strategy is maintained to ensure that principal attached to credit/equity investments is recovered over time as maturity occurs or ‘switch’ opportunities to alternative investments present themselves.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

In accordance with clause 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 the second meeting of a month is a Strategic Planning Meeting or when the meeting dates are brought forward. Under normal circumstances it is not possible to present the investment report to the first Ordinary Meeting in the month, as investment valuations required for the preparation of the report, are often received after the deadline for the submission of reports for the meeting.

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.

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – EXECUTIVE MANAGER’S REPORTS

Report No. 12.9.

PLANNING - 10.2011.191.1 s82A Review - Use of part of the tourist premises for up to 14 functions annually limited to a maximum of 70 guests per function at 6/137 Beach Road, Broken Head

Executive Manager: Environment and Planning

File No: 240572 #1195567

Summary:

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 9 February 2012 Council resolved to: (Res 12-23)

1. That pursuant to s80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 development application 10.2011.191.1 for the use of the tourist premises for up to 14 functions annually be returned to Council’s Meeting of 1 March 2012 with draft conditions of consent.

2. That the report address Staff’s recommendation No.4 (Owner’s Consent and the Strata Plan) on Report 12.27 (#1187269).

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 confirm the previous determination by refusing development consent for the following reason:

1. Pursuant to section 79C (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the proposed development constitutes prohibited development pursuant to Clause 9(2) and the development control table of the 2(t) Tourist Area Zone within Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988.

2. Pursuant to section 79C(1)(b) and 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the proposed development is likely to result in unacceptable noise and disturbance for neighbouring residents/occupants.

3. Pursuant to section 79C (1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the proposed development does not provide sufficient onsite parking or a service vehicle area to accord with Chapter 1 Part G of Byron Development Control Plan 2010.

4. Pursuant to Section 78A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the proposed development application has not been accompanied by evidence that the owner of the land on which the development is to be carried out provides consents to the application (owners of Strata Plan 81554).

Attachments:

· Draft Conditions of Consent #1197855 [8 pages]............................................................ Annexure 20(a)

· Cover Letter from Rob Doolan to S82A form #1188848 [1 page]...................................... Annexure 20(b)

· Supplementary Report addressing late information #1190923 [6 pages]........................... Annexure 20(c)

· CONFIDENTIAL Legal advice from Marsdens #1199502 [7 pages]................................... Annexure 20(d)

Report

The subject section 82A application was recommended for refusal to the Council meeting of 9 February 2012. At this meeting Council resolved the following:

That pursuant to s80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 development application 10.2011.191.1 for the use of the tourist premises for up to 14 functions annually be returned to Council’s Meeting of 1 March 2012 with draft conditions of consent.
That the report address Staff’s recommendation No.4 (Owner’s Consent and the Strata Plan) on Report 12.27 (#1187269).

Item 1 - Draft conditions of consent

As requested, draft conditions of consent have been produced (Annexure 20(a)). As per Council’s report of 9 February 2012, the application is still recommended for refusal.

Item 2 - Owners consent

The issue of owners consent remains outstanding. The section 82A application has not attempted to address this issue. It is likely that the proposal relies on common property for the storage of vehicles and goods (catering, entertainment etc) that are required for the proposed use. Any common property that is required for the proposed use would require the consent of the body corporate which has not been provided in this instance.

It is understood that a meeting of the body corporate for the development will be held on 15 February 2012 and Council may receive advice prior to its meeting in relation to this. Council has also requested legal advice regarding this issue of owners consent prior to determination.

The photographs below, emphasise the reliance of the proposal on the common property for the parking of vehicles during the function setup stage. The turning circles provided with the additional information fail to take into consideration a vehicle with a trailer as shown in the photos.

View from West

Additional considerations

1. Car Parking

In relation to car parking, only two spaces, plus one disabled space, are available on the applicant’s land to service 70 persons attending up to 14 functions per year. The applicant has indicated that a bus can be provided to collect patrons from various locations to be transported to the functions. It is considered that not all at the wedding will be using this service, such as caterer and staff, and at least some car parking should be provided.

It is possible that an additional nine spaces could be made available within the road reserve in front of the strata units, and this would result in car parking at about 50% of the normally required by Council’s DCP 2010. This would be a significant variation for Council’s adopted Development Control Plan 2010 with parking not being required to be provided on the development to which it relates. This would require the utilisation of road reserve to provide development parking and the provision for a bus drop off zone.

2. Food

Previously, Council had received complaints about caterers preparing food and serving food from carport structures on the subject property, as part of the servicing of wedding and conference functions. The NSW Food Act 2003 requires that such food handling activities are performed strictly in accordance with safe food standards.

If Council is granting approval, a condition is required that the applicant, shall at all time, ensure that food services comply with the NSW Food Act 2003 and only operate in conditions which satisfy the Food Regulation 2010 (incorporating Food Standards Codes).

3. Noise

Council had previously received complaints from neighbours in relation to “offensive” noise emitted from weddings and functions conducted on the subject property. The unique layout of buildings on this property, and neighbouring properties has reduced the spatial separation between noise sources and neighbouring residential properties. The locality in which the property situated has generally ‘low noise’ characteristics with traffic noise, wind through the trees and breaking waves, the dominant feature of the locality. All of these issues indicate that the conducting of any activities on the property that included amplified music is likely to interfere with neighbourhood amenity.

Even if all noise sources could be kept low (ie below 70 dB(A)), the limited attenuation available due to the close proximity of nearby homes is still likely to result in clearly audible and possibly intrusive noise into neighbours residences.

If Council is granting approval, a condition should be imposed that the applicant engage a suitably experienced and qualified acoustic consultant to assess the site in relation to all likely noise sources, detail all options available in consideration of the Industrial Noise Policy (EPA) and prepare a noise management plan. Such plan to be provided to Council and form part of the overall activity management plan for the property. The applicant shall, at all times, ensure that no “offensive noise” as defined under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 is permitted or caused which is likely to harm the peace and quiet of residents on neighbouring properties.

Conclusion

Having reviewed the history of the site, the previous assessment and the information provided, Council resolution 12-23 of the 9 February 2012, it is recommended that the section 82A application to review the determination of 10.2011.191.1 should be refused for the reasons identified below.

1. Pursuant to section 79C (1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the proposed development constitutes prohibited development pursuant to Clause 9(2) and the development control table of the 2(t) Tourist Area Zone within Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988.

As Council has resolved for the application to be returned to Council’s Meeting of 1 March 2012 with draft conditions of consent which have been provided in Annexure 20(a), Council is also reminded of the appeal rights of the objectors in relation to the proposal pursuant to section 123 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Report No. 12.10.

PLANNING - 10.2011.306.1 - Two lot subdivision and development of a tourist facility (four bedroom tourist accommodation facility with a detached manager’s residence – 139 Beach Road, Broken Head

Executive Manager: Environment and Planning

File No: 240562 #1196104

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

RECOMMENDATION:

That Pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Development Application No. 10.2011.306.1, for a two lot subdivision and tourist facility (four bedroom tourist accommodation facility and a detached manager’s residence), be refused for the following reasons.

1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is likely to have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment, principally the loss of at least 0.5ha of breeding and foraging habitat for the Common Planigale (Planigale maculate), a threatened species under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 78A(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the development is likely to result in a significant affect on the local population of a threatened species the Common Planigale (Planigale maculate), and a species impact statement has not been submitted in accordance with Division 2 of Part 6 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

3. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79(c)(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development has not demonstrated compliance with the Aims, Objectives and Guiding Principles of Clause 2 of the Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988 and the Objectives of the 7(b) Coastal Habitat Zone.

Attachments:

Locality Map

· National Parks & Wildlife - Impacts on Flora and Fauna, Threatened Species and
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage #1182077 [8 pages].............................................................. Annexure 18(a)

· Letter from Bundjalung #1196147 [1 page]...................................................................... Annexure 18(b)

· Proposed plans of subdivision and tourist facility #1196157 [11 pages]........................... Annexure 18(c)

DA No.	10.2011.306.1
Proposal:	Two lot subdivision and development of a Tourist Facility (Four bedroom tourist accommodation facility with a detached manager’s residence).
Property description:	LOT: 2 DP: 1131866 139 Beach Road Broken Head
Parcel No/s:	240562
Applicant:	Jock Palmer & Associates
Owner:	Mr P F Morrison
Zoning:	7(a) Wetlands Zone, 2(t) Tourist Area Zone, 7(b) Coastal Habitat Zone and 7(f1) Coastal Lands Zone
Date received:	2 August 2011
Integrated Development	Yes
Public notification or exhibition:	Level 2 advertising under DCP 2010 Chapter 17 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications Exhibition period: 8 September 2011 to 21 September 2011. Submissions: Fourteen (14).
Other approvals (S68/138):	Not applicable
Planning Review Committee:	N/A
Delegation to determination:	Council
Issues:	· Impact on a Threatened Species (Common Planigale) and its habitat; · Bush fire prone land; · The proposed development is partly within a ‘sensitive coastal location’ as defined within SEPP No.71 Coastal Protection; · Removal of trees and vegetation in the 7(b) Coastal Habitat Zone; · Development in proximity to culturally significant Aboriginal Area of Ti Tree (Taylors) Lake; · SEPP No.1 Objection to Clause 11 of Byron LEP 1988 relating to the 40 hectare minimum lot size within the Environmental Protection 7(a) Wetland, 7(b) Coastal Habitat Zones and 7(f1) Coastal Lands zone, and · High conservation value vegetation.
Summary:	In summary the application seeks development consent for: · Subdivision of the subject allotment to excise an area of approximately 1.39ha of land within the 2(t) Tourist Area Zone with the remainder of the site being a 20.25ha allotment (Stage One). · Stage Two. Erection of a Tourist Facility comprising two storey tourist accommodation building containing four separate bedrooms, common/living areas, communal kitchen/dining area, swimming pool, terraces/veranda and car parking for six vehicles. The proposal also includes a detached manager’s residence comprising a two storey building containing two bedrooms, kitchen, bathroom and living/dining area (Stage Two). The proposed structures associated with the Tourist Facility are located within the 2(t) Tourist Area Zone and consistent with the objectives of that Zone. The proposed access trail to be upgraded and part of the bushfire asset protection zone for the manager’s residence involve works and vegetation removal within the 7(b) Coastal Habitat Zone. The proposed development (including bush fire asset protection zones and access road) involves the removal of approximately 0.5 hectare of high conservation value vegetation within a mapped wildlife corridor that has been demonstrated, through targeted surveys, to be an important breeding habitat for the ‘Common Planigale’. Council’s ecologist considers that the proposal would result in a significant effect on the local population of a threatened species (listed under Schedule 2 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) and therefore a Species Impact Statement (SIS) is required pursuant to Section 78A(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and has not been submitted. Any future development application for the site will need to demonstrate greater integration with, and reduced impact on, the natural environment. The current proposal was not designed with the sites significant ecological values in mind including the presence of breeding habitat for the common planigale within the proposed development footprint. Consequently, the proposal is not ecologically sustainable, will not conserve biodiversity or threatened species habitat and fails to meet the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and the aims and objectives of the Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988. The development site is in proximity to culturally significant Aboriginal Area of Ti Tree (Taylors) Lake. The applicant has submitted a ‘Cultural Heritage Assessment’ prepared by Everick Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd dated November 2011. Accompanying the Cultural Heritage Assessment was a copy of a letter from the Chief Executive Officer of the Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal) advising it concurs with the recommendations contained in the report. The Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service) has raised no objection to the Cultural Heritage Assessment subject to various conditions. The proposed development involves excavation to maximum depth of 1.4 metres and fill to a height of 1.25 metres contrary to Element C2.7 of Councils DCP 2010 which limits cut and fill 1.0m. The proposed non-compliance with the cut and fill control is considered acceptable in this instance on this sloping site for the reasons detailed in the body of this report. In response to the public notification period a total of Fourteen (14) submissions were received and the matters raised in the submissions have been discussed in the body of this report. Overall the proposal is considered likely to have a significant affect on a threatened species and a Species Impact Statement has not been provided to demonstrate otherwise. The application is recommended for refusal for the reasons listed at the end of the report.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 History/Background

The subject allotment is known as Lot 2 in DP 1131866. A dwelling-house that existed on the site for many years was recently replaced by a new dwelling-house. The demolition of the original dwelling and construction of a new dwelling was granted approval under Development Consent No. 10.2007.593.1 on 11 March 2008. A Section 96 Modification was refused on 1 October 2008 to amend the right of carriageway arrangements to the new dwelling.

1.2 Description of the site

The proposed development is to be carried out within an allotment described as Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 1131866. The allotment is located on the northern side of Beach Road at Broken Head. The allotment has an irregular configuration with an area of 21.57 hectares. The subject site is located partly within the following land use zones:

2(t) Tourist Area Zone
7(a) Wetlands Zone

7(b) Coastal Habitat Zone
7(f1) Coastal Land Zone

Although the allotment includes multiple zones, the proposed development is limited to the 2(t) and the 7(b) areas of the lot. In addition to the works within the allotment, a sewerage line is proposed within the road reserves adjoining the allotment, which are partly in 2(t) and partly in 1(a) zones. The vehicular access to the allotment is from Beach Road to the south. The allotment is made up of two parts that are separated by Taylors Lake Road. The land includes moderate and steep slopes, but also some flatter areas, particularly in the east. Most of the site is covered by native vegetation which is mapped as a bush fire hazard. Part of Taylors Lake is located within the allotment and extends to the north of the subject land.

Development on the site includes a dwelling-house adjacent to the eastern boundary of the allotment. This dwelling replaced a dwelling that was recently demolished within the site. Vehicle access to the new dwelling is from Beach Road via a right of carriageway through an adjoining property (Strata Plan 81554). This adjoining land contains a tourist facility (comprising 7 holiday cabins and 1 manager’s residence) that was granted approval by the NSW Department of Planning.

Figure 1 - Subject site identified in red with zone boundaries.

1.3 Description of the proposed development

The applicant seeks development consent to carry out development within the site over two stages described within the Statement of Environmental Effects as below:

Stage 1:

It is proposed to subdivide the subject land into two lots of approximately 1.39ha and 20.25ha respectively.

The 1.39ha lot (proposed Lot 2) comprises land that is currently zoned for residential tourist development and is located west of Taylors Lake Road. The excision of part of the Tourist Area Zoned land from the adjoining environmental protection zoned land and its creation into a separate lot is requested to facilitate the future tourist development of this land and the obtaining of necessary development finance.

Whilst proposed Lot 2 has frontage to both Beach Road and Taylors Lake Road, it is proposed to access to this lot is from the existing track which extends through Proposed Lot 1 and onto proposed Lot 2. It is proposed that this existing track will be upgraded and the subject Right of Way which will formalise this access arrangement.

A small area of proposed Lot 1, located between the proposed ROW and the western boundary of proposed Lot 2, is proposed to be the subject of an easement to allow the management of a bushfire asset protection zone for the Manager’s Residence on proposed Lot 2.

The residue lot, being 20.25ha (proposed Lot 1) will comprise all of the environmental protection zoned land and a small area of residual residential tourist zoned land and located to the east of Taylors Lake Road.

This existing area of residential tourist zoned land is recognised as being highly environmentally constrained. In the regard the applicant has stated: “As such, this area has no realistic prospects of future residential tourist development. It is therefore requested that Council resolve to amend the current zoning of this land to more accurately reflect its environmental values. In this regard, it is suggested that an appropriate environmental protection zone be applied, similar to that of the existing adjoining zone. The preparation by Council of its Shire Wide Comprehensive LEP would be an appropriate opportunity to amend this anomalous zoning.”

Lot 1 is proposed to be retained in its natural state and is proposed to be subject to specific covenants and a conservation agreement. It is proposed that the 20.25ha Lot 1 will be protected from any future development by restrictive and/or positive covenants imposed under the Conveyancing Act 1919. This will ensure that the current and subsequent landowners will manage this lot for conservation in perpetuity.

The lots will be created under Torrens Title. The existing dwelling house on the site is to be contained on proposed Lot 1.

Stage 2:

This Development Application also seeks approval for the development of what the applicant describes as an ‘Ecolodge’ facility on the proposed Lot 2.

This ‘Ecolodge’ facility comprises a two storey building containing four separate bedrooms, common/living areas, communal kitchen/dining area, swimming pool, terrace/veranda and car parking for six vehicles. A separate Manager’s Residence comprises a two storey building containing two bedrooms, kitchen, bathroom and open plan living/dining area.

The Ecolodge facility is proposed to be utilised for short term duration visitation by tourists and guests. It is proposed that the Manager’s Residence is essential for the efficient management and security of the facility and as such, is put forward as being ancillary to the tourist function of the Ecolodge facility.

Access to the Ecolodge facility and associated Manager’s Residence is proposed via a ROW which is proposed to extend over the existing access track from Beach Road. This access is proposed to be widened and upgraded to provide a sealed all weather roadway.

As the Ecolodge facility and Manager’s Residence are proposed to be connected to the existing Broken Head sewerage reticulation system, it would be necessary to construct a gravity sewer main from the development site along the edge of Beach Road, to the existing sewer pump station at the south-eastern boundary of the land, near the “Pavilions” development.

As part of the proposed construction of the Ecolodge facility and Manager’s Residence, significant revegetation and rehabilitation of the undeveloped section of proposed Lot 2 is proposed. It is proposed that trees removed during the construction phase, will be replaced on site at the ratio of five (5) new trees for every tree removal.

Figure 2 - Plan of proposed subdivision including the proposed locations for the Ecolodge and Manager’s Residence.

Table 1: Plans used in the assessment

Plan	Architect	Drawing Number	Date
Proposed subdivision	Jock Palmer & Associates	02/11	June 2011
Partial Site Plan	Byron Energy Efficient Design & Drafting	3/14	16/6/11
Access upgrade and carparking detail	Byron Energy Efficient Design & Drafting	4/14	20/5/11
BASIX Commitments	Byron Energy Efficient Design & Drafting	5/14	20/5/11
Ground Floor Plan	Byron Energy Efficient Design & Drafting	6/14	20/5/11
First Floor Plan	Byron Energy Efficient Design & Drafting	7/14	20/5/11
First Floor Plan	Byron Energy Efficient Design & Drafting	8/14	20/5/11
Elevations	Byron Energy Efficient Design & Drafting	9/14	20/5/11
Ecolodge	Byron Energy Efficient Design & Drafting	10/14	20/5/11
Managers Residence	Byron Energy Efficient Design & Drafting	11/14	20/5/11
Managers Residence	Byron Energy Efficient Design & Drafting	12/14	20/5/11

2.0 SUMMARY OF EXTERNAL REFERRALS

	Issue/s
Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DoPI)	SEPP No.1 Concurrence from the Director-General for the proposed non-compliance with minimum allotment size Clause 11 of Byron LEP 1988. See Section 2.2 of this report for DoPI Comments.
National Parks & Wildlife Service	Impacts on Flora and Fauna, Threatened Species and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. See Section 2.3 of this report and Annexure 18(a) for a copy of correspondence dated 21 December 2012.
NSW Rural Fire Service	Compliance with ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’. See Section 2.1 of this report.
Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal)	A copy of a letter received from the Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal) submitted by applicant is contained in Annexure 18(b). No response specific response was received from Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal) to Council’s notification letter dated 14 September 2011.

2.1 Rural Fire Service comments. Section 79BA – Bushfire Protection

The subject site is located within a mapped bush fire prone land. As the proposal involves the subdivision of this land, the application was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service to obtain a Bush Fire Safety Authority under the Rural Fires Act 1997. In correspondence dated 28 October 2011, the Rural Fire Service issued a Bush Fire Safety Authority with the following conditions and comments:

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:

1. At the commencement of building works and in perpetuity the property around the manager’s dwelling I refuge shall be managed as an inner protection area (IPA) as outlined within Appendices 2 & 5 of ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’ and the NSW Rural Fire Service’s document ‘Standards for asset protection zones’ as follows:

· north for a distance of 15 metres;

· south for a distance of 16 metres;

· east for a distance of 15 metres; and

· west for a distance of 33 metres.

Where APZs are proposed on an adjoining Lot then they must be covered by an easement.

Asset Protection Zones

The intent of measures is to minimise the risk of bush fire attack and provide protection for emergency services personnel, residents and others assisting fire fighting activities. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

2. At the commencement of building works and in perpetuity the property around the eco-lodge to a distance of 10 metres, shall be maintained 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’.

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:

3. Water, electricity and gas are to comply with sections 4.1.3 and 4.2.7 of ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’.

Access

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:

4. Property access road shall comply with sections 4.1.3(2) and 4.2.7 of
‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’

Evacuation and Emergency Management

The intent of measures is to provide suitable emergency and evacuation (and relocation) arrangements for occupants of special fire protection purpose
developments. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

5. Arrangements for emergency and evacuation are to comply with section 4.2.7 of ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’.

Design and Construction

The intent of measures is that buildings are designed and constructed to withstand the potential impacts of bush fire attack. To achieve this, the following conditions shall apply:

6. New construction shall comply with section 8 (BAL 40) Australian Standard AS3959-2009 ‘Construction of buildings in bush fire-prone areas’ and section A3.7 Addendum Appendix 3 of ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection’.

7. Roofing shall be gutterless or guttering and valleys are to be screened to prevent the build up of flammable material. Any materials used shall be non-combustible.

Landscaping

8. Landscaping within the APZ shall comply with the principles of Appendix 5 of ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’.

General Advice - consent authority to note

This bush fire safety authority is based upon the advice that the proposal is an ecotourism development, and has been assessed accordingly.

2.2 Comments from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DoPI)

Director-General Concurrence

In correspondence from the DOPI dated 11 October 2011 the following comments were received:

“Following consideration of the application, concurrence has been granted to vary the 40 hectare subdivision development standard for the 7(a), 7(b) and 7(f1) zones contained in clause 11(1) of Council’s planning instrument to permit creation of a lot (proposed Lot 1) of about 20.25 hectares.

Concurrence was granted in this instance for the following reasons:

· the proposed subdivision will retain all the environmental protection zones land in a single lot (proposed Lot 1); and

· the subdivision will excise the 2(t) Tourist Area land to allow consideration of the development of an eco-tourist facility on the land in accordance with the zoning.

It is noted that the applicant has suggested the balance of the 2(t) zoned land retained in proposed Lot 1 is highly environmentally constrained and therefore has no realistic prospects of future development. He has requested that Council resolve to amend the current zoning of this land to more accurately reflect its environmental values. The Department considers it appropriate to consider this request and assess the significance of this land to ensure it is appropriately zoned.”

2.3 Comments from the Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service)

A complete copy of correspondence dated 21 December 2011 from the Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service) is contained within Annexure 18(a). Following is an extract of the concluding comments from the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service:

“Providing the matters raised in the ‘Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment’ section of this advice are addressed, the EPA has no further concerns or comments regarding the Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment for the DA. It is further recommended that the Conditions of Approval for Aboriginal cultural heritage values provided in Appendix A are reflected in any approval conditions for the project.

OEH is unable to support the current proposal in view of the matters raised in the ‘Biodiversity Assessment’ section of this advice. It is recommended that these matters are addressed prior to consideration of the DA. Once the information requested is available, OEH will review this position.

In brief, further information is required to establish whether the actions proposed will have a significant impact on the threatened species Common Planigale and Southern Swamp Orchid. Further survey work may be required to address the matters raised. More information is required to establish the extent of the local population beyond the development site and the relative importance of surrounding vegetation communities to the Common Planigale, including investigation of the possible interactions between Common Planigale and Antechinus species. Further consideration is required of the value of habitat at the site for breeding and its role when habitat at lower elevations is inundated. More information is required on population demographics (population size, fluctuations, density) to establish to parameters for the ‘local population’.

Additional information is required on a number of aspects of the proposal, including on the proposed mitigation strategies, to determine if they will mitigate impacts sufficiently. It is recommended that the proposed vegetation management plan is prepared for Council consideration prior to determination and that a fauna management plan be prepared for the development site. Depending on the type of fauna mitigation strategies proposed on the site, separate OEH licensing may he required. Information on the routes of services and the status of the western bushfire access track is required to permit an assessment to be made of potential impacts on Southern Swamp Orchid and Common Planigale. OEH believes that there are more effective options for protecting biodiversity values in perpetuity on the property other than the proposed positive covenant and does not support this proposal.”

2.4 SECTION 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act – Significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats

The EP&A Act requires that a range of matters must be taken into account in deciding whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats (the ‘7-part test’). The applicant has concluded that the development is unlikely to have a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats pursuant to Section 5A of the EP&A Act.

Council’s Ecologist has considered the factors listed in subsection 2 of Section 5A of the EP&A Act and concludes that based on the information available it can only be assumed that the proposal is likely to result in a significant effect on the Common Planigale. The applicant has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect and in the absence of a comprehensive assessment that enables that possibility to be ruled out then it must be assumed that the affect will be significant. Council’s Ecologist has reached the view that pursuant to s5A(2), the proposal is likely to result in a significant effect on the local population of Common Planigale for the following reasons:

1. “the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction” (s5A(2)(a));

2. “in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community, the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality” is significant (s5A(2)(d); and

3. “the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process” (s5A(2)(g)).

The information gathered by the applicant to date provides no assurances that the development will not have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the Common Planigale such that the viable population is likely to be placed at risk of extinction. To the contrary, the investigations by the applicant’s consultant highlight the importance of the proposed development area as breeding habitat for the local population.

The targeted surveys for Common Planigale indicate that the development footprint represents important breeding habitat for the local population. Further targeted surveys throughout the subject site by applicant’s consultant suggest that the species utilise other areas as anticipated but at much lower densities than those within the development footprint. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the population is breeding outside the development area and large areas of the subject site appear to provide unsuitable habitat (i.e. blackbutt forest and non-ecotonal areas).

The detection of Common Planigale with pouched young is an extremely rare occurrence and highlights the importance of the habitat to the life cycle of the local population. The proposed development footprint provides abundant resources and protection from predators particularly during periods when low-lying ecotones with swamp sclerophyll forest are inundated. As Planigales depend on dense ground cover of vegetation and woody debris, the construction of dwellings and establishment of an asset protection zone in accordance with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006, will result in complete removal of approximately 0.5ha of Common Planigale habitat.

The applicant contends that this represents a fraction of available habitat within the potential range of the local population. However, the majority of this open woodland community where Common Planigales occur is restricted to the area within the 2(t) zone that will be directly impacted by the proposal. Beyond the development footprint, suitable habitat occurs in the form of ecotones to swamp sclerophyll forest occurs within 100 metres to the north and east of the site and a small area to the northwest of the site (although planigales have not been detected anywhere to the west of the footprint). Planigale habitat is constrained to the south by Broken Head Beach Road and restricted to the west by the presence of blackbutt forest. Council’s ecologist has concluded that the habitat to be removed is very likely to be critical for the breeding success of the local population and therefore the long-term viability of that population, and the removal of which constitutes a significant effect.

The proposal will also exacerbate a number of key threatening processes including clearing of native vegetation, invasion and establishment of the cane toad, and removal of dead wood and dead trees. The Common Planigale is particularly at risk as it is dependant on the vegetation and habitat features that are to be removed or highly modified as part of this proposal. Predation by cane toads will also be exacerbated by creating suitable habitat for the pest species within the asset protection zone. Proposed management measures conducted by the site manager provide no assurances that this key threatening process will not increase as a result of the development.

The applicant has attempted to address the concerns of OEH (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service) and Council in regards to the impacts of the development on the Common Planigale but there still remains significant uncertainty with respect to the level of impact and it cannot be assumed that there will not be a significant effect on the species. Based on the information gathered to date, there is a likelihood that the development will result in a significant effect on the Common Planigale population.

Figure 3 - Photograph of Common Planigale (Source: Additional Environmental Investigations dated 11 November 2011, prepared by Australian Wetland Consulting Pty Ltd)

Southern Swamp Orchid

In relation to the southern swamp orchid, it is concluded that the proposal is unlikely to result in a significant effect on the species such that the local population would be put at risk of extinction. Habitat for the orchid would be largely undisturbed as a result of the development although very stringent controls would be required during construction to ensure any impacts are avoided, and management strategies in place to conserve and enhance the population over the longer-term. Similarly, the proposal is unlikely to result in a significant effect on the littoral rainforest endangered ecological community on the subject site or throughout the Broken Head area.

Species Impact Statement is required

Section 78A(8) states that a development application (other than an application in respect of State significant development) must be accompanied by: “(b) if the application is in respect of development on land that is, or is a part of, critical habitat or is likely to significantly affect threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats—a species impact

statement prepared in accordance with Division 2 of Part 6 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995”.

Uncertainty still remains around the extent of the local population of Common Planigale and the relative importance of the 2(t) zoned land for conservation of the local population. The importance of the 2(t) zoned land as breeding habitat for Common Planigale has been demonstrated through assessments undertaken by AWC and the site provides important foraging habitat and an important refuge during prolonged wet periods. These issues need to be explored further through a Species Impact Statement to determine whether such a development is feasible at the location.

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

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

3.1 STATE/REGIONAL PLANNING POLICIES AND INSTRUMENTS

Requirement	Summary of Requirement & Assessment	Complies
State Environment Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards	Specifies that a written objection can be made where strict compliance with a development standard cannot be achieved.	The proposed subdivision does not comply with minimum lot size requirements under Clause 11 of Byron LEP 1988. A SEPP 1 Objection has been submitted by the applicant and is assessed in the LEP Issues section of this report.	Yes* (See further assessment in the LEP Issues section of this report)
State Environmental Planning Policy No.14 - Coastal Wetlands	This policy applies to an eastern portion of the subject in the north corner of the site. In respect of land to which this policy applies, a person shall not: (a) clear that land, (b) construct a levee on that land, (c) drain that land, or (d) fill that land, except with the consent of the council and the concurrence of the Director.	In accordance with Clause 7 of SEPP 14 the proposed development does not seek to construct a levee, clear, drain or fill on the land to which SEPP 14 is applicable.	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy No.26 - Littoral Rainforest	(1) This Policy applies to: (b) land not so enclosed but within a distance of 100 metres from the outer edge of that heavy black line except residential land and land to which State Environmental Planning Policy No 14 - Coastal Wetlands applies. 7 Development - consent and concurrence (2) A person shall not, without the consent of the Council, on land described in clause 4 (1) (b), erect a building, disturb or change or alter any landform or disturb, remove, damage or destroy any native flora, or dispose of or dump any liquid, gaseous or solid matter.	The proposed location of the Tourist Facility is located approximately 500m from land mapped SEPP 26. The land is not residential.	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land	The Council must: (a) consider whether the land is contaminated; and (b) if the land is contaminated, if the land is suitable in its contaminated state or after remediation; and (c) be satisfied before the land is used. 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	Based on the findings of the applicant’s Preliminary Contaminated Land Assessment the subject site is not considered to represent a significant risk to end users. The subject site is considered to be suitable for the intended use.	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy No.44 - Koala Habitat Protection	Council must determine if the land is a potential koala habitat (feed tree species constitute at least 15% of the trees in the upper or lower strata of the tree component) OR Where land has been identified as is a potential koala habitat Council must determine if the land is a core koala habitat. OR Where land has been identified as core koala habitat, development must not be inconsistent with the koala plan of management.	Feed tree species constitute less than 15% of the trees on the land.	Yes
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 - Coastal Protection	Relevant matters for consideration within Part 4 of SEPP 71 for development within the coastal zone: - 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 Matters for consideration detailed in Clause 8 of SEPP 71 are discussed following this table.	It is considered the proposal has not satisfied the Clause 8 provisions of SEPP 71 as discussed in the Issues section following this table. The proposal is considered to be able to conform the with the Part 4 Development Control provisions of SEPP 71. Development Control Plan (Master Plan) Clause 18(1) specifies a consent authority must not grant consent for: (a) subdivision of land within a residential zone, or a rural residential zone, if part or all of the land is in a sensitive coastal location, unless the Minister has adopted a Master Plan for the land. Part of the subject site is within a sensitive coastal location. It is considered the proposal does not involve subdivision of land ‘within’ a residential zone as the proposal seeks to excise the land within the 2(t) zone therefore a Master plan is not considered necessary in this instance.	No* (See further assessment in the LEP Issues section of this report)
North Coast Regional Environmental Plan 1988 (Deemed SEPP)	Development Applications must be consistent with the provisions of the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan. In determining an application for consent to carry out development on such land, the council must take into account: (a) the NSW Coastal Policy 1997, (b) the Coastline Management Manual, and (c) the North Coast: Design Guidelines.	The proposed development is considered to be inconsistent with the provisions of the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan Clause 32B which requires consideration of the NSW Coastal Policy 1997.	No
NSW Coastal Policy 1997	Development within the Coastal Zone must be consistent with the Aims, Objectives and Strategic Actions of the Coastal Policy.	The development proposal fails to meet the objective to conserve the diversity of all native plant and animal species and to protect and assist the recovery of threatened and endangered species.	No

Requirement

Summary of Requirement & Assessment

Complies

State Environment Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards

Specifies that a written objection can be made where strict compliance with a development standard cannot be achieved.

The proposed subdivision does not comply with minimum lot size requirements under Clause 11 of Byron LEP 1988.

A SEPP 1 Objection has been submitted by the applicant and is assessed in the LEP Issues section of this report.

Yes*

(See further assessment in the LEP Issues

section of this report)

State Environmental Planning Policy No.14 - Coastal Wetlands

This policy applies to an eastern portion of the subject in the north corner of the site. In respect of land to which this policy applies, a person shall not:

(a) clear that land,

(b) construct a levee on that land,

(d) fill that land,

except with the consent of the council and the concurrence of the Director.

In accordance with Clause 7 of SEPP 14 the proposed development does not seek to construct a levee, clear, drain or fill on the land to which SEPP 14 is applicable.

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy No.26 - Littoral Rainforest

(1) This Policy applies to:

(b) land not so enclosed but within a distance of 100 metres from the outer edge of that heavy black line except residential land and land to which State Environmental Planning Policy No 14 - Coastal Wetlands applies.

7 Development - consent and concurrence

(2) A person shall not, without the consent of the Council, on land described in clause 4 (1) (b), erect a building, disturb or change or alter any landform or disturb, remove, damage or destroy any native flora, or dispose of or dump any liquid, gaseous or solid matter.

The proposed location of the Tourist Facility is located approximately 500m from land mapped SEPP 26. The land is not residential.

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land

The Council must:

(a) consider whether the land is contaminated; and

(b) if the land is contaminated, if the land is suitable in its contaminated state or after remediation; and

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

Based on the findings of the applicant’s Preliminary Contaminated Land Assessment the subject site is not considered to represent a significant risk to end users. The subject site is considered to be suitable for the intended use.

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy No.44 - Koala Habitat Protection

Council must determine if the land is a potential koala habitat (feed tree species constitute at least 15% of the trees in the upper or lower strata of the tree component)

Where land has been identified as is a potential koala habitat Council must determine if the land is a core koala habitat.

Where land has been identified as core koala habitat, development must not be inconsistent with the koala plan of management.

Feed tree species constitute less than 15% of the trees on the land.

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 - Coastal Protection

Relevant matters for consideration within Part 4 of SEPP 71 for development within the coastal zone:

- 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

Matters for consideration detailed in Clause 8 of SEPP 71 are discussed following this table.

It is considered the proposal has not satisfied the Clause 8 provisions of SEPP 71 as discussed in the Issues section following this table.

The proposal is considered to be able to conform the with the Part 4 Development Control provisions of SEPP 71.

Development Control Plan (Master Plan)

Clause 18(1) specifies a consent authority must not grant consent for:

(a) subdivision of land within a residential zone, or a rural residential zone, if part or all of the land is in a sensitive coastal location,

unless the Minister has adopted a Master Plan for the land. Part of the subject site is within a sensitive coastal location. It is considered the proposal does not involve subdivision of land ‘within’ a residential zone as the proposal seeks to excise the land within the 2(t) zone therefore a Master plan is not considered necessary in this instance.

No*

(See further assessment in the LEP Issues

section of this report)

North Coast Regional Environmental Plan 1988

(Deemed SEPP)

Development Applications must be consistent with the provisions of the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan. In determining an application for consent to carry out development on such land, the council must take into account:

(a) the NSW Coastal Policy 1997,

(b) the Coastline Management Manual, and

The proposed development is considered to be inconsistent with the provisions of the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan Clause 32B which requires consideration of the NSW Coastal Policy 1997.

NSW Coastal Policy 1997

Development within the Coastal Zone must be consistent with the Aims, Objectives and Strategic Actions of the Coastal Policy.

The development proposal fails to meet the objective to conserve the diversity of all native plant and animal species and to protect and assist the recovery of threatened and endangered species.

State/Regional Planning Policies - Issues

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Objection - Non-compliance with Clause 11 of Byron LEP 1988

Pursuant to Clause 11 of Byron LEP 1988, the minimum area of a lot created within the 2(t) Tourist Area Zone is 1 hectare, whilst the minimum lot size for the 7(a) Wetland, 7(b) Coastal Habitat and 7(f1) Coastal lands zone is 40 hectares. As the proposed subdivision proposes to create a 1.39 hectare allotment within the 2(t) Tourist Area Zone this allotment is compliant with Clause 11. However the residue lot (proposed Lot 1) comprising predominantly Environmental Protection 7(a), 7(b) and 7(f1) zoned land only has an area of 20.25 hectares and is therefore less than the required 40 hectare minimum.

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 Environmental Protection 7(a), 7(b) and 7(f1) 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 is already below 40 hectares (Lot 2 DP 1131866 has a total area of 21.64 hectares).

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:

(a) the area of the existing allotment (Lot 2 DP 1131866) is 21.64 hectares. The allotment is already less than the 40 hectare minimum;

(b) a dwelling already exists on proposed Lot 1 and the subdivision will not result in an intensification of use of this residue lot, and

(c) the objection has planning merit by facilitating the excision of the 1.39 hectares of 2(t) Tourist Area Land from land zoned for Environmental Protection purposes.

In correspondence dated 11 October 2011 the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (Doc No.1151774) issued concurrence for the proposal stating, in part:

“Concurrence was granted in this instance for the reasons:

the proposed subdivision will retain all the environmental protection zoned land in a single lot (proposed Lot 1); and,
the subdivision will excise the 2(t) Tourist Area land to allow consideration of the development of an eco-tourist facility on the land in accordance with the zoning.”

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.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.71 – Coastal Protection (continued)

Clause 8 - Matters for consideration

(a) the aims of this Policy set out in clause 2,

(b) existing public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability should be retained and, where possible, public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability should be improved,

(c) opportunities to provide new public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability,

(d) the suitability of development given its type, location and design and its relationship with the surrounding area,

(e) any detrimental impact that development may have on the amenity of the coastal foreshore, including any significant overshadowing of the coastal foreshore and any significant loss of views from a public place to the coastal foreshore,

(f) the scenic qualities of the New South Wales coast, and means to protect and improve these qualities,

(g) measures to conserve animals (within the meaning of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) and plants (within the meaning of that Act), and their habitats,

(h) measures to conserve fish (within the meaning of Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994) and marine vegetation (within the meaning of that Part), and their habitats

(i) existing wildlife corridors and the impact of development on these corridors,

(j) the likely impact of coastal processes and coastal hazards on development and any likely impacts of development on coastal processes and coastal hazards,

(k) measures to reduce the potential for conflict between land-based and water-based coastal activities,

(l) measures to protect the cultural places, values, customs, beliefs and traditional knowledge of Aboriginals,

(m) likely impacts of development on the water quality of coastal waterbodies,

(n) the conservation and preservation of items of heritage, archaeological or historic significance,

(o) only in cases in which a council prepares a draft local environmental plan that applies to land to which this Policy applies, the means to encourage compact towns and cities,

(p) only in cases in which a development application in relation to proposed development is determined:

(i) the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the environment, and

(ii) measures to ensure that water and energy usage by the proposed development is efficient.

Assessment: Clause 8(g) requires: “that measures to conserve animals (within the meaning of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) and plants (within the meaning of that Act), and their habitats” are considered. Threatened species issues have been considered by the applicant but only subsequent to their discovery on-site and the development application was never prepared with these constraints in mind. I consider that the proposed measures to protect threatened species are currently inadequate. Although the residual land is proposed to be protected under covenant and managed under a plan of management, the information gathered to date indicates that the area proposed to be developed is of significant importance to the Common Planigale. The proposed development will result in loss of over 0.5ha of important breeding habitat for the local population of Common Planigale. Contrary to Clause 8(g) of SEPP No.71 it is concluded that the measures proposed to conserve threatened species and their habitat are inadequate.

3.2 BYRON LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1988

Zone: The subject site contains land within the 2(t) Tourist Area Zone, 7(a) Wetlands Zone, 7(b) Coastal Habitat Zone, 7(f1) Coastal Lands Zone. The areas of the site within each zone can be seen in Figure 1.

Definitions: Subdivision and Tourist Facilities (Including manager’s residence)

LEP Requirement	Summary of Requirement	Proposed	Complies
Satisfy objectives of the 2(t) Tourist Area Zone	The objectives are: (a) to identify land for tourist infrastructure and to encourage tourist accommodation and facilities, (b) to permit tourist development and uses associated with, ancillary to, or supportive of, tourist developments including retailing and service facilities where such facilities are an integral part of the tourist development and are of a scale relative to the needs of that development, and (c) to control by means of a development control plan the location, form, character and density of permissible development.	The proposed development is considered to be generally consistent with the objectives of the 2(t) Tourist Area Zone.	Yes
Permissible use	*tourist facilities* means an establishment providing holiday accommodation or recreation and may include a boat shed, boat landing facility, holiday cabin, hotel, house-boat, marina, motel, playground, primitive camping ground, restaurant, water sport facility or a club used in conjunction with any such facility. *subdivision* permissible with the consent of Council.	The proposed Ecolodge comprises four (4) guest bedrooms, common /living areas, communal kitchen/dining area, swimming pool, terrace/verandah, and car parking for six (6) vehicles. A separate free standing Manager’s Residence containing two (2) bedrooms, kitchen, bathroom, and open plan living/dining area is also proposed. The proposed development is considered to fall within the definition of a Tourist Facility a permissible use within the 2(t) zone. It is noted that the 2(t) zone does not permit residential dwellings however it is considered the proposed Manager’s Residence located in close proximity to the Ecolodge facility is ancillary and supportive of the proposed Ecolodge and is necessary for the efficient running and maintenance of this tourist facility.	Yes
Satisfy the Objectives of 7(b) Coastal Habitat Zone	The objectives are: (a) to identify coastal habitats (being wetlands, heath, sedge, marshland, rainforest types, schlerophyll forest and the like) of local significance, (b) to identify and preserve estuaries and other significant coastal habitat areas, wetlands and allow them to continue to function as feeding and breeding areas for wildlife, shellfish and fish, (c) to prohibit development within the zone that is likely to have a detrimental effect on the habitat or landscape qualities or the flood mitigation function of significant coastal habitat areas, including wetlands, (d) to enable development of public works and environmental facilities where such development would not have a significant detrimental effect on the habitat or landscape qualities of the wetland and other significant coastal habitat areas, and to enable the careful control of noxious plants and weeds by means not likely to be significantly detrimental to the native ecosystem.	The applicant proposes to remove vegetation from the 7(b) zone to create an access way to the site and to create an asset protection zone around the manager’s residence. Removal of known Common Planigale habitat in the 7(b) zoned land does not fulfil this zone objective. Further consideration of the proposed impacts on the 7(b) zone land following this table.	No (See LEP Issues section of this report)

Permissible use	*bush fire hazard reduction* means a reduction or modification of any types of combustible material, especially ground fuel, by burning, chemical, mechanical or manual means in order to reduce the hazard of bush fires in accordance with the Rural Fires Act 1997. *roads* (not defined) *subdivision* permissible with the consent of Council.	The proposed bushfire hazard reduction and roads are permissible with the consent of Council within the 7(b) zone.	Yes
Clause 2 - Aims, Objectives and Guiding Principles	(1) Aim The aim of this plan is to promote sustainable development in Byron by furthering the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, particularly in regard to: (d) the protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of native animals and plants, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities and their habitats. Guiding Principles (3)(a) The precautionary principle. The precautionary principle means that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the community’s ecological, social or economic systems, a lack of complete scientific evidence should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In some circumstances this will mean actions will need to be taken to prevent damage even when it is not certain that damage will occur. (c) The principle of conserving biological diversity and ecological integrity. This principle aims to protect, restore and conserve the native biological diversity and enhance or repair ecological processes and systems.	The proposal fails to demonstrate the protection of threatened species and their habitat having been designed without knowledge that the development footprint contains a viable population of Common Planigale. With significant uncertainty around the impacts of the development on the natural environment the precautionary principle must be applied in this situation due to a lack of scientific evidence with respect to impacts on threatened species and the natural environment more broadly. The development was designed without knowledge that the site is a stronghold for the Common Planigale and the size of the Ecolodge and comparative location of the manager’s residence are not considered to provide a minimal development footprint.	No
Clause 2A - Implementation of aim, objectives and guiding principles	(2) Before determining a development application, the council shall have regard to the information, guidelines and recommendations in the following strategies, policies and studies adopted by the council: (a) State of the Environment Report, (b) Byron Flora and Fauna Study, (c) Byron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, (d) Byron Rural Settlement Strategy, (e) Small Towns and Villages Settlement Strategies, (f) Coastline Management Plan.	See discussion in LEP Issues section of this report (following this table).	Yes (See further assessment in the LEP Issues section of this report)
Clause 11 – Subdivision in rural areas for agriculture etc.	Minimum area of allotment 1 hectare within 2(t) Tourist area zone. Minimum area of allotment within the 7(a) Wetland, 7(b) Coastal Habitat and 7(f1) Coastal Lands Zones is 40 hectares.	Proposed allotment within the 2(t) Zone has an area of 1.39 hectares. The proposed residual allotment has an area of 20.25 hectares and is within the 7(a) Wetland, 7(b) Coastal Habitat and 7(f1) Coastal Lands Zones.	Yes No (SEPP No.1 objection submitted. See State Planning Policies and instruments - Issues section of this report).
Clause 24 – Development of flood liable land	Council must be satisfied that: - flow characteristics of flood waters are not restricted; - the level of flooding is not increased; - any building or work is capable of withstanding flooding; - the building is adequately flood proofed; and - adequate arrangements are made for access to the building or work during a flood	The portion of the subject allotment on which the proposed tourist facility is to be located is not subject to flooding.	Yes
Clause 36 -Development adjoining wetland	The proposed development area is adjacent to land within the 7(a) Zone. Council is to consider: - likely effects on flora and fauna found in wetlands; - likely effects on the water table; and - effect on the wetlands of any proposed clearing, draining, excavating or filling.	The proposed development involves new building works and the clearing of vegetation. The proposed development is considered to likely have a significant effects on fauna (local population of Common Planigale) found in wetlands located in close proximity from the proposed development area.	No
Clause 40 - Height of buildings	The height and scale of the development must be appropriate to its location, surrounding development and the environmental characteristics of the land. Maximum height 4.5 metres to the topmost floor level and 9.0 metres topmost part of the building above existing ground level.	Ecolodge Overall height 7.87m Uppermost floor: 4.0m Manager’s Residence Overall height 6.74m Uppermost floor: 3.0m	Yes
Clause 45 - Provision of Services	Prior adequate arrangements must be made for the provision of services to the allotment.	Sewer: Adequate arrangements have been made for the provision of sewerage services to the allotment to accommodate the proposed use. Water: Adequate arrangements have been made for water services to the allotment. Drainage: Subject to conditions adequate arrangements could be made for the provision of drainage services.	Yes
Clause 63 - Development on land identified on the Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Map	The north-eastern part of the subject allotment partially contains Class 2 and 3 Potential Acid Sulfate Soils.	All works required for the proposed subdivision and rural tourist facility are located outside the area of the site identified as possibly containing potential acid sulphate soils.	Yes

BYRON LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1988 – Issues

7(b) – Coastal Habitat Zone

The applicant proposes to remove vegetation from the 7(b) zone to create an access way to the site and to create an asset protection zone around the manager’s residence.

Removal of known Common Planigale habitat in the 7(b) zoned land does not fulfil the zone objectives specifically (b) “to identify and preserve estuaries and other coastal habitat areas, wetlands and allow them to continue to function as feeding and breeding areas for wildlife …” and (c) “to prohibit development within the zone that is likely to have a detrimental effect on the habitat or landscape qualities … of significant coastal habitat areas …”.

The applicant’s ecological investigations highlight the importance of the area as breeding habitat for the Common Planigale. The proposal will result in the permanent removal of approximately 0.5 hectare of known Common Planigale habitat for the maintenance of an asset protection zone and upgraded access way. When the applicant addressed the objectives of the 7(b) zone in their statement of environmental effects they were not aware that the area to be cleared is important habitat for the Common Planigale. The planning report and the original Flora and Fauna Assessment acknowledges the access upgrade will result in removal of an estimated 27 native trees but does not consider the impact on Common Planigale habitat such as groundcovers, leaf litter and woody debris. I consider that the removal of vegetation and maintenance of an APZ in Common Planigale breeding area constitutes a “significant detrimental effect” on a “significant coastal habitat area(s)”.

Council’s Ecologist has previously insisted that the applicant consider repositioning of the access way through the 2(t) zone but has also indicated most recently that the existing access way could provide the most suitable access to the site. Both routes have merit but the overall disturbance in terms of tree and groundcover removal would be less if the access where to be through the 2(t) zone. Access through the 2(t) however would likely involve considerable cut and disturbance to the site.

Most recently, Council’s Ecologist has indicated to the applicant that the access through the 7(b) may provide a superior, or at least acceptable ecological outcome than a new access through the 2(t). However, the existing proposal will clearly impact on the 7(b) and does not meet the objectives of the zone. The proposal will still result in removal of known Common Planigale habitat and at least 27 trees that would not otherwise require removal if the access was established within the 2(t). Regardless of whether vegetation removal in this area could be considered permitted clearing under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 (planning report p.8 refers), Council’s Tree Preservation Order and the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 still applies.

Any future development application for the site must fully consider the advantages and disadvantages of formalising the existing access through the 7(b) zone versus creating a new access through the 2(t) zone.

Byron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2004 and Byron Flora and Fauna Study 1999

The Byron LEP 1988 requires that before determining a development application, the council shall have regard to the information, guidelines and recommendations in the Byron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2004 (BBCS) and the Byron Flora and Fauna Study 1999.

The BBCS objectives include identifying HCV vegetation and habitat and wildlife corridors that require protection, ecological restoration and/or threat abatement. The site has been mapped HCV as it contains Class 1 habitat (NPWS mapped threatened species habitat), old growth vegetation and lies within a wildlife corridor. The BBCS also includes priorities and principals that must be considered when assessing the impact of an activity and includes in-situ conservation, identifying and protecting areas of regional conservation significance (including the management of HCV for environmental protection) and the precautionary principle. These factors have been considered in determining whether the proposal is suitable at the subject site and conclude that the proposal has failed to avoid losses to biodiversity by creating a large development footprint in a highly significant area without addressing the ecological constraints.

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

No Draft Environmental Planning Instruments have been identified as relevant to this application.

3.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

Development Control Plan 2010

Chapter 1 Part B – Subdivision

Development Control Requirements	DCP Requirement	Proposed	Compliance
B2.3 - Site Design	The subdivision must take into account all natural and human – made aspects of the site to be developed.	The proposed subdivision relates to the existing 2(t) zone boundary existing on the site the proposed subdivision has considered these requirements.	Yes
B2.4 - Climate Control	The subdivision must take into consideration wind direction and vegetation types and location.	The proposed subdivision seeks to excise existing 2(t) zoned land and hill top location allows for summer breezes.	Yes
B2.5 - Aspect	The subdivision must take into consideration solar access.	The proposed subdivision of the elevated land allows for adequate solar access.	Yes
B4.5 - Stormwater Drainage	Facilitate effective drainage provision and management.	The proposed subdivision allows sufficient area to dispose of stormwater using on-site infiltration trenches.	Yes
B2.7 - Tree Preservation	The subdivision layout must encourage retention of existing trees.	The proposed subdivision seeks to follow existing 2(t) zone boundary and does not involve tree removal along the boundary.	Yes
B2.8 - Landscaping	The subdivision should take into consideration landscaping and Council should impose landscaping requirements where necessary.	Should the application have been recommended for approval conditions would have been imposed with regard to vegetation management.	Yes
B3.2, 3.3 & 3.4 – Roads	The subdivision must take into consideration road design.	The proposed subdivision seeks to gain access by upgrading an existing trail through the 7(b) zoned land. The road design is able to meet relevant standards.	Yes
B3.5 - Public Open Space	Subdivisions should form part of a pedestrian/cycleway network which connects the subdivision with other facilities including public open space areas (It is Council’s responsibility to establish to location of pedestrian/cycleway/public open areas using S.94 Contributions)	The subject site does not provide opportunities for linking such as part of a pedestrian/cycleway network.	Yes
B3.6 – Lot Size	Subdivision lot sizes are to comply with Part B5.1 of DCP 2010.	Control relates to residential subdivision.	N/A
B3.7 – Lot Frontage	The subdivision must take into consideration the orientation of each lot and its ability to provide a suitable house site with good aspect, useable private open space and adequate vehicle access.	Control relates to residential subdivision.	N/A

Chapter 1 Part C – Residential Development

Development Control Requirements	DCP Requirement	Proposed	Compliance
C2.3 – Buffer Areas	Applications for development within 1km of a quarry must demonstrate to Council’s satisfaction that there is a clear case for variation to the 1km buffer requirement.	Refer to comments within Section 3.5 of this report.	Yes (Refer to Section 3.5 of this report assessing proximity of Quarry site).
C2.5 – Building height plane	New development must not exceed the building height plane on any boundary.	The proposed buildings have generous setbacks to property boundaries and meet the building height plane.	Yes
C2.6 – Setback from street, side and rear boundaries	In rural zones, a setback of 15m applies to non arterial road frontages, 0.9m to side and rear boundaries.	The proposed Manager’s residence is located approximately 56m from the Broken Head Beach Road frontage and 48m from the Taylor’s Lake Road frontage. The Ecolodge building has a setback of 22m from the Taylor’s Lake Road frontage.	Yes
C2.7 – Extent of earthworks	Maximum cut: 1m Maximum fill: 1m	Proposed cut: 1.4m Proposed fill: 1.25m	No*
C2.8 – Screening the underfloor space of buildings	All elevated buildings are to be provided with either dwarf walls or sufficient infill panels and/or advanced landscaping to effectively screen the under floor space to improve the external appearance of buildings.	The building has been designed to sit into the slope of the site and does not require any under floor screening.	Yes
C9 – Motels, Hostels and Holiday Cabins	Minimum Site Area: 1200m² Minimum Frontage: 25m	Site Area: 1.393ha Frontage: >80m	Yes
C9.1 – Density Control	Maximum FSR: 1.2:1	Managers Res: 147m² Ecolodge: 412.05m² Total: 559.05m² FSR: 0.04:1	Yes
C9.2 – Equity of access and mobility	A minimum of 1 unit must be accessible in each development. Access to any laundry, kitchen, sanitary and common facilities must be in accordance with AS1428.2.	A condition can be included within the consent to require Bedroom 1 to meet this requirement.	Yes (able to be resolved by condition)
C9.3 – Character of motel units and cabins	Each motel unit or holiday cabin must contain eating and living areas adequate for the proposed number of occupants. Each motel unit or holiday cabin must have access to an outdoor sitting area adequate for the proposed number of occupants, which must be adjacent to the unit's or cabin's living area and which must provide adequate access to winter sun and summer shade. This outdoor area may form part of common access balconies.	The proposal includes an adequate kitchen/dining/living area that is adjacent to an outdoor sitting area (poolside terrace).	Yes
C9.5 – On-site car parking	Car parking to be provided in accordance with Part G.	Refer to assessment follow this table below.	Yes
C9.6 – Landscaped Area	Landscaped area of the site available for common use must be provided at a rate of 25m² per medium sized unit (20-30m²) and 30m² per unit for large units (>30m²).	The proposal includes 3 x medium units and 1 x large unit which generates a minimum 105m² of landscaped area. The proposal includes over 500m² of landscaped area on site.	Yes
C9.7 – Garbage	1 x 240L wheelie bin per each 3 motel units and 1 x 240L wheelie bin for the manager’s residence.	A condition can be included within the consent to ensure the proposal meets this requirement.	Yes (able to be resolved by condition)
C9.8 – Vehicle movements	The objective is to facilitate safe, convenient vehicle access to development. Vehicle driveways must be designed to allow for dual transit adjacent to the office or reception area.	Car parking spaces are proposed adjacent to the manager’s residence and the ecolodge which will allow safe access for vehicles.	Yes
C9.9 – Pedestrian movements	Paths of travel throughout the site must be continuous and accessible so as to provide access for people with disabilities.	Conditions can be included within the consent to ensure the proposal meets this requirement.	Yes (able to be resolved by condition)
C9.10 – Sound proofing	Division walls between attached units must be of sound resisting construction, with a minimum sound transmission loss in accordance with the BCA.	Conditions could have been included to ensure the proposal met this requirement.	Yes (able to be resolved by condition)
C9.11 – Pipes and vents	All service pipes and vents must be concealed within the walls of tourist developments. Access must be provided as required by the relevant authorities. However, provision of recessed service pipes in external walls may be acceptable subject to individual assessment.	The design meets this requirement.	Yes
C9.12 – TV Antennas	A common TV antennae and/or dish must be provided for all units of the development.	Conditions could have been included to ensure the proposal met this requirement.	Yes (able to be resolved by condition)

Part G – Vehicle Parking & Circulation

The site is served by Beach Road which is a sealed rural road capable of taking the additional traffic from this development. The Beach Road speed limit is 50 KPH. The proposal is to construct a sealed driveway from Beach Road to the new buildings. The alignment is to follow the existing track alignment.

The buildings consist of a holiday lodge with 4 bedrooms and a 2 bed room managers unit. A double garage is proposed at the lodge with 4 spaces adjacent to the driveway. Two parking spaces are proposed adjacent to the managers unit.

Spaces Required = holiday lodge @ 1 per bedroom + 1 visitor + managers unit @ 2 = 7

Spaces Proposed = 8

The proposal is considered to be able to satisfy the relevant provisions of Chapter 1 Part G Vehicular Circulation and parking.

Part J – Coastal Erosion

The eastern area of proposed Lot 1 is shown to be in Costal Erosion Precinct 3. Should the application been considered favourably a condition to require an appropriate 88E Restriction as to User to be placed on the title would have been recommended.

Part N – Stormwater Management

The site is a large site capable of disposing of stormwater runoff on-site using infiltration trenches and is able to satisfy the relevant provisions of Part N Stormwater Management.

Development Control Plan 2010 - Issues

C2.7 – Extent of earthworks

The requirements of Part C2.7 are as follows:

Element Objective

- To minimise environmental impact.

- To blend new development into the landscape.

- Minimise the disturbance to the natural landform.

- Minimise the risk of soil erosion and sedimentation.

- Encourage landowners to design dwellings that are in keeping with the natural landform.

Performance Criteria

Site disturbance by cut and fill of earthworks is to be minimised.

Prescriptive Measures

Excavation of earthworks is to be limited to a depth of 1 metre. Filling is to be limited to a height of 1 metre.

Assessment: The proposed development exceeds the Prescriptive Measures of Part C2.7 as the plans provided show a maximum cut of 1.4 metres and filling of up to 1.25 metres. A previous proposal that was submitted to Council for a similar development on the site included a cut of 2.2 metres.

The Applicant has requested a minor variation to the Prescriptive Measures of Part C2.7 on the basis that the building has been designed to fit into the slope of the site, with a lower floor positioned downslope of the main floors of both the Manager’s Residence and the Ecolodge buildings.

Given the bush fire prone nature of the site, the design of the development includes blockwork walls and colorbond roofing. Excessive use of flammable materials such as timber has been avoided. The blockwork construction requires additional earthworks to be carried out on the sloping site. The proposed areas of excavation and fill are contained to within the building footprint and are considered to have been minimised in accordance with the Performance Criteria. The minor variations (up to 0.4m) to the maximum 1.0m cut and fill requirements are supported in this case.

3.4 The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality

Natural Environment

The proposal will result in the loss of approximately 0.5ha of high conservation value vegetation within a mapped wildlife corridor that has been demonstrated, through targeted surveys, to be important breeding habitat for the Common Planigale. The removal of native vegetation of this scale particularly native vegetation of high conservation value in good condition rarely occurs in association with development in Byron Shire. The natural environment of the Broken Head area is highly significant, containing a range of forest ecosystems and habitat for numerous threatened species.

The applicant has acknowledged this in their Statement of Environmental Effects. Page 4 of the applicants planning report states: “the existing area of residential tourist zoned land is recognised by both the landowner and Council as being highly environmentally constrained. As such, this area has no realistic prospects of future residential tourist development”. However, the additional studies conducted since that report was written clearly demonstrate that the other portion of 2(t) zoned land which is the subject of this development application is also highly constrained and should not be developed in the proposed way. Clearly, the proposal has not been designed with the knowledge that breeding habitat of a threatened species occurs on the site and therefore has not been designed in a way that minimises the impact on known threatened species habitat, and does not integrate with the natural environment as proposed by the applicant. Despite acknowledging the significance of the area the applicant had not undertaken the necessary ecological investigations to identify constraints on the site and has not designed a proposal that is compatible with the ecological values of the subject site.

Built Environment

It is considered the location of the proposed structures whilst being on elevated land should not result in the structures having an unacceptable visual impact when viewed from the beach or from any other public vantages points in the immediate area.

The proposed 50 metre setback of the buildings from Beach Road and the retention of existing trees and vegetation adjacent to Beach Road should result in the proposal not having an unacceptable visual impact when viewed from Beach Road.

Social and economic impacts in the locality

The applicant has submitted a Cultural Heritage Assessment prepared by Everick Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd (dated November 2011). The Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal) has concurred with the recommendations of the report. A nominated Arakwal representative was to be made available for monitoring in the initial excavations of the footings as outlined in the report. The proposal is not anticipated to have any unacceptable social or economic impacts in the locality.

3.5 The suitability of the site for the development

Threaten Species (Common Planigale)

As detailed in Section 2.4 of this report the subject site is identified to contain the Common Planigale which is a threaten species. The proposal involves tree and vegetation removal and subsequently the loss of habitat for the Common Planigale. Based on the information gathered, there is a likelihood that the development will result in a significant effect on the Common Planigale population.

Bushfire prone land

The subject site is identified by Council’s hazard mapping to be bushfire prone land. As detailed in Section 2.3 of this report the NSW Rural Fire Service has raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions including requirements for the establishment of Asset Protection Zones around the proposed facilities.

Proximity of Broken Head Quarry

The subject site is located approximately 550 metres from the face of the Broken Head Quarry. Council’s DCP 2010 recommends a separation buffer of 1km between quarries and residential dwellings. Whilst the distance cannot comply with the buffer prescribed in the DCP the current separation distance complies with the 500 metre buffer recommended by the DPI between extractive industries (not including blasting) and rural residential development. Refer to

Table 6: Recommended minimum buffers (metres) for primary industries, contained in the Living and Working in Rural Areas – A handbook for managing land use conflict issues of the NSW North Coast, prepared by the NSW Department of Primary Industries dated 2007.

Proximity of a culturally significant Aboriginal Area

The proposed development area is located within close proximity of the culturally significant aboriginal area of Ti Tree (Taylors) Lake. The applicant has submitted a Cultural Heritage Assessment prepared by Everick Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd (dated November 2011). The Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal) has concurred with the recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Assessment.

3.6 Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

The proposed development is a Level 2 development under Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications procedures contained within Council’s DCP 2010 and the development application was advertised from the 8 September 2011 - 21 September 2011.

In response to the public notification process Council received a total of fourteen (14) submissions in respect of the proposed development. The following table contains a summary of the issues raised in the submissions.

Issues raised	Comment
The proposal is likely to effect biodiversity given the known threatened and endangered species of flora and fauna in the area.	Council’s Ecologist has advised that a Species Impact Statement is necessary in this instance as the proposal is likely to have a significant impact on a Threatened Species (the Common Planigale). This issue is considered to warrant refusal of the application.
The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.	The proposed development footprint is not considered to have minimised environmental impacts.
A Species Impact Statement is required to examine the impact on the Threatened Species and their habitat.	Council’s Ecologist has advised that a Species Impact Statement is necessary in this instance to further examine the impact of the proposal on a threatened species (the Common Planigale). This issue is considered to warrant refusal of the application.
The proposed tree removal is excessive.	The applicant has specified “It is intended to that trees removed during the construction phase, will be replaced on site at the ratio of (5) new trees for every tree removal.” The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed tree removal will not have unacceptable impacts on a Threatened Species (the Common Planigale).
The locality is home to koalas and the site should be assessed as being potential koala habitat.	Trees on the subject land are not considered to contain more than 15% koala feed tree species as listed within Schedule 2 of SEPP 44 (Koala Habitat Protection). In the absence of a known breeding population of koalas on the site it is not considered to be ‘core koala habitat’.
The site is within a direct catchment to Taylors Lake and mismanagement of stormwater could have adverse environmental impacts.	Should the application have been considered favourably conditions could have been imposed with regard to stormwater management to ensure the proposal does not have any adverse impacts on Ti Tree (Taylors) Lake.
The proposed Bushfire Asset Protection Zones will result in adverse environmental impacts associated with tree and vegetation removal.	Concerns regarding vegetation removal associated with the proposed bush fire asset protection zones are acknowledged. It is considered the proposed design of the facilities has not adequately minimised the building footprint of the structures and minimised vegetation removal in an environmentally sensitive area.
Bush fire impacts are too great to allow the proposed tourist use to proceed.	The NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) has raised no objection to the proposal with regard to bush fire subject to conditions which include the establishment of Asset Protection Zones around the proposed buildings. The conditions recommended by the NSW RFS are detailed in Section 2.1 of this report.
The proposal may be visible from Cape Byron.	The height of the proposed structures and density of vegetation should ensure the proposal does not have an unacceptable visual impact when viewed from public vantage points including Cape Byron.
Inadequate flora and fauna investigation and assessment of potential impacts (as provided by Australian Wetlands Consulting Pty Ltd (AWC) 2011). In this regard the assessment includes: · A lack of adequate flora and fauna surveys · Inadequate consideration of Threatened Species · An underestimation of the impacts of the development on flora and fauna habitat · A lack of consideration of previous investigations in the locality · Failure to detect two plants of the Swamp Orchid (listed as Endangered Species)	Additional flora and fauna assessments were submitted to Council (dated 11^th and 25^th November 2011). Following a review of the additional information Council’s Ecologist has reached the conclusion that the proposal is likely to have a significant impact on a Threatened Species (this is an issue which is included as recommended ground for refusal).
Despite the requirement for substantial vegetation removal within the site no details are provided of the provision of adequate, guaranteed offsets or compensatory measures.	The applicant has specified “It is intended to that trees removed during the construction phase, will be replaced on site at the ratio of (5) new trees for every tree removal.” Should the application have been considered favourably condition/s would have been recommended to require the preparation and implementation of a Vegetation Management Plan and where appropriate replacement plantings.
A facility of this size and nature lends itself perfectly to entertaining and parties and we are concerned that this will generate a lot of noise with the worst case scenario being parties or functions on a regular basis.	The subject site and nearest dwelling-houses are located within the 2(t) Tourist Zone. The proposed development is of a scale and character that is typical of other developments within 2(t) zones in Byron Bay and Broken Head. The Applicant provided correspondence confirming that the tourist facility will not be used for parties/functions. Should the application have been considered favourably a condition could have be included to specify the premises are not to be used for regular parties/functions.
The poor quality of the Development Application raises concerns about the Council’s role in assessing the application prior to deeming it to be of an acceptable standard for public exhibition and comment. The failure of adequate assessment of the information presented in the application is the most disturbing issue in light of the Council’s known commitment to ecological protection.	Council is not required to make an assessment as to whether technical information accompanying a Development Application is of an acceptable standard to be placed on public exhibition. Council is required to exhibit applications as they are submitted in accordance with DCP 2010.
The application does not include an adequate 7 Part Test and therefore does not fully consider the impacts of the development on the natural environment.	Council’s Ecologist has reviewed the information provided by the applicant and has reached the conclusion that the proposal is likely to have a significant impact on a threatened species.
The approval for the Pavilions development (issued by the State Government) included a detailed condition with respect to the management of/conservation of 7(a) Wetlands and 7(b) Coastal Habitat Zones. The DA does not address this issue.	It is noted that Condition B17 of the referenced development consent for the neighbouring ‘Pavilions’ development required the preparation of a framework for the management of the Environmental Protection 7(a) Wetland and 7(b) Coastal Habitat zoned land on the subject site. A proposed framework was subsequently prepared by Hang Ten Developments which details various matters for consideration by the applicant when preparing a development application over the subject site. This ‘framework’ is not a matter for consideration in the assessment of a development application pursuant to Section 79C of the EP&A Act 1979. Notwithstanding the above, the applicant has proposed that Lot 1 is to be retained in its natural state and is to be subject to specific covenants and a Conservation Management Plan. The applicant proposes that the 20.25 hectare Lot 1 will be protected from any future development by restrictive and/or positive covenants imposed under the Conveyancing Act 1919.
Inadequate assessment of the impact of the development on the Aboriginal values and heritage of the surrounding area. Aboriginal consultation should be carried out.	Following the completion of the public notification period the applicant submitted a ‘Cultural Heritage Assessment’ prepared by Everick Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd dated November 2011. Accompanying the Cultural Heritage Assessment was a copy of a letter from the Chief Executive Officer of the Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal) advising it concurs with the recommendations contained in the Cultural Heritage Assessment (see Annexure 18(b) for a copy of the letter). The Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service) has raised no objection to the Cultural Heritage Assessment subject to various conditions. A copy of correspondence dated 21 December 2011 from the Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service) is contained within Annexure 18(b).
The area is a wildlife corridor and the impacts of the development (including traffic and APZ’s) would have an unacceptable level of impact on biodiversity.	The subject site is identified as containing a wildlife corridor by Council’s Byron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. This matter has been considered in Council’s ecological assessment of the proposal as detailed in Byron LEP Issues Section of this report. It is assessed that the proposal has failed to avoid losses to biodiversity by creating a large development footprint in a highly significant area without addressing the ecological constraints.
The site is inappropriately zone 2(t) Tourist Area Zone.	The zoning of all land within Byron Shire is established by Council’s adopted Local Environmental Plan 1988. A review of the zoning of the subject site and is not a matter for assessment as part of the development application process.
The proposal will present a negative visual/scenic impact in the area as the development will be visible from many perspectives.	It is considered the existing vegetation on the site proposed to be retained should prevent any unacceptable visual impact by the development.
The proposed 2 storey development for this site is inappropriate.	Two storey buildings are permissible on the subject site subject to compliance with LEP height controls. It is considered the proposed two storey design do not raise any additional planning issues in this instance and likely results in the building footprint of the proposal being reduced.
Inappropriate impacts on the 7(a) and 7(b) zones.	It is acknowledged that the upgrade works for the internal access road involve tree and vegetation removal within the 7(b) Zone. As detailed in ‘Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988 - Issues’ Section of this report the access upgrade will result in removal of an estimated 27 native trees but does not adequately consider the impact on Common Planigale habitat such as groundcovers, leaf litter and woody debris.
Inappropriate scale of development. Lack of assessment of traffic impacts.	The proposal is considered likely to result in a minimal increase in traffic and should not have any significant impact on the surrounding road network.
The proposal ignores the impacts that other components of the development will have on the environment (eg. water main).	Should the application have been considered favourably the potential environmental impacts associated with installation of a ‘sewer’ main were able to be resolved by way of conditions. The route of the sewer line is flexible to minimise disturbance.
The DA notes some vegetation communities on site are affected by weeds but then makes no effort to show how this problem will be addressed. A management plan should be included as part of the DA for the whole property. Management for conservation would be more secure if the landowner entered into a trust agreement or conservation agreement.	Should the application have been recommended for approval the applicant had an expectation that a condition would be imposed to require the preparation of Vegetation Management Plan for the subject site. The Vegetation Management Plan was expected to require all noxious weeds to be removed from the site. The applicant has also proposed that Lot 1 is to be retained in its natural state by way of specific covenants.
Guests of the facility will have an expectation of views given the hill top location and the development will be constructed to accommodate these which will result in adverse visual impacts.	Speculation regarding the expectations of guests of the facility is not a planning consideration.
The SEPP 1 variation should not be supported as the proposed subdivision is not sustainable within the Broken Head locality.	The merits of the proposed SEPP No.1 Objection are assessed in the State/Regional Planning Policies - Issues Section of this report. The proposed subdivision to excise the subject land within the 2(t) Zone from the remainder of the site is considered to have planning merit.
No development should be carried out within the 7(b) Coastal Habitat zone (including the road and Asset Protection Zone).	An assessment of the proposal and its impacts on the 7(b) zoned land is detailed in Byron LEP 1988 - Issues section of this report. The proposal will clearly impact on the 7(b) zone and does not meet the objectives of the zone. The proposal will result in removal of known Common Planigale habitat and including at least 27 trees that would not otherwise require removal if the access was established within the 2(t).
A fauna study is required targeting threatened fauna. A full assessment of impacts on the littoral rainforest and the endangered phaius should be provided.	As detailed in Section 2.4 of this report the applicant has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the impacts are unlikely to have a significant effect on a threatened fauna species. In the absence of a comprehensive assessment that enables that possibility to be ruled out then it must be assumed that the affect will be significant. The proposed development area is not identified as being littoral rainforest. The proposal is not considered likely to have a significant impact on the Southern Swamp Orchid (phaius).
Careful consideration is required for the ongoing conservation and management of vegetation on the site.	Should the application have been recommended for approval the applicant had an expectation that a condition would be imposed to require the preparation of vegetation management plan for the subject site. The Vegetation Management Plan was expected to require all noxious weeds to be removed from the site. The applicant has also proposed that Lot 1 is to be retained in its natural state by way of specific covenants.
A high standard development will benefit the tourist industry in the Byron Shire, and in particular in Broken Head.	Noted.
Byron Shire and in particular Broken Head needs more tourist accommodation where the zoning allows.	Noted.
This development will not affect the parking amenity of those further down the road towards the beach.	Noted.
Council approval of developments such as this will help resolve and control the holiday accommodation problem in Byron and also bring much needed money into our local economy which will help provide employment opportunities and futures for our children.	Noted.
The rental of residential property to tourists in Suffolk Park is a huge problem for our local community who live and work in the area and this project shows the way forward to a sustainable and environmentally responsible future for tourism in Byron Bay.	Noted.
The development is primarily in the 2(t) Tourist Zone with the upgraded existing road traversing a smallish section of 7(b) Coastal Habitat Zone. The development proposal is modest in size and buildings are fully within the 2(t) zone. The proposal is environmentally responsible and will generate much needed employment both during the construction phase and later on as a small scale tourism facility, thus bringing economic benefits to the area.	Noted.

3.7 Public interest

The proposed development does not significantly compromise the public interest.

4. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

4.1 Water & Sewer Levies

This property currently pays water and sewerage access charges but is not connected to either of these Council services. Should the application have been recommended for approval Council could supply water and sewerage to the proposed development on payment of Developer Servicing Charges.

4.2 Section 94 Contributions

Should the application been recommended for approval a condition would have been required for the payment of Section 94 contributions in accordance with Council’s Development Contributions Plan 2005.

5. CONCLUSION

The proposed structures associated with the Tourist Facility are located within the 2(t) Tourist Area Zone and consistent with the objectives of that Zone. The proposed access trail to be upgraded and part of the bushfire asset protection zone for the manager’s residence involve works and vegetation removal within the 7(b) Coastal Habitat Zone.

The proposed development (including bush fire asset protection zones and access road) involves the removal of approximately 0.5 hectare of high conservation value vegetation within a mapped wildlife corridor that has been demonstrated, through targeted surveys, to be an important breeding habitat for the ‘Common Planigale’. Council’s ecologist considers that the proposal would result in a significant effect on the local population of (a threatened species listed under Schedule 2 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) and therefore a Species Impact Statement (SIS) is required pursuant to Section 78A(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and has not been submitted.

Any future development application for the site will need to demonstrate greater integration with, and reduced impact on, the natural environment. The current proposal was not designed with the sites significant ecological values in mind including the presence of breeding habitat for the common planigale within the proposed development footprint. Consequently, the proposal is not ecologically sustainable, will not conserve biodiversity or threatened species habitat and fails to meet the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and the aims and objectives of the Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988.

The development site is in proximity to culturally significant Aboriginal Area of Ti Tree (Taylors) Lake. The applicant has submitted a ‘Cultural Heritage Assessment’ prepared by Everick Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd dated November 2011. Accompanying the Cultural Heritage Assessment was a copy of a letter from the Chief Executive Officer of the Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal) advising it concurs with the recommendations contained in the report. The Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service) has raised no objection to the Cultural Heritage Assessment subject to various conditions.

The proposed development involves excavation to maximum depth of 1.4 metres and fill to a height of 1.25 metres in contrary to Element C2.7 of Councils DCP 2010 which limits cut and fill 1.0m. The proposed non-compliance with the cut and fill control is considered acceptable in this instance on this sloping site for the reasons detailed in the body of this report.

In response to the public notification period a total of Fourteen (14) submissions were received and the matters raised in the submissions have been discussed in the body of this report.

Overall the proposal is considered likely to have a significant affect on a threatened species and a Species Impact Statement has not been provided to demonstrate otherwise. The application is recommended for refusal for the reasons listed at the end of the report.

6. RECOMMENDATION

That pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Development Application No. 10.2011.306.1, for a two lot subdivision and tourist facility (four bedroom tourist accommodation facility and a detached manager’s residence), be refused for the following reasons.

Reasons for refusal

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

ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT – EXECUTIVE MANAGER’S REPORT

Report No. 12.11.

PLANNING - BSC ats Abramovich LEC 10034/2012

Executive Manager: Organisational Support

File No: COR653000 x 214180D x 80.2012.2 x 10.2010.274.1 #1191081

Principal Activity:

Legal Services

Summary:

To advise Council of receipt of a new Class 1 Appeal against Council’s refusal of development application 10.2010.274.1 for a 3-residential lot community title subdivision at 40 Corkwood Crescent, Suffolk Park.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

RECOMMENDATION:

That this report be noted and the General Manager be authorised to manage the litigation in accordance with the General Manager’s general delegations.

Attachments:

· Judgment LEC 10566/2009 #948117 [14 pages].............................................................. Annexure 21(a)

· Final Short Minutes of Order LEC 10566/2009 with approved plans #987368 [25 pages].... Annexure 21(b)

· Class 1 Appeal LEC 10034/2012, without annexures except the site layout plan
pt #1190946 [5 pages]................................................................................................... Annexure 21(c)

· Copy Development Assessment Report 10.2010.274.1 #1157381 [18 pages].................... Annexure 21(d)

Report

The property the subject of the appeal is located at 40 Corkwood Crescent, Suffolk Park.

Historical Development Application (10.2007.798.1) and Appeal (LEC 10566/2009)

Development Application 10.2007.798.1 originally sought approval for a 3-residential lot community title subdivision (consisting of 3 dwelling lots and 1 community title lot). The development application was reported to Council on 23 April 2009 with a recommendation for approval subject to conditions and Council resolved to refuse the application as follows:

09-288 Resolved that pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act
1979, development application No. 10.2007.798.1, for Community title subdivision comprising three Neighbourhood Lots and one Community Lot, be refused for the following reasons:

a) The applicant has not demonstrated that there would not be an unacceptable impact on wildlife (REP clause 29A, LEP clause 2(a)2).

b) Given the established character of the area, proposed lot sizes are too small to support the development whilst retaining significant landscape features (DCP 2002 B5.1).

c) Non-compliance with clause 11 of the LEP.

d) Non-compliance with S88B Instrument (restriction of subdivision)

e) Not in the public interest.

The applicant for 10.2007.798, Chris Lonergan, commenced a Class 1 Appeal against Council’s refusal, LEC 10566/2009.

This Class 1 appeal was originally reported to Council on 8 October 2009 at which time Council resolved:

“09-801 Resolved that this report be noted and the General Manager be authorised to manage the litigation in accordance with the General Manager’s general delegations.”

Hearings in that appeal, occurred before Commissioner Hussey on-site, in Ballina and then in Sydney, between 25 November 2009 and 5 February 2010. Council were represented by Kirston Gerathy of HWL Ebsworth and retained Mr Steven Layman, external expert planner, to provide planning evidence on Council’s behalf (as planning staff had initially supported the application). Evidence was also given at the hearing by a number of residents of the area objecting to the application.

Interim Judgment was handed down 25 March 2010 indicating the Courts willingness to approve a 3 lot subdivision (2 residential lots and 1 community lot). A copy of the Commissioner’s judgment is attached at Annexure 21(a).

The Commissioner sought amended plans and documents from the Applicant should they wish to pursue the reduced 2-residential lot proposal. The Applicant proceeded to provide the Court with amended plans and the Council submitted to the Court conditions of consent which the Council sought to have imposed on any approval granted by the Court.

The amended plans and Council’s proposed conditions were referred back to the Court on a number of occasions. As a result of an agreement being unable to be reached on conditions which should be imposed, the matter was referred back to Commissioner Hussey on 21 May 2010. On that occasion, the Commissioner declined to impose a condition requiring a s88B to be registered on the title limiting the number of houses on the 2 residential lots to single dwellings but did impose a condition requiring a s88B on proposed Lot 1 prohibiting future subdivision of that lot only. Attached at Annexure 21(b) is a copy of the Short Minutes of Order (ie the Court Orders) that arose from DA 10.2007.798.1 and appeal LEC 10566/2009.

In effect, in that appeal the Commissioner reduced the development from the proposed 3-residential lot subdivision to a 2-residential lot subdivision. However, as reported to the Council Ordinary Meeting 6 June 2010 in the final report on the appeal, the Interim Judgment of Commissioner Hussey expressly ‘left the door open’ [refer to paragraphs 41-43 of the judgment] for the potential for future development applications to be lodged proposing subdivision of the Lot 2, if further details of satisfactory building designs and siting etc could be provided by the Applicant.

Current Development Application (10.2010.274.1) and Appeal (LEC 10034/2012)

Development Application 10.2010.274.1 was lodged on 9 June 2010. It sought approval for a 3-residential lot community title subdivision, similar to the proposal refused previously by Council and the Court but now with smaller proposed building envelopes. Since lodgement the applicant submitted multiple amended plans, all of which were assessed by Council as still being unsatisfactory. Ultimately, the development application was refused on 27 October 2011 under delegated authority. Refer to Attachment 21(d) for a copy of the Assessment Report including reasons for refusal.

The applicant lodged a Class 1 appeal against the refusal. Council has instructed HWL Ebsworth to file an appearance on Council’s behalf. HWL Ebsworth appeared for Council in the first appeal and are therefore familiar with the property and the issues arising with the proposed development. The first call over is scheduled for 20 February 2012.

In the first appeal, Council retained an external expert town planner, whose evidence was accepted by the Court. Council’s solicitors have been instructed to seek to retain the same expert planner, subject of course to his availability, because of his experience with the property and the proposed development.

There were 4 submissions received as a result of exhibition of the current proposal. Every person who made a formal submission during the designated exhibition period will be entitled to appear at and give evidence to the hearing if they elect to.

Council’s options in this matter include:

1. Defending the appeal.

With this option Council would instruct solicitors and retain an independent expert town planner, preferably the planning expert retained in the first appeal. At the hearing, people who lodged formal submissions would have the right, if they wanted, to appear before and give their evidence to the Court.

If the applicant requested a s34 Conciliation Conference it is possible the Court would agree with such request and order a s34 Conciliation Conference occur prior to a hearing, however, Council would object given the long history of this matter and the vast amount of information and opportunities the applicant has already been provided with. Objectors cannot appear at or participate in s34 Conferences.

After or without a s34 Conference, the matter would be listed for hearing and the external expert would be asked to prepare evidence jointly with the Applicant’s expert. Given the issues in the matter, the hearing should be able to be concluded in 2 days, however, that did not happen during the last appeal which ran over 3 different sittings due to the number of times the applicant was given opportunities by the Court to amend their proposal.

2. Attempt to Finalise by Consent Orders

If Council were of a mind to reconsider the refusal, it could authorise the General Manager to enter into Consent Orders granting approval subject to conditions deemed satisfactory by staff, with a further resolution to defend the appeal in the event that the Applicant does not agree with the Consent Orders.

In this option, Council would instruct solicitors to make an offer to enter into Consent Orders subject to conditions. If the Applicant agreed with the proposed conditions, the appeal would proceed to a ‘Consent Orders hearing’, where Council and the Applicant would ask the Court to make Orders by Consent, but only after every person who made a formal submission who wanted to give evidence had had that opportunity. However, if the Applicant disagreed with the proposed conditions, the appeal would continue and hence the need for Council, if it chooses this option, to also resolve to defend in the event that the matter cannot be resolved by Consent Orders.

Financial Implications

Council’s legal and expert witness costs in the first appeal were approximately $57,000. The costs were higher than would normally be incurred in a straight forward Class 1 appeal because of the unusually high number of changes to the proposal and the plans which the Court allowed to be made during the hearing, which in turn generated a large number of procedural appearances before the Court and extended the hearing time considerably.

For this appeal, the costs should be less given the experience and knowledge that Council’s solicitor and external expert planner (assuming availability) already have from participating in the first hearing. Further, given the latitude previously shown by the Court to the applicant, Council would most strenuously object to that occurring again in this appeal. However, ultimately of course it will be a matter for the Court to determine how this appeal proceeds. Council may reserve its rights to claim, subject to legal advice, all or part of its costs given the history of the matter.

Human resource implications involved staff from the Local Approvals preparing for the hearing and preparing draft conditions and Legal Services staff attended the hearing and provided instructions.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

In the last appeal, a novel point of law was raised in relation to Clause 11 of Byron Local Environment Plan 1988 as it was then. That point of law has been addressed by an amendment to the LEP and it will now not arise in this appeal.

Any judgment in this matter is likely to be determined on the merits of the particular proposal, as happened in the last appeal, and if that occurs it is unlikely to have any precedent implications for Council. However, the application is an in-fill residential proposal and the manner in which the Court assesses it, may inform future Council decisions for matters with similar facts and therefore could have some policy implications.

SOCIETY AND CULTURE - EXECUTIVE MANAGER’S REPORTS

Report No. 12.12.

Companion Card Program – Council Affiliation

Executive Manager: Society and Culture

File No: ADM303000 #1195398

Principal Activity:

Community Services

Summary:

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the outcome of the public exhibition period regarding Council’s proposal to become an Affiliate of the Companion Card Program. No submissions were received.

The report seeks Council’s adoption of the Companion Card Program and adoption of the related changes to Council’s Adopted Fees and Charges for 2011/12 (including free entry into Mullumbimby and Byron Bay pools for attendant carers visiting the pool with the holder of a Companion Card).

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council note that Council’s proposal to become an Affiliate of the Companion Card Program, and the related proposed changes to Council’s Adopted Fees and Charges 2011/12, were placed on public exhibition from 12 January to 9 February 2012.

2. That Council note that no submissions were received during the public exhibition period.

3. That Council adopt the Companion Card Program and update Council’s adopted 2011/12 Fees and Charges accordingly.

4. That Council make current lessees, new lessees and Section 355 Committees of Council facilities aware of Council’s membership of the Companion Card Program.

5. That Council encourage sporting, community and cultural organisations to support the Companion Card Program.

6. That Council’s website be updated to promote Council as a Companion Card Affiliate organisation.

7. That Council displays the Companion Card sign at the Byron Shire swimming pools in Byron Bay and in Mullumbimby.

Attachments:

· Companion Card Brochure #1013940 [2 pages]................................................................... Annexure 13

Report

Council resolved (11-832) to place on public exhibition a proposal to become an Affiliate of the Companion Card Program, and to make related changes to its adopted Fees and Charges for 2011/12. The proposal was placed on exhibition between 12 January and 9 February 2012. Advertisements were placed in the Byron Shire News, notified on Council’s website and hard copies were also placed at the Council Administration building in Mullumbimby.

No submissions were received. This report recommends adoption of the Companion Card Program (CCP) and related changes to the Adopted Fees and Charges for 2011/12. A brochure on the CCP is attached at Annexure 13.

Companion Card Program

People with a disability who require attendant care/support are often required to pay two admissions and/or booking fees when they participate at public venues/activities: one for themselves and one for their carers. The CCP aims to increase access to recreational opportunities for people with severe or profound disabilities by requiring affiliates to the program to issue a second ticket for carers at no charge to cardholders.

Council’s affiliation with the CCP will allow the carers of people with severe or profound disabilities to access Council‑managed activities, events and facilities free of charge. Undertaking this initiative supports Council’s Disability Access and Inclusion Plan and its Positive Ageing Policy. The social inclusion benefits are significant.

It is intended that the two Council-owned pools in the Shire will be promoted as accepting the Companion Card. The proposed change would allow free entry into Mullumbimby and Byron Bay swimming pools for attendant carers visiting the pool with the holder of a Companion Card. The management of both swimming pools have been consulted and have confirmed that they fully support the Program.

Should Council adopt the CCP, Council’s s355 Committees will also be advised, and other community groups will be encouraged to support the program. The Ocean Shores Community Centre, for example, has already indicated to staff that it will accept the Companion Card and will provide free entry to activities and events for the carer of a person who is a holder of the card.

Financial Implications

There is no cost to Council to join the Companion Card Program. Affiliate members are listed on the Companion Card website, are provided with promotional material, and are requested to display the Companion Card logo.

The ongoing cost to Council would be the need to subsidise the cost of a second ticket or admission price to events and venues. This would include admission to the Mullumbimby and Byron Bay Pools, and potentially, any events organised by Council requiring the purchase of tickets.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Byron Shire Council Disability Access and Inclusion Plan (2008-2013)

Byron Shire Council Positive Ageing Policy 10/002

Disability Discrimination Act (1992) [DDA]

Report No. 12.13.

2011 New Year's Eve Report

Executive Manager: Society and Culture

File No: ADM402120 #1183437

Principal Activity:

Community Services

Summary:

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with feedback on 2011 New Year’s Eve activities and to present recommendations for the 2012/13 event. The 2011 event was well-received and management proposes that a similar approach and format is implemented for New Year’s Eve 2012, with the addition of more child-focused entertainment before 9.00pm, and incorporating a number of operational improvements to ensure that the event continues to be a safe community celebration.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council note the positive feedback from the community and other stakeholders, including Police and St John’s Ambulance, regarding New Year’s Eve 2011.

2. That Council resolve New Year’s Eve 2012 retain the same format as for 2011, remaining a community-focused, low-key event which provides family-friendly entertainment and showcases local arts and creativity.

3. That Council resolve to include additional, child-focused entertainment from 4.00pm to approximately 9.00pm.

4. That Council support the following operational recommendations for ongoing improvement for New Year’s Eve management:

a) review advertisement of Alcohol Free Zones

b) develop and promote a ‘no glass in the parks and beaches’ campaign

c) develop a child-friendly entertainment programme, which could include pantomimes and/or the Spaghetti Circus, and other local artists suitable for family entertainment

d) investigate the cost of including a fireworks show at 9.00pm for families

e) investigate cost effective and safe alternative methods/systems to supply water and electricity to stallholders across Apex Park

f) review the New Year’s Eve waste management plan from the perspective of encouraging people to put litter in the bins provided

g) liaise with Police as to the location of alcohol check points and increase the number of waste disposal units at each site

h) contact bus companies to ensure patrons are picked up and dropped off in compliance with alcohol-free zones

i) consider having rangers on duty until 12.00am on 1 January

j) develop a procedure for effectively dealing with unlicensed vendors.

5. That Council allocate an additional $7000 from the New Year’s Eve Reserve (5013.21) bringing the total 2012/13 New Year’s Eve budget to $35,000 to implement the operational recommendations in point 4.

6. That Council continue to work with Byron United and others in the community in the development of, and fund-raising for, New Year’s Eve 2012.

Report

Council worked with Byron United and other community stakeholders to deliver a low-key family‑friendly New Year’s Eve celebration in Byron Bay on 31 December 2011. The event was well-received by the community and stakeholders including Police and St John’s Ambulance. Management proposes that a similar approach and format is implemented for New Year’s Eve 2012, with the addition of more child-focused entertainment before 9.00pm, and incorporating a number of operational improvements to ensure that the event continues to be a safe community celebration.

New Year’s Eve 2011

Consistent with Council Resolutions 11-678 and 11-841, Council staff developed a community event for New Year’s Eve 2011 that incorporated arrangements for the management of alcohol‑free zones; traffic control; waste and toilet facilities; St John’s Ambulance and life-saving services; as well as market stalls and entertainment in Apex Park.

Council established an internal cross-divisional working group to manage the event, and also consulted with Byron United and others in the community (as per Resn 11-841) on the development of an entertainment program including the Arakwal Dancers, local artists and musicians. Among other things, Byron United funded a local band for the New Year countdown, a laser show, security staff, and a midnight fireworks display as its contribution to the celebrations. Byron United’s financial contribution was $25,000. Byron business representatives also contributed a range of in‑kind support.

Alcohol Free Zones (Resn 11-678) were enforced by police in Brunswick Heads and Byron Bay. Additional signage was erected throughout the zones. The Traffic Control Plan was altered from the 2010/2011 Plan (Resn 11-841) in response to a request from Byron Bay businesses. This led to a number of improvements as road closures were minimised; parking opportunities were increased; and the number of Traffic Control Officers was reduced to 4 per shift.

Council coordinated additional waste management services to cover the New Year period (Resn 11-678). These arrangements included the provision of bins at police check points for the disposal of confiscated alcohol and extra bins placed throughout Apex Park. Additional toilet facilities (including wheelchair accessible facilities) were also provided (Resn 11-678).

An expression of interest process was developed to call for market stallholders for the New Year’s Eve Markets (Resn 11-678). The markets operated in Apex Park with 13 stalls trading from 4.00pm. Buskers performed along Jonson Street and Lawson Street, and amusement rides were available at Main Beach (Resn 11-678).

Additional New Year’s Eve activities were coordinated in collaboration with Byron United (Resn 11‑841). A stage was erected in Apex Park and entertainment was provided between 7.00pm and midnight. The Arakwal Dancers opened the event with a Welcome to Country and dance performance. Following the Arakwal Dancers, two local musicians entertained the crowd with ambient music before the Samba Blisstas’ performance at 9.00pm. The Goodrich Band then played from 10.00pm until the midnight countdown when a fireworks display was launched over the town from Butler Street Reserve.

Six volunteers from St John’s Ambulance attended the event between 6.00pm and 3.00am (Resn 11-678). Council provided a donation of $750 for their services. Council also provided them a marquee, table, chairs, and lighting. Two market stallholders donated meals for the St John’s volunteers. Surf life-saving services operated on Main Beach from 8.00am to 2.00am.

Feedback from stakeholders

Feedback from the community and from stakeholders including Police, St John’s Ambulance, and stallholders was overwhelmingly positive. Those consulted praised the event and recognised the benefits of providing low-key entertainment for the family-friendly event. Feedback from stakeholders is set out below.

Police feedback

Police estimate there were 10,000 people in Byron Bay for New Year’s Eve. Thirty officers were allocated to Byron Bay with 103 on duty across the Tweed Byron Local Area Command.

Over the 48-hour period from 12.01am on 31 December 2011 until 11.59pm on 1 January 2012, the Tweed Byron Local Area Command recorded eight assaults, seven offensive behaviour charges, three drug detections, five move-on directions and three driving under the influence charges from 420 random breath tests. Only one of the driving under the influence charges occurred in the Byron Shire.

The Police focus was to have high visibility and to target the consumption of alcohol across the town. Police were able to restrict the consumption of alcohol in public spaces due to the alcohol prohibition areas designated by Council. Police consider that controlling alcohol is the most effective tool in maintaining public order and reducing alcohol-related offences. Check points were established at the railway crossing on Lawson Street; at the road block on Jonson Street; and on the corner of Fletcher Street and Bay Street. The Police stopped all members of the public carrying alcohol at these points and had them pour the alcohol out. Police also patrolled the streets, parks and beaches disposing of alcohol. The majority of people who were asked to dispose of their alcohol consented without objection. Due to the large amount of alcohol confiscated, the number of waste bins provided at the check points was insufficient. It is recommended that next year the number of bins is increased, and that community education and awareness is targeted through media releases prior to the 2012 event.

Police reported that they were pleased with the entertainment in Apex Park as it provided a focal point for the crowd. This centralisation of people made policing of the event more practical as they were able to allocate their resources in that area. Police also noted that this was an improvement on the previous year’s celebrations where the lack of entertainment caused people to be dispersed across the whole town. The reduced road closures were sufficient to create a safe pedestrian precinct.

In summary, Inspector Jago stated that he was “pleased with the event and the way it was conducted”.

St John’s feedback

There were six St John’s volunteers on duty from 6.00pm to 3.00am. Over this period they treated 36 people. The majority of treatments were for minor cuts from broken glass later in the night. Four people were treated for excessive alcohol consumption. One person was transported to hospital with a dislocated knee. These figures were an improvement on the previous year where they transported six people to hospital, five for excessive alcohol consumption and one for a spinal injury.

The St John’s coordinator noted that “the bands were good entertainment for the crowd and the fireworks were good to see”. The coordinator noted however that many parents were asking whether there would be a fireworks display at 9.00pm for children, and recommended that this be included in next year’s event. Council staff, the Police, and stallholders all also reported parents asking if there would be a fireworks display at 9.00pm for the children.

St John’s noted that they “thought the large crowd were well behaved” and that they didn’t see or hear of any fights or altercations on the night. The Coordinator also stated that “the location of the tent this year was excellent (backing onto the Surf Club) and we were well seen by the crowd”.

Stallholders

Thirteen stallholders participated in Markets in Apex Park. The majority of stallholders had traded at the markets on numerous occasions. Feedback from the stallholders was positive with praise for the mix of family-friendly entertainment and for the behaviour of the crowd. Feedback included:

‘It was very enjoyable, organisers were very helpful’.
‘I liked that is no alcohol. The stage events were great, and people enjoyed the fireworks’.
‘I like the crowd here on NYE. However, a lot of families are no longer coming. Some earlier child-oriented activities might help. Maybe not the Wiggles on stage, but there are other acts for kids, puppet shows’.
‘Fun, cruisy night loved it, best New Years Eve I have had in years’.
‘The crowd were mostly well behaved and relaxed only a few very drunk people’.
‘Pretty good, glad to see the fireworks and live entertainment back’.
‘Security, always need to be on the ball when lots of people and alcohol are involved. Also need to watch our for those free-loading stalls who lob up on the night without paying a site fee like the rest of us’.
‘Stallholders working together with organisers to make things work, nice variety of wares/food available, the right number of stalls to ensure all had a good night’.
‘Happy vibe amongst the crowd, who were reasonably well behaved’.

All of the stallholders reported having a successful night and mentioned that they would be interested in participating again in 2012.

Council Staff Observations

Council’s New Year’s Eve coordinator (Community Policy Officer) was onsite until 1.15am. Staff observed that the format and delivery worked well in 2011, and that the market and entertainment program was well-received by the community. The crowd gradually increased throughout the day. There was a mix of locals and holiday-makers, with large numbers of families in and around Apex Park until approximately 9.30pm.

Some issues for improvement were also identified including increased education and awareness‑raising regarding alcohol-free zones, and waste management. As noted above, Police were active in enforcing the alcohol prohibition and this led to more waste than anticipated being collected. Council’s clean up efforts were well-regarded by the community, however, and Council Clean Up staff began cleaning the town and beaches from 4.00am on 1 January 2012. Clean up staff commented that the amount of rubbish, although substantial, was less than in previous years.

Recommendations for improvement for the 2012 event are set out below:

a) review advertisement of Alcohol Free Zones

b) develop and promote a ‘no glass in the parks and beaches’ campaign

c) develop a child-friendly entertainment programme, which could include pantomimes and/or the Spaghetti Circus, and other local artists suitable for family entertainment

d) investigate the cost of including a fireworks show at 9.00pm for families

e) investigate cost effective and safe alternative methods/systems to supply water and electricity to stallholders across Apex Park

f) review the New Year’s Eve waste management plan from the perspective of encouraging people to put litter in the bins provided

g) liaise with Police as to the location of alcohol check points and increase the number of waste disposal units at each site

h) contact bus companies to ensure patrons are picked up and dropped off in compliance with alcohol-free zones

i) consider having rangers on duty until 12.00am on 1 January

j) develop a procedure for effectively dealing with unlicensed vendors.

Overall, management considers that the event was a success. The crowd was overwhelmingly well behaved. The entertainment proved popular and the fireworks were very well received.

Financial Implications

Council’s budget for New Year’s Eve 2011/12 was $28,000. This was supplemented by a financial contribution from the Byron Bay business community of $25,000 ($15,000 for fireworks, and $10,000 for musicians, lighting, PA system, sound engineers and security staff) as well as a range of ‘in-kind’ support.

Due to the success of the event, and the request for additional child-friendly entertainment, this report recommends that Council approve a budget of $35,000 for New Year’s Eve operations and activities in 2012/13. This figure is made up of the current budget for the event, plus $7,000 from the New Year’s Eve Reserve (5013.21) for increased costs for casual staff; waste management; and for the implementation of the ten recommendations for operational improvement listed above.

Council should note also that Byron United has stated that it is unlikely to be able to contribute to the same extent in 2012. Representatives consider that Byron United’s budget for 2012/13 would be closer to $12,500. However, they have also indicated that they would like to continue to work collaboratively with Council on the coordination of the event, and to prepare joint applications for external funding.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

LPMA Landowner’s Consent Lodgement and Application

Temporary Licence to Use Crown Reserve

Policy 5.51 ‘Markets within the Byron Shire’

Application for Market/One-Day Event Food Stallholder Permit

SEPP - Temporary Structures Checklist.

Byron Shire Council 2003 Community Safety Plan

Byron Shire Council 2008-2013 Cultural Plan

Draft Byron Shire Council Safer Community Compact 2012

Report No. 12.14.

Draft Byron Shire Council Safer Community Compact 2012-2016

Executive Manager: Society and Culture

File No: ADM306600 #1194871

Principal Activity:

Community Services

Summary:

This report presents a draft Byron Shire Council Safer Community Compact 2012-2016 for Council’s consideration. The draft complies with the Attorney General’s Crime Prevention Strategy guidelines. It has previously been presented to Council as the draft Crime Prevention Strategy and Action Plan. Council last considered this draft plan on 15 December 2011, where a preference was expressed to rename the plan; however Council did not resolve to place it on public exhibition.

Management is resubmitting the draft for Council’s consideration, with the recommendation that it be placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days. Stakeholders including Police, Byron Youth Service and the business chambers have been consulted, and are keen for the draft to progress. Stakeholders would like to be able to partner with Council to access funding opportunities made possible should the strategy be finalised and subsequently endorsed by the Department of Attorney General and Justice.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the draft Safer Community Compact 2012 - 2016 (#1196451) be placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days.

2. That submissions received on the draft Safer Community Compact 2012 - 2016 be reported to Council for consideration prior to adoption.

3. That, in the event that no submissions are received during the public exhibition period, the draft Safer Community Compact 2012 - 2016 be adopted.

4. That a report be prepared for Council on the progress of the implementation of actions identified in the Safety Audits for Brunswick Heads, Byron Bay and Ocean Shores, and that the report include what has been undertaken/completed; what is outstanding; and what is included in the ongoing schedule of works.

Attachments:

· Draft Byron Shire Council Safer Community Compact 2012-2016 #1196451 [38 pages]......... Annexure 12

Report

A report relating to a draft Crime Prevention Strategy and Action Plan was presented at the Ordinary Meeting on 15 December 2011. The report was discussed, and a preference was expressed for the name of the plan to be amended, however no resolution was made to place the draft plan on public exhibition. This report provides a further opportunity for Council to discuss the plan – which has been renamed as the Byron Shire Council Safer Community Compact 2012–16 - and to provide guidance to staff on any recommendations for change.

Draft Crime Prevention Strategy and Action Plan

As noted in the report to Council on 15 December 2011, the draft Crime Prevention Strategy and Action Plan has been reported to the former Social/Community Advisory Committee (SCAC) and to Council on a number of occasions between 2010 and 2012.

1. On 10 February 2011, Council resolved (Resn 11-78) that the document be developed in‑house in line with the Crime Prevention Strategy template; and be informed by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research; recommendations from the Safety Audits for Brunswick Heads, Byron Bay and Ocean Shores; and the previous Community Safety Plan.

2. A draft Crime Prevention Strategy and Action Plan (CPSAP) framework was developed in response to resolution 11-78, and reported to the SCAC in March (when there was no quorum) and again in June 2011.

3. In August 2011, Council resolved (Resn 11-586) that the development of the CPSAP would continue in-house in consultation with stakeholders such as Police, Chambers of Commerce, the Liquor Accord and relevant interagency and community groups. This was actioned by staff.

4. Between September and December 2011, the draft CPSAP in its current form was presented to SCAC twice (each time with no quorum) and also to Council twice. Council provided no recommendations for change to the draft CPSAP; however neither did it resolve to place the report on public exhibition.

This report seeks Council’s guidance to staff on its preferences for the draft Byron Shire Council Safer Community Compact 2012-16.

Stakeholders including Police, Byron Youth Service and the business chambers have been consulted, and are keen for the draft to progress. Police provided a formal letter of support at the time that the draft plan was last reported to Council in December 2011. Stakeholders would like to be able to partner with Council to access funding opportunities made possible should the strategy be finalised and subsequently endorsed by the Department of Attorney General and Justice.

Safer Community Compact

At the 15 December 2011 Council meeting, some Councillors expressed a preference for the title of the CPSAP to be amended. Staff have renamed the document a ‘Safer Community Compact’ in response to Councillors’ preferences; and in anticipation of the document being endorsed by the Department of the Attorney General and Justice. Endorsed Crime Prevention Plans become known as ‘Safer Community Compacts’ and can attract funding.

It is important to note that the document is not a ‘Community Safety Plan’. A Community Safety Plan is a document consisting of a comprehensive, Shire-wide risk management assessment and safety strategy. The content of the attached draft Safer Community Compact – while it is strongly evidence-based and complies with the Attorney Generals’ Crime Prevention Planning guidelines - is not sufficiently comprehensive to be classed as a Community Safety Plan. As previously reported to Council, resources were not available to go beyond what was required by the Attorney General’s guidelines.

CCTV

Councillors have also previously raised the inclusion of CCTV in the plan as a possible area for further discussion.

The installation of CCTV in Byron Bay was a recommended action in the Safety Audit carried out by the NSW Police in 2008. This recommendation was considered most recently by Council in September 2010.

On 9 September 2010 Council resolved (10-721):

That Council note the request from Byron United to “act on the recommendation in the Byron Bay Central Business District Safety Audit (undertaken in February/ March 2008) to install Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in the Byron Bay CBD as a matter of high priority”.

That Council note that, given budgetary constraints there is no current funding to proceed with the installation of, or the ongoing monitoring of, CCTV Cameras for the Byron Bay CBD.

That Council undertake an audit of external coverage from CCTVs currently in use in Byron Bay and report back to Council in the form of a map showing the current level of CCTV coverage in Byron Bay.

Police have advised that it is not possible to provide a map showing the current level of CCTV coverage in Byron Bay. Seventeen businesses in Byron Bay are registered with Police as having CCTV installed. More businesses have indicated that they would be willing to install CCTV, should they be able to access external funding by virtue of Council having an agreed crime prevention (or safer community) action plan.

As noted in the report to Council of 26 August 2010 (#990874), should Council resolve to proceed with the installation of a CCTV system, it would need to do so with consideration of the “NSW Government Policy Statement and Guidelines for the Establishment and Implementation of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in Public Places”.[1]

As a guide to the cost of establishment, management has previously reported to Council (see report to Council of 26 August 2010) that CCTV systems installed by Lismore City Council in the Lismore CBD and Tweed Shire Council at Murwillumbah have been estimated to cost between $120,000 to $200,000, with ongoing costs for monitoring systems and footage. State and federal funding may be available to assist with installation should Council wish to proceed with CCTV in Byron Bay.

For example, there is a current round of Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) funding open for applications for projects up to $150,000. The guidelines for eligibility include “provision of CCTV and / or lighting for graffiti hotspots”. This funding round closes on 16 March 2012.

Safety Audits for Brunswick Heads, Byron Bay and Ocean Shores

In 2008, Police conducted safety audits for Brunswick Heads, Ocean Shores and Byron Bay. While these audits have been referenced in the development of the draft Byron Shire Council Safer Community Compact 2012-2016, only those actions from the safety audits which fit the Attorney General’s Crime Prevention planning guidelines (ie the development of a crime profile identifying the Shire’s two priority crimes and related ‘hotspots’) have been included.

As previously reported to Council, many of the issues and actions identified in the Safety Audits for Brunswick Heads, Byron Bay and Ocean Shores have already been implemented into Council’s schedule of works. This report recommends that a separate report be presented to Council on the implementation of the actions in the Safety Audits. The report will include what has been undertaken; what is outstanding; and what has been included in the forward schedule of works.

The draft Safer Communities Compact mainly identifies actions for Byron Bay (which is where the highest crime levels occur). However, it will also be implemented - and is therefore also expected to have an impact on crime and safety - in other parts of the Shire. This particularly relates to lighting, footpaths, lines of sight, vegetation maintenance and verge maintenance identified in Actions 8.1, 8.3, 8.5. Action 8.4 is also implementable across the Shire (as identified in the rationale).

Management recognises that the action plan is not as in-depth as other Council strategic documents, but considers it is a deliverable plan to address the priority crimes identified. The draft has adhered to the outline endorsed by the Attorney General. It is acknowledged that further implementation planning for the identified actions will be required. This will become an operational matter for staff once the draft Safer Community Compact is endorsed by Council.

Financial Implications

Nil associated with this report.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Byron Shire Council Youth Policy 10/007

Byron Shire Council Cultural Plan 2008-13

Social Plan 2004-09

Disability Access and Inclusion Plan 2008-2013

Community Safety Plan 2003

Tourism Management Plan 2008-2018

Draft Community Strategic Plan 2011/12 – 2020/21

Byron Shire Council Management Plan 2011-2014

NSW Government Policy Statement and Guidelines for the Establishment and Implementation of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in Public Places

Report No. 12.15.

Adoption of the Positive Ageing Strategy and Action Plan 2012-2016

Executive Manager: Society and Culture

File No: ADM300800 #1195358

Principal Activity:

Community Services

Summary:

The purpose of this report is to present Council with the Positive Ageing Strategy and Action Plan (PASAP) 2012 – 2016 for adoption, following its public exhibition period.

The PASAP was on exhibition from 12 January 2012 to 9 February 2012. No submissions were received. The PASAP is proposed to be launched at Council’s Seniors Week morning tea at Brunswick Heads Primary School at 9.30am on Monday 19 March 2012.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council note that the Positive Ageing Strategy and Action Plan 2012-2016 was placed on public exhibition from 12 January to 9 February 2012.

2. That Council note that no submissions were received during the public exhibition period.

3. That Council adopt the Positive Ageing Strategy and Action Plan 2012-16 (#1160476).

4. That Council receive and note the information about the proposed launch of the Positive Ageing Strategy and Action Plan 2012 - 2016 during Seniors Week 2012.

5. That members of the Positive Ageing Project Reference Group be invited to the Seniors Week Official Launch and be publicly acknowledged for their contributions.

Attachments:

· Draft Positive Ageing Strategy and Action Plan 2012 – 2016 #1160476 [78 pages]............... Annexure 10

Report

At its meeting of 15 December 2011 Council resolved (11-1093) to place the draft Positive Ageing Strategy and Action Plan 2012-2016 (PASAP) on exhibition.

The PASAP was placed on exhibition from 12 January to 9 February 2012. A media release was prepared; advertisements were placed in the Byron Shire News, and on Council’s website. In addition, hard copies were provided at the Council Administration building in Mullumbimby, at Community Access Points, and in libraries throughout the Shire.

No submissions were received during the exhibition period; and the PASAP is now presented to Council for adoption.

The PASAP is proposed to be launched at the Official Seniors Week Opening morning tea at 9.30 am on Monday 19 March at Brunswick Heads Primary School. All Councillors are invited to attend.

Members of the Positive Ageing Project Reference Group will also be invited to the Official Launch and will be publicly acknowledged for their contributions.

Financial Implications

Nil

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Positive Ageing Policy 10/002

Community Economic Development Strategy 2011-2020

Cultural Plan 2008-13

Social Plan 2004-09

Disability Access and Inclusion Plan 2008-2013

Community Safety Plan 2003

Byron Shire Council Management Plan 2011-2014

Report No. 12.16.

2012 Byron Bay Surf Festival - Request for a letter of support

Executive Manager: Society and Culture

File No: ADM900000 #1194678

Principal Activity:

Economic Development

Summary:

The organisers of the Byron Bay Surf Festival have written to Council requesting a letter of support for the 2012 festival. This report recommends that Council provide a letter of support.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council provide a letter of support to the organisers of the 2012 Byron Bay Surf Festival.

Attachments:

· Request for letter of support from Byron Bay Surf Festival Organisers #1194864 [2 pages].... Annexure 9

Report

Council has received a request for a letter of support from the organisers of the 2012 Byron Bay Surf Festival. Council received a similar request in 2011 and provided a letter of support (Resn 11‑127). The 2011 Surf Festival was well-received and there were no complaints or compliance concerns in relation to the event.

Management recommends that a letter of support be provided for the 2012 event.

As provided in Annexure 9, the objective of the festival is: ‘to provide Byron Bay with a celebration of surf culture during a festival that encompasses all that is unique about surfing. Byron Bay is the perfect venue to show case all that is iconic and attractive about surfing, drawing from the rich local and national surfing heritage, the creative energy and natural surfing location that is Byron Bay. The festival brings together people that want to celebrate surfing and the associated arts, music, film, literature, surfboard design and environmentally friendly sustainable surf craft.’

Management considers that the Byron Bay Surf Festival aligns with Objective 12 of the Tourism Management Plan, which focuses on festivals and events. In addition, the Surf Festival also potentially aligns with Council’s community core values and tourism guiding principles developed by the Tourism Advisory Committee and adopted by Council in 2010 (Resn 10-760).

Financial Implications

Nil associated with this report.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Byron Shire Council Tourism Management Plan 2008 - 2018

Byron Shire Council Events on Public and Private Land Policy No.10/006

WATER AND RECYCLING - EXECUTIVE MANAGER’S REPORT

Report No. 12.17.

Bulky Waste Kerbside Collection

Executive Manager: Water and Recycling

File No: ENG450000 #1145206

Principal Activity:

Water and Recycling

Summary:

Council has provided an annual bulky waste kerbside collection for many years in the urban areas of the Shire.

The problems with the collection appear to be escalating and in particular the number of illegal dumping locations and the large volumes of waste deposited at these locations.

The purpose of this report is to consider the implications of this service to community and to recommend that an alternative service delivery model be adopted.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council commence a bulky waste service at the Myocum Landfill from 1 July 2012 for properties with a waste service that allows annually one cubic metre of permissible bulky waste and one cubic metre of metal items to be received free of charge.

Report

Council has been conducting an annual kerbside collection for bulky waste for many years. The service is well-used and valued by the community. The collection only occurs in urban areas, as narrow roads and access issues mean it is not feasible to offer this service in rural areas.

The cost of the kerbside collection has been factored into the domestic waste charge for urban residents. The domestic waste charge for rural residents does not include this component.

The bulky waste kerbside collection has caused a number of problems for the community including the major issue of illegal dumping. In 2011 the scale of illegal dumping was unprecedented with major dumping sites throughout the Shire and many smaller sites. The escalation in illegal dumping resulted in numerous complaints and was a source of distress for many residents in the Shire. The scale of illegal dumping was also widely reported in the media. The purpose of this report is to present to Council options regarding this activity.

Byron Industrial Estate

Cost of the clean up

In 2011, the cost of the contractor used to complete the kerbside bulky waste collection was $99,091.30

The cost of the clean up of illegally dumped waste associated with last year’s collection was $25,500. This cost does not include the costs of administration of complaints, inspections and the coordination of the cleanup by Council staff.

Sugar Cane Road

Problems with the kerbside collection

Over time the problems experienced in the annual kerbside collection have increased and become more acute.

The bulky waste kerbside collection is in effect Council permitting the placing of waste on public land to be subsequently cleaned up. This encourages a culture of disposal and dumping that manifests, at the worst end of the spectrum, as massive road side dumping points that may also have large amounts of putrescible waste flung into the heap. Inevitably it falls to Council to clean up the dumped waste. The message could not be more clear, that if it is dumped, Council will clean it up. This message and practice reinforces and perpetuates illegal dumping throughout the year in many places within the Shire.

In addition to the illegal dumping, the other key problems associated with the existing collection service are as follows:

Safety hazards for contract workers and Council staff in terms of sharp objects and sodden heavy furniture and mattresses
Safety hazards for the public, particularly children, engaging in scavenging
Non compliant waste such as glass and chemicals being included in the piles
Illegal dumping on the waste piles of households, including hazardous materials
Scattering of previously neatly stacked piles across lawns and onto the road by scavengers
Boxes of small items being over turned and scattered by scavengers
Lack of potential contractors to conduct the collection
Dumping of waste both prior to and after the collection
Waste is comingled and there is a lack of resource recovery
Metal scavenging reducing the return to the contractor and thereby increasing the cost

Showgrounds Mullumbimby

Options

The problems of providing a bulky waste kerbside collection are not unique to Byron Shire. There are a range of responses to this issue deployed by Councils which can broadly be categorised into the following options:

1) Continue to provide an annual community wide kerbside collection eg Byron Shire Council

2) Not provide a kerbside collection or any other form of bulk waste disposal service eg Ballina Shire Council

3) Provide micro kerbside collection areas staggered throughout the year eg Gold Coast City Council

4) Provide a limited free disposal of bulky waste at the landfill eg Lismore City Council

A brief description and assessment of these options is as follows.

1) Continue to provide an annual community wide kerbside collection

The current service delivery model, if continued, will result in the ongoing problems identified in this report. Some of the problems could be addressed by the deployment of additional resources. For example, known illegal dumping sites could be the subject of patrols and surveillance. Household waste piles could be regularly inspected to identify and remove hazards such as waste on footpaths and fridges with doors.

It is anticipated that if the existing service model was continued it is likely costs will increase significantly. This is primarily due to safety issues associated with the service and the costs of addressing the large amount of illegal dumping that occurs.

Apart from the risks and cost associated with any continuation of the existing service, the problem will remain that does not provide a service for rural residents and the current scale and impact of illegal dumping will continue.

2) Not provide a kerbside collection or any other form of bulk waste disposal service

As detailed above, there are numerous problems associated with the provision of a bulky waste kerbside collection. These problems cannot be easily resolved in the context of the current service model.

Council can resolve to cease this service and this may over time shift the culture of dumping waste. It may also encourage recycling through the use of the Tip Shop. However, it is also probable that completely ceasing the service will lead to more clandestine illegal dumping by those who wish to avoid landfill fees. It could also be argued that ceasing the service does not provide the community with a transition process.

3) Provide micro kerbside collection areas staggered throughout the year

This service delivery model involves engagement of a contractor for the whole financial year and deploying that contractor for progressive collections throughout the year of small collection areas. This service delivery model is generally used in larger local government areas.

The main disadvantages of this service delivery model for Byron Shire are that it does not provide a service for rural residents, there are higher administrative costs and the comparatively small size of the Byron Shire may promote a state of virtually continuous illegal dumping.

4) Provide a limited free disposal of bulky waste at the landfill

Some Councils have implemented a service where by residents from the local government area are able to take a prescribed volume of bulky waste to the landfill for free.

Residents would be able to take one cubic metre load of bulky waste and one cubic metre of metal items to the landfill and on presentation of the original rates notice for the financial year be able to do this free of charge.

Examples of permissible bulky waste are:

Appliances
Furniture and bedding
Carpet
Surfboards
Garden equipment

Examples of permissible metal items include:

Fridges
Stoves, ovens, dishwashers
Filing cabinets
Washing machines and dryers
Lawn mowers and bikes
Metal bed bases
Hot water systems

Residents who rent properties would be able to obtain a voucher from Council on presentation of a current rental agreement.

One of the major problems of the existing service is that it does not extend to the rural areas of the Shire. It is clear from the location of illegal dumping sites and observed practices that some rural residents deal with the absence of a bulky waste service by creating and using illegal dump sites. This service delivery model will greatly assist in addressing this problem because the illegally dumped waste is already transported to these locations and therefore could be taken to the landfill.

There are other advantages of this service delivery model including:

The bulky waste can be sorted at the landfill to maximize resource recovery
The existing service for electronic waste recycling will be enhanced
Waste handling is done in a safe and controlled environment
Recycling can be maximized through the Tip Shop
The escalation of the costs associated with the current service model can be controlled
The pressure on staff associated with administering complaints and the collection of dumped rubbish would be greatly reduced due to controlling the volume and timeframes for waste disposal
The majority of the problems with the existing service are eliminated.

For these reasons, this service delivery model is recommended.

Implementation of this service delivery model will require extensive community information, particularly in the first year. It will also require regulatory and enforcement actions to support compliance with the new service delivery model. It is anticipated costs associated with this can be covered by the existing budget for bulky waste collection.

Financial Implications

A key reason for changing the current service delivery model is cost.

There are a number of drivers that are increasing the cost of waste and recycling services and these include:

Continuing increases to the NSW waste levy
Increased regulatory requirements for operating the landfill
Increasing costs for key inputs such as fuel and heavy plant
Land purchases to provide for future waste handling capacity
Development and construction of the new Quarry landfill

Continuing with the current service delivery model will cost more than in previous years and these costs would need to be passed onto ratepayers and will be in addition to the costs detailed above.

Implementation of the proposal to provide a limited free disposal of bulky waste at the landfill can occur within the existing budget allocation.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The lack of service providers for the kerbside collection of bulky waste is a problem for Council in terms of compliance with national competition policy and Councils purchasing and tender guide if the existing service was to be continued.

The new work, health and safety legislation has requirements that mean the safety risks associated with any continuation of the current service would require additional resources for hazard identification, risk assessment, control measures and mitigation actions.

Council has an adopted illegal waste dumping plan and implementation of the proposal to provide a limited free disposal of bulky waste at the landfill is complementary to the strategies identified in the plan.

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE - COMMITTEE REPORT

Report No. 13.1.

Report of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on
7 February 2012

#1193817/ENG224010

MEETING COMMENCED: 10.43am

PRESENT: Councillor: Cr Basil Cameron

Police: Senior Constable Ray Wilson

Roads and Maritime Services: Liz Smith

Staff: - Simon Bennett, Traffic and Transport Planner

- Michael King, Manager Infrastructure and Planning

- Sally MacDonald (Minute Taker)

APOLOGIES

Councillor Tom Tabart

Member for Ballina, Don Page MP

Member for Lismore, Thomas George MP

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

MATTERS ARISING

There were no matters arising from previous meetings.

1 ANZAC Day Parades 2012

While no written applications have been received at time of report compilation, it is expected the annual ANZAC Day Parades as held in Byron Bay, Bangalow, Mullumbimby and Brunswick Heads will remain unchanged to previous years.

Thus the recommendation is that the parades be endorsed as per last year’s arrangements. However if any changes are proposed there is opportunity to submit such changes to the Committee at the April 2012 meeting.

NB: if further details of these four events are required please refer to the Committee’s report of February 2011 as tabled to Council on 24 February 2011.

Committee Comments

· The committee had no comments on this matter.

Management Comments

· Written advice has since been received from Bangalow (#1171471), Byron Bay (#1194589) and Mullumbimby (#1195296) sub-branches confirming no changes are proposed, which is the same advice expected from Brunswick Heads who are being asked to confirm their requirements prior to this report being tabled to Council on 1 March 2012.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council endorse the ANZAC Day Parades on Wednesday 25 April 2012 for the Return Services League sub branches of Byron Bay, Mullumbimby, Bangalow and Brunswick Heads/Billinudgel.

2. That Council implement the necessary temporary road closures and detours and place advertisements in the local newspaper as required by the Roads Act 1993.

2 Traffic Control and Road Closures, Bangalow Billy Cart Derby, 20 May 2012

Council has received the application for the annual Bangalow Billy Cart Derby, now in its 18^th year, which is proposed to be held this year on Sunday 20 May 2012.

The application (#1186948) outlines that the required traffic control and road closures are the same as in previous years, ie a temporary road closure will operate from 6am to 4pm on Byron Street, Bangalow while traffic detour will be in place via Deacon Street. These arrangements are pictured below which in the past have been implemented by Council at cost to the organisers.

Committee Comments

· The Committee noted Police concerns that the organisers are yet to submit a formal Police application and that the information provided thus far – including the details of the traffic control plan – is insufficient for Police to provide approval.

· Subsequently the Committee requested an additional item to be included in the recommendations; i.e. 1(f) Subject to written approval of the Police.

Management Comments

· Staff are to make contact immediately with the event organiser’s in efforts to help them meet requirements for event approval and, if resources permitting, develop a Traffic Control Plan that is sufficient for Police approval noting that staff have been asked to undertake these actions prior to this report being tabled to Council, expected 1 March 2012.

· It is noted that this event is in receipt of $1,500 under Council’s s356 community grants which in the first instance will be used to recoup Council costs which in previous years includes advertising and the equipment and staff time to implement the TCP.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council approve the temporary road closure of Byron Street, Bangalow, between 6am and 4pm on Sunday 20 May, 2012 for the staging of the annual Bangalow Billy Cart Derby, subject to the:

a) the Traffic Control Plan being implemented by qualified personnel;

b) meeting of the advertising requirements of the Roads Act 1993;

c) event being notified on Council's website;

d) consideration of any submissions received;

e) proponent’s timely lodgement of current and appropriate levels of insurance and liability cover; and

f) written approval of NSW Police.

2. That the Traffic Control Plan, as submitted by organisers, be accepted.

3. That the event organisers, upon receipt of invoice, pay any applicable Council fees and costs including but not limited to the cost of the road closure and advertising.

3 Traffic Management, Mullum to Bruns Paddle 27 May 2012

Council are in receipt of the application (#1183709) to again hold the Mullumbimby to Brunswick Heads paddle with this year’s event proposed to occur on Sunday 27 May 2012.

The organisers have advised that the traffic management proposed is the same as last year, meaning the measures pictured below will be in effect from 7.30am – 10.30am. It is noted last year’s event was the first time for such measures to be implemented with no known problems reported by organisers or adjacent residents.

Committee Comments

· The Committee had no comments on this matter.

Management Comments

· Nil

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That Council approve the temporary traffic control measures in Mullumbimby for the Mullum to Bruns Paddle to be held on Sunday 27 May 2012, subject to the proponent’s:

a) use of an accredited designed and implemented Traffic Control Plan;

b) meeting of the advertising requirements of the Roads Act 1993;

c) letter box drop of residents advising of the event and the proposed traffic management;

d) event being notified on Council's website;

e) consideration of any submissions received; and

f) timely lodgement of current and appropriate levels of insurance and liability cover.

4 Proposed No Parking 1am - 6am, various sites, Suffolk Park

Council Rangers have advised the following, noting it reflects suggestions tabled by residents in correspondence received late 2011 (#1168177, #1168006):

Rangers have had numerous complaints both verbal and written from residents in Suffolk Park that relate to the overnight staying of camper vans and the unruly behaviour noise rubbish and other issues that come with this. (urinating and defecating in public places)

The areas that are affected by this are mainly the beach car park access areas adjacent to Clifford St next to the Suffolk Park caravan Park, Gaggin park, Jarman St, Wareham St and adjacent to Beachside Ave.

Rangers recommend the installation of appropriate enforceable signage i.e. No Parking 1-6am to combat this problem. All the above mentioned areas are road related areas and therefore require road related signage for enforcement purposes.

These areas are now pictured below with the recommendation signage be installed as shown, ie at sites (a) to (e) noting that all sites are eastside of Alcorn Street and identified within Council’s EView GIS system as being within the road reserve.

Committee Comments

· The committee had no comments on this matter.

Management Comments

· Nil

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That signage advising of No Parking between 1am and 6am be installed within Suffolk Park at the following locations (and as pictured), ie on the east side of Alcorn Street at:

a) Clifford Street

b) Gaggin Park

c) Jarman Street

d) Wareham Street; and

e) within the road reserve area located approximately fifty (50) metres to the north of Beachside Drive.

Site (a): Clifford St, eastside of Alcorn St

Site (b) Gaggin Park, east of Alcorn St

Site (c): Jarman St, eastside of Alcorn St

Site (d): Wareham St, east of Alcorn St

Site (e): Beachside Dve

5 Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Ballina to Byron Bay Charity Walk

The Events Coordinator for the Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter has lodged an application (#1161187) for a Ballina to Byron Bay Charity Walk event to be held Sunday 20 May 2012 with between 100 and 200 participants expected.

The walk will mostly occur on beaches however within Byron Shire (starting from 11:30am and concluding by 3pm) will include the use of the near 5km long and unsealed Seven Mile Beach Road and part of Broken Head Reserve Road before re-entering the beach in the vicinity of Broken Head camping ground.

The other road use is minor and occurs after walking Tallow’s Beach where the walk will use Tallow’s Beach Road footpath and then a small length of Lighthouse Road before joining the walking trail to the Lighthouse.

The organisers have attempted to minimise their use of roads as can be seen below with the red line indicating off-road sections of the walk while the yellow line depicts the on-road components.

Above: from Tallow’s Beach to Clarkes Beach via walking track (red line) and on-road (yellow line)

Right: from south of Broken Head to Tallows Beach via the near 4.7km long and unsealed Seven Mile Beach Road and part of Broken Head Reserve Road

Nevertheless there is concern for the safety of such large numbers walking Seven Mile Beach Road and while traffic control or a road closure is not believed warranted, the organisers are proposing the use of a single stationary lead vehicle with flashing lights and warning signage located at the intersection of Seven Mile Beach Road and Broken Head Reserve Road.

In addition, the organisers are also suggesting the use of warning signs along Seven Mile Beach Road at intervals of every 500metres plus at the several beachside car parks. Thus to this end they seek guidance on the type of signage to use for this inaugural event with the sign pictured offered as a suggestion.

The above is NOT a standard sign or configuration

Committee Comments

· The Committee considered the potential of closing the road for the duration of the event, however given low traffic volumes and the time of the event it is believed such measures are unnecessary on the proviso the following measures are undertaken by the organisers:

o signage, which specifies the date, hours and nature of the event, to be positioned at the entrance and exit of Seven Mile Beach Road, as well as at 500m intervals along the road (facing both directions of travel) and installed a few days prior to the event. Suggested wording for the signs include “Special Event - Charity Walk Ahead”

o a safety induction for walkers advising of hazards on Seven Mile Beach Road.

Management Comments

· Staff will liaise directly with the proponent to ensure signage as suggested by the Committee is installed and the induction undertaken.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorse the Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter organised Ballina to Byron Bay Charity Walk as to be held Sunday 20 May 2012, subject to the:

a) use of an accredited designed and implemented Traffic Control Plan in the event traffic management is required;

b) meeting of the advertising requirements of the Roads Act 1993;

c) event being notified on Council's website;

d) consideration of any submissions received;

e) proponent’s timely lodgement of current and appropriate levels of insurance and liability cover; and

f) attainment (by the event proponent) of NPWS written acceptance of the event.

6 Request for No Parking, Kingsley Lane, Byron Bay

A resident of a property with access onto Kingsley Lane, Byron Bay has written (#1163390) with the support of four other signatories (also residents) to request that No Parking be introduced within the lane way between Tennyson Street and Cowper Street which is approximately 200m in length.

Meanwhile a resident of adjacent Cowper Street has called requesting the same restrictions be applied specifically to the south side of the same lane between Cowper Street and Massinger Street citing similar grounds as detailed in the written request.

Within the written request claims are made that overnight parking by visitors, such as recreational and camper vans, is increasingly occurring and staying for longer periods of time, thus at times blocking residential access and restricting access for operational (eg waste) and potentially emergency (eg Fire) services.

The location and photo of the lane is depicted below noting that the lane, like many others, operates as two-way despite its narrow 4m seal width and has very little traffic volume as evident by a 2010 traffic count of the lane as taken east of Cowper Street and which recorded 36 vehicles per day.

However perhaps more pertinent to this request is that No Parking in the laneway (if introduced) is likely to have little to no impact on the residential properties (around fifty in total) most of whom have property access and visitor parking available to them on the adjacent Kingsley and Ruskin Streets.

As such it is recommended that the proposal be supported on the basis that consultation with the owners and tenants of residential properties bounded by Tennyson, Kingsley, Massinger and Ruskin Streets be undertaken prior to any changes (if any) being implemented.

As for the location and length of the No Parking it is proposed the restrictions be implemented on both sides of the lane from Tennyson Street to Massinger Street.

Locale of subject site

Photo of subject site

Committee Comments

· The Committee recommended that an additional requirement be added indicating that in the event of no objection being received implementation of the proposal will proceed.

Management Comments

· Nil

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the resident’s request for the implementation of No Parking within Kingsley Lane, Byron Bay from Tennyson Street to Massinger Street be supported and implemented on the basis that:

a) consultation is undertaken for a period of 28 days with the tenants and owners of the residential properties bounded by Tennyson, Kingsley, Massinger and Ruskin Streets;

b) no objection is tabled within the consultation period; and

c) in the event of any objection being tabled within the consultation period the matter be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee and/or Council as required.

7 Request to change parking from 4P to 2P, Byron Street, Byron Bay

A local trader located near Fletcher and Byron Streets has requested (#1169514) that the car parking restrictions within Byron Street, east of Fletcher Street be reduced from 4 hour (4P) parking to a 2 hour (2P) time limit.

The basis of the request is that Byron Street west of Fletcher Street has such a time limit and that the current 4P is being used by local “shop employees” and thus by implication reducing the available parking space for customers and visitors.

It is noted that a similar change was undertaken during 2011 within Middleton Street, just east of the subject site, and that much of the surrounding town centre applies 1P and 2P time limits between 9am and 6pm. As such the requested change would be more consistent with other parking limits within the town centre.

Conversely the removal of 4P further erodes the opportunity to find parking within the town centre that offers more than 2 hours at any one time and will impact an approximate total of 42 spaces as pictured below.

However as a first step it is recommended that consultation be undertaken with owners and tenants of properties within Byron Street, between Fletcher Street and Middleton Street in efforts to gauge support for such a change.

Alternatively the Committee may wish to recommend no changes be implemented at this time and that the request be referred to Council’s current review of paid parking within Byron Bay which will include review of time limits and suitable locations.

Subject site, which (to the east) comprises of 12 kerbside parking spaces and (to the west) approx. 30 within the centre of the road

Committee Comments

· The Committee recommended that an additional requirement be added indicating that in the event of no objection being received implementation of the proposal will proceed.

Management Comments

· Nil

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the local trader request, which is that the current 4-hour (4P) time limit applicable within Byron Street, Byron Bay as operational between Fletcher Street and Middleton Street be reduced to 2-hour (2P), be supported and implemented on the basis that:

a) consultation is undertaken for a period of 28 days with the tenants and owners of the properties adjacent to the proposal;

b) no objection is tabled within the consultation period; and

c) in the event of any objection being tabled within the consultation period the matter be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee and/or Council as required.

8 Installation of a speed hump, Brandon Street, Suffolk Park

The Committee report of November 2011 was reported to Council on 15 December 2011. Within that report is presented the data collected from six (6) count sites which recorded traffic volumes and speeds and was the basis of the conclusion that no further traffic calming devices are warranted within Brandon Street or its adjacent streets within Suffolk Park.

This conclusion was disagreed with by the proponent’s, namely the Suffolk Park Progress Association, and subsequently by Council, who resolved as follows:

11-1067 Resolved that Council support the installation of additional traffic calming devices in Brandon Street Suffolk Park, near the intersection of Jarman Street and refer the matter back to the Local Traffic Committee.

One criticism of the count data by the proponent was that it did not consider the length of Brandon Street where speeds are considered to be the most dangerous to pedestrians and other road users, namely in the vicinity of Jarman Street.

Accordingly an extra (seventh) count site was arranged immediately north of such a location (outside #23 Brandon Street) with data collected over a 10-day period during January 2012.

This data however concurs with the conclusion based on the other six sites previously presented, ie no further traffic calming device is warranted given that the 85^th percentile speed (which is the speed of 85 percent of vehicles) is 51kph while the median speed is even lower at just under 42kph.

Therefore it is proposed the previous recommendation with minor amendment stand as detailed below.

Committee Comments

· The Committee did not propose any changes to the recommendation but did suggest that Council could engage in consultation with the community about this matter and identified the upcoming community meeting with Suffolk Park Progress Association on 21 February 2012 as an opportunity to do this.

Management Comments

· Committee suggestion is noted and staff will raise the matter if appropriate.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That Council not install any additional traffic calming devices in Suffolk Park as the traffic and speed count data and review, as collected from and undertaken in accordance with Resolution 11-662 for Armstrong, Brandon and Alcorn Streets, and for Resolution 11-1067 for Brandon Street, does not support the request at this time.

9 Request for accessible parking (disabled) bay, Byron Street, Bangalow

Council is in receipt of a request (#1166496) for an accessible parking bay (ie a disabled bay) at the frontage of the post office or news agency on Byron Street, Bangalow. The proponent advises of difficulty accessing this (the south side) of Byron Street given the steep hill and the lack of accessible parking bays.

A 2009 audit of parking spaces within the Bangalow town centre indicates there are five (5) such spaces, two near the hotel, two at the A & I Hall and one at the Station Street car park. This same audit also indicates there are 58 on-street marked bays while the number of marked bays within off-street car parks equals 37, thus providing a total of 95 marked bays within the town centre area depicted below.

On this basis just over 5% of the marked bays are restricted to those with the correct disability parking permit.

This acceptable percentage ratio however reduces significantly if the number of unmarked bays are also considered, especially given there is more car parking available within such locations which is calculated at approximately another 340 spaces, which if correct reduces the total percentage ratio of accessible parking bays to just over 1 percent of the total available.

While typically a ratio of 2.5% (as minimum) to 5% is sought it is believed making such changes as premature on the following grounds.

The local Progress Association has outlined that car parking is at capacity and wish a review to be undertaken. Similarly Council have resolved that following a review of paid parking within Byron Bay, that a similar review of Bangalow be undertaken, which is expected to occur during 2012/13 and will include an audit on the supply, demand and turnover.

Moreover the seemingly simple addition of one accessible parking bay at the location requested will likely reduce the number of parking bays on the south side of Station Street from 22 to 20 in efforts to accommodate the larger area needed for the one accessible parking bay.

Therefore it is recommended that this request, like others received, be referred to the Bangalow car parking review.

Committee Comments

· The Committee discussed the suitability of the proposed location given the steep grade within Byron Street and suggest further feedback be sought and alternative sites be considered.

Management Comments

· Management recommends that the issue be considered by the Access Advisory Committee to gain extra feedback into the proposal and the site’s suitability.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the request for an accessible car parking bay on Byron Street, Bangalow be provided in-principle support and, like others received, be referred to the Bangalow car parking review.

MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION

That the matter be referred to Council’s Access Advisory Committee for further feedback.

10 Request to relocate and enforce loading zone, Byron Street, Bangalow

Council is in receipt of a local trader request (#1182738) to relocate the existing loading zone on Byron Street, Bangalow, the only one within the block between Station Street and Deacon Street, to around the corner on Station Street.

The request outlines several frustrations, including the over staying and incorrect use of the loading zone, the lack of enforcement, the parking yet idling of engines and the fumes and noise they cause and that often the legitimate users (namely delivery vehicles) can not access the loading zone.

It is therefore recommended that most immediately a time limit of 15-minutes be introduced at the existing site while the request to relocate the loading zone be referred to Council’s review of Bangalow car parking which is expected to occur during 2012/13 and will include an audit on the supply, demand and turnover.

Location of loading zone (Byron Street) and the suggested street for its relocation (Station Street)

Existing Loading Zone has no time limit

Committee Comments

· RMS advised staff to refer to AS1742 Part 11 for standard sign requirements.

Management Comments

· Nil

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

1. That a 15-minute time limit be introduced within the existing Loading Zone as located on the south side of Byron Street, Bangalow and immediately west of Station Street.

2. That the request this same Loading Zone be relocated from Byron Street to Station Street, Bangalow be, like any others received, referred to the Bangalow car parking review.

11 Proposal for right-turn lane entry at Broken Head Road Quarry

Broken Head Quarry, Broken Head has engaged a local consultancy (Greg Alderson) to conduct a Traffic Impact Assessment on the feasibility of introducing a separated right-hand turn lane for southbound traffic to enter the quarry site.

A copy of the assessment (as within BSC File #1186901) has been provided to the Committee under separate cover.

To aid Committee discussion further it is also noted that on the basis of a previous Committee recommendation Council resolved as follows on the 16 December 2010:

10-1032 Resolved that no changes be made to the right turn ban which applies to all vehicles at all times and is in operation on Broken Head Road, immediately south of Broken Head Reserve Road and at the entrance to Broken Head Quarry.

This recommendation was made on various grounds with the major constraint being the proximity of the quarry’ s entrance to the intersection to the north (with Broken Head Reserve Road at approx. 100m) and that permitting a right hand turn was:

…potentially unsafe due to the sweeping bend, short sight lines, the availability of a single lane only and that over 6,000 vehicles per day pass this site, with even greater numbers occurring during holiday periods.

The report also included the below mud map and, more notably, “suggested” that:

… to accommodate a right turn into the quarry for south bound traffic at this site would require the construction of a separated right turn lane.

While this separated right turn lane is now the proposal within the consultant’s report it is noted that the Australian Standards for safe sightline distances is not met within the proposal tabled.

As such Committee advice is now sought on the consultant’s report and proposal.

Committee Comments

· While it is noted that the Australian Standard recommended sight distance may not be met for south-bound traffic it is believed this lesser sight distance may be acceptable given this traffic approaches the right-turn bay from the rear and, with a left-turn out only operating in conjunction at this same location, will not have to contend with slow moving large vehicles that turn across the traffic.

· Likewise, applying the left-turn out only will ensure only one traffic lane is subject to turning vehicles, which in this case is the north-bound traffic where the required sight distances can be met.

Management Comments

· The design of the right-turn bay can be assessed by Council staff as part of the development’s s138 application, which can in itself trigger referral to the Local Traffic Committee. However to ensure this does occur the recommendation as made is supported.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That Council provide in-principle support of a painted right-turn bay into Broken Head Quarry at the entrance/exit located south of Broken Head Reserve Road subject to it:

· operating in conjunction with a left-turn out only on to Broken Head Road at the same location;

· ability to meet relevant Australian Standards, AUSTROADS and RMS guidelines and any other Council requirements; and

· being resubmitted to the Local Traffic Committee as and when required and prior to installation.

Attachment:

· Traffic Impact Assessment Broken Head Quarry #1186901 [13 pages].................................. Annexure 7

12 Proposed 2012 Meeting Dates

The following Committee meeting dates are proposed such that they work in with deadlines for Council Ordinary Meetings for 2012:

· Wednesday 4 April;

· Wednesday 6 June;

· Wednesday 1 August;

· Wednesday 3 October; and

· Wednesday 28 November

All meetings are to commence at 10.00am in the Conference Room unless otherwise advised.

Committee Comments

· The Committee had no comments on this matter.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the Local Traffic Committee meeting dates for 2012 be confirmed as follows:

· Wednesday 4 April

· Wednesday 6 June

· Wednesday 1 August

· Wednesday 3 October

· Wednesday 28 November

13 Late Item - Reportable crash statistics

Manager Infrastructure Planning sought clarification from Senior Constable Ray Wilson on what the police constitute as a reportable crash for inclusion in Police statistics that are then referred to the RMS and queried the use and status of the Police pro-forma known as P4 and P5 which are used by Police at the scene of each incident they attend.

Senior Constable Wilson reported the following:

P5 Criteria do not count towards the traffic statistics and include the following situations:

Nobody is killed or injured.
All parties stop and exchange particulars.
No driver is alleged to be under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug, and
No vehicle is to be towed away.

If anybody is injured, or fails to exchange particulars, or the vehicle is damaged and unable to be driven then it falls into the P4 criteria. These accidents include fatals and are included in the police statistics.

Injuries are defined as:

A person is regarded as injured in an MVA, if they seek immediate medical treatment from a qualified medical practitioner by being transported to hospital by ambulance and treated and/or admitted to a hospital or by being treated for that injury by a qualified medical practitioner within 24 hours of the MVA.

NB: MVA refers to Motor Vehicle Accident

In discussion, the Committee emphasised that there is a time delay (between 3 & 6 months) between a crash occurring and the RMS statistics being forwarded to Council. This is due in part by the need for police investigations to be carried out and validation of the information sent to the RMS.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That Council note the information pertaining to the procedure for reporting of motor vehicle crashes.

SOCIETY AND CULTURE - COMMITTEE REPORT

Report No. 13.2.

Report of the Tourism Advisory Committee Meeting held on 2 February 2012

Executive Manager: Society and Culture

File No: ADM900020 #1195283

Principal Activity:

Economic Development

Summary:

This report provides the minutes of the Tourism Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting held on 2 February 2012.

It includes a recommendation from the TAC that Council adopt the Byron Shire identity tested with the community and visitors in 2011/12, and refer the identity project back to the TAC for recommendations on its implementation.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council note the minutes of the Tourism Advisory Committee meeting held on 2 February 2012 (#1179139).

2. That in relation to Report No. 5.4 – Public Exhibition Summary – Proposed Identity for Byron Shire, Council adopt:

Committee Recommendation TAC 5.4.1

3. That the Tourism Advisory Committee proudly proposes that Council support the proposed identity, particularly the images and text that comprise the identity, and refer the project back to the TAC for recommendations for its implementation and possible application, to achieve the desired outcomes of the Tourism Management Plan.

Attachments:

· Report of Tourism Advisory Committee meeting 2 February 2012 #1179139 [3 pages]........ Annexure 8(a)

· Tourism Advisory Committee (TAC) Agenda 2 February 2012 #1179137 [33 pages]............ Annexure 8(b)

· CONFIDENTIAL Annexure 2(a) TAC Agenda 2 February 2012 #1190736 [5 pages].............. Annexure 8(c)

· CONFIDENTIAL Annexure 2(b) TAC Agenda 2 February 2012 #1190728 [15 pages]............ Annexure 8(d)

· Proposed Byron Shire Identity #1195975 [3 pages]........................................................... Annexure 8(e)

Annexures 8(b), 8(c) and 8(d) have been provided on the Councillors' Agenda CD only. An electronic copy of Annexure 8(b) can be viewed on Council's website at www.byron.nsw.gov.au/committees/tourism-advisory-committee.

Report

This report provides the minutes of the Tourism Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting of 2 February 2012 for consideration by Council. The report from the meeting is at Annexure 8(a); and the agenda of the meeting is attached at Annexure 8(b).

At the meeting, the TAC discussed a number of issues including: election of a Chair; adoption of a meeting schedule; and the proposed formation of a Local Tourism Organisation by tourism stakeholders in Byron Shire. The main discussion of the meeting surrounded the proposed identity for Byron Shire.

Most of the Committee’s recommendations were procedural and do not require adoption by Council, with the exception of Committee Recommendation TAC 5.4.1 on the proposed identity for Byron Shire.

Byron Shire identity

The Tourism Advisory Committee considered the feedback provided by the community and visitors following public exhibition, between 12 December 2011 and 23 January 2012, which showed strong support for the portfolio of images and accompanying text developed for the proposed identity. The consultation results were provided to Councillors on 27 January 2012 via the Tourism Advisory Committee agenda, and are also attached as Confidential Annexures 8(c) and 8(d) to this agenda on the Councillors’ CD. The annexures are confidential as they contain the names and addresses of submitters.

The majority (86%) of those consulted considered that the proposed identity captured the spirit of Byron Shire. As a result, the TAC has recommended that Council adopt the proposed Byron Shire identity, and refer the identity project back to the TAC for recommendations on its implementation.

Committee Recommendation TAC 5.4.1

That the Committee recommend to Council that:

1. That the Tourism Advisory Committee note the submissions received as part of the proposed Byron Shire Identity Public Exhibition period as outlined in Annexure 2(a) (#1190736).

2. That the Tourism Advisory Committee note the consultation report on the proposed Byron Shire identity as outlined in Annexure 2(b) (#1190728).

Management Comment

Note that points 1 and 2 are procedural and do not require Council adoption.

The Tourism Advisory Committee also requested that a selection of images and text from the identity portfolio tested with the community, industry and visitors be attached to this report for Council. Annexure 8(e) presents three images from the portfolio and their accompanying text. This imagery has also previously been presented to Councillors at the Extraordinary Tourism Advisory Committee meeting on 1 September 2011. In addition, this information was provided via report at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 13 October 2011.

Financial Implications

Nil associated with this report.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Byron Shire Council Tourism Management Plan 2008 – 2018

CORPORATE MANAGEMENT - CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS

Report No. 15.1.

CONFIDENTIAL Expression of Interest Old Station Master's Cottage

Executive Manager: Corporate Management

File No: BEN400000 #1188752

Principal Activity:

Property and Contracts

Summary:

Council resolved [10-935] to call for Expressions of Interest to Lease the Old Station Master’s Cottage for a period of two years only.

The expression of interest has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of Council’s Purchasing & Tender Guide and the Local Government Act 1993.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That pursuant to Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act, 1993, Council resolve into Confidential Session to discuss the following report, namely the expression of interest for lease of the Old Station Master’s Cottage.

2. That the reasons for closing the meeting to the public to consider this item be that the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature, that would if disclosed, prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

3. That on balance it is considered that receipt and discussion of the matter in open Council would be contrary to the public interest, as disclosure of the confidential information could compromise the commercial position of the proponent responding to the call for expressions of interest and could adversely affect Council’s ability to attract competitive offers in the event that fresh expressions of interest are called.

Attachments:

· CONFIDENTIAL Assessment Panel Recommendation Report #1198616 [6 pages]............ Annexure 15(a)

· CONFIDENTIAL EOI from the Byron Visitor Centre Inc #1193266 [29 pages].................... Annexure 15(b)

· Draft Lease Agreement #1190752 [21 pages].................................................................. Annexure 15(c)

Report No. 15.2.

CONFIDENTIAL Tender Assessment –General Maintenance, Plumbing and Electrical Services

Executive Manager: Corporate Management

File No: BEN5510000/#1175864

Principal Activity:

Property and Contracts

Summary:

At its Ordinary Meeting of 17 November 2011, Council resolved (11-763)

to call open tenders for the provision of General Maintenance, Plumbing and Electrical services for all Council owned and controlled buildings.

This report provides an overview of the assessment process and recommends the contract be awarded to the preferred tenderer.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That pursuant to Section 10A(2)(c) and (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, Council resolve into Confidential Session to discuss the following report, namely Tender Assessment – General Maintenance, Plumbing and Electrical Services - Tender No. 2011-0044.

2. That the reasons for closing the meeting to the public are that:

(a) information contained in the report would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

(b) the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

3. That on balance it is considered that receipt and discussion of the matter in open Council would be contrary to the public interest, as disclosure of the confidential information could compromise the commercial position of the tenderers, could adversely affect Council’s ability to contract with preferred tenderers or could affect Council’s ability to attract competitive tenders in the event that fresh tenders are invited.

Attachments:

· CONFIDENTIAL Tender Assessment Report – Provision of General Maintenance,
Plumbing and Electrical Services #1198976 [4 pages]......................................................... Annexure 26

WATER AND RECYCLING - CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

Report No. 15.3.

CONFIDENTIAL Tender Evaluation 2011-0046 Construction of Sewage Pump Station in Boondoon Crescent Ocean Shores

Executive Manager: Water and Recycling

File No: ENG702535 #1195670

Principal Activity:

Sewerage Services

Summary:

The existing sewage pump station located at Boondoon Crescent Ocean Shores has insufficient pumping capacity due to catchment growth and stormwater ingress during significant storm events. It was identified in the July 2007 pollution reduction program (PRP)100 Sewer Overflow Investigations Report to the Department of Environment, Climate Change & Water (DECCW) as an item for replacement in order to mitigate overflows to the environment.

The purpose of this report is to present to Council the outcome of a public tender for the construction of the new Sewage Pump Station in Boondoon Crescent Ocean Shores.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That pursuant to Section 10A(2)(c) and (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, Council resolve into Confidential Session to discuss the following report, namely Confidential – Tender 2011-0046 - Construction of Sewage Pump Station in Boondoon Crescent Ocean Shores.

2. That the reasons for closing the meeting to the public to consider this item be that:

(a) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

(b) commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed:

(i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it, or

(ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council, or

(iii) reveal a trade secret.

3. That on balance it is considered that receipt and discussion of the matter in open Council would be contrary to the public interest, as disclosure of the confidential information could compromise the commercial position of the tenderers, could adversely affect Council’s ability to contract with preferred tenderers or could affect Council’s ability to attract competitive tenders in the event that fresh tenders are invited.

Attachments:

· CONFIDENTIAL Tender Evaluation Report #1195637 [1 page]............................................. Annexure 23

Venue	Council Chambers, Station Street, Mullumbimby
Date	Thursday, 1 March 2012
Time	10.30am