Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 11 December 2014

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion 9.2

Notice of Motion No. 9.2 Collaboratively preparing a rail corridor project that responds to Byron's needs

File No: I2014/78

I move:

1. That Council, with the intent to illustrate to the State Government a community wide support for multi use of the rail corridor within Byron Shire and to prepare for possible funding opportunities:

a) Reiterates its support for a dual use within the rail corridor, comprising a public transport provision in conjunction with a rail trail.

b) Expediently convene meetings with rail corridor stakeholders to work collaboratively to develop an action plan in order to present a formal, costed and community supported project within the rail corridor to achieve local transport and tourism benefits within Byron Shire and that an invitation is also extended to local MP, the Hon. Don Page.

2. That this action plan includes:

a) Identifying any potential impediments to such a proposal, including legal, logistic and geographic.

b) Developing a proposal that includes investigating, developing and costing a rail trail route next to or sharing the rail tracks, in order to present to the community two options with which to compare:

i. a rail based public transport service with a bike path alongside; and

ii. a non-rail based public transport service with a bike path.

c) Consideration of and proposals to fund options to complete 2(a) and (b)

d) Seeking expressions of interest for possible provision of public transport services.

3. That this group also liaises with surrounding Local Government Areas to enhance a possible regional infrastructure project within the rail corridor.

Councillor’s Background Notes:

We don’t really know how the State government may make decisions regarding the use of the Casino to Murwillumbah rail corridor and in particular, the section that moves through Byron Shire.

Regardless, it is crucial that Byron Shire’s community unite as much as possible to advocate for uses within the rail corridor that reflect our needs, both now and into the future. So far, it has been assumed that it will simply be a political decision based on political realities and for political outcomes. Thus, two extremely well meaning and well reasoned groups have spent great energy presenting THE case upon which politicians were to make their decisions. Though both TOOT and NRRT both regularly and consistently state categorically that the best outcome would be for a dual use of the rail corridor, this consensus has been lost in the fervour of ‘trains versus rail trail’ campaigning.

This NoM seeks to provide an opportunity for these two groups to collaboratively create a solution for Byron Shire that can be used to show to the State government a united, feasible and important project for Byron Shire.

It could be that the Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services, will be calling for Expressions of Interest (EOI) for regional infrastructure projects.

Thus, any proposed use of the rail corridor, whether it be for rail based products and services that may cater for both locals and visitors, or only a rail trail, will need to compete against other large scale projects. We need to be prepared, organised and unified. It is vital, for any chance of success through an EOI process; we can demonstrate strong, united community support and this does not exist thus far in Byron Shire. It is also vital that we are well down the track of being able to prepare a fully costed, designed and ‘shovel ready’ project with which to compete against other projects already ready to roll and already fully supported by the affected community.

Doing It the Byron Way

The only way forward is to see what joins the two main stakeholder groups and to promote that so we in Byron receive a project that reflects our values, our needs and what we deserve. What unites all groups and the community is the acceptance that we should at least see if we can have both-a rail plus a trail. So far, no feasibility for a light rail or shuttle service within Byron Shire has occurred and no feasibility has been done as to how a bike path may coexist with either a track based public transport service or a soft wheeled, ‘trackless’ public service in Byron Shire. This NOM seeks to get the community to this point-having clear, agreed upon data with which to compare these options, so we can all at least make informed and feasible choices.

Both TOOT and NRRT accept that within Byron Shire there are very different circumstances and opportunities that may or may not exist across the whole length of the corridor. With 1.3-5 million visitors per year, a small length of track, the vast bulk of the local population near the corridor and the multitude of festivals and events that exist in close proximity to the rail corridor, it is fitting for Byron to seek more than a bike and walking track within the rail corridor. TOOT believes a rail-based use can coexist alongside a bike path. NRRT believes, as its website states,

Therefore, this Notice of Motion seeks to promote The Byron Way of doing things-demanding, inclusive, feasible and innovative. Getting to a great outcome, the Byron way, simply requires all stakeholders to get together and plot a course forward to bring the community together.

Particulars of the Notice of Motion

1 a) This has been the position of Council and the community in general for a considerable time and has been the focus of council resolutions on a few occasions. There is nothing new in this; it is simply reiterating the fact.

1b) We would benefit greatly from our local member actively engaging with the community’s wishes for a community wide outcome and it is crucial the facilitator has ears and eyes within the State Government apparatus in order to give us the best chance to put forward a competitive EOI submission. Council could convene this group, however, being established by the local member has advantages. Its outcomes would be elevated in importance within the eyes of the State Government if it was auspiced by the State Government. It is vital to also extend this group to incorporate some highly credentialed public transport and rail experts.

2. This seeks to get clarity for the community. So far, every group in this field has experts who state why something another group is touting cannot occur and why their groups feasibility is more robust. This is the natural way of things when groups have been pitted against each other and told only one side will be victorious. It is actually impressive how both groups have largely been respectful of each other and not dug themselves into trenches that are so deep they exclude further dialogue. This NoM seeks to provide this opportunity for dialogue. It is based around costing and clearly outlining two options and making decisions based upon agreed data and baseline figures.

2 b) is where this can occur.

It is clear there are many current proposals by private and potentially cooperative groups who wish to provide a tourist and community shuttle type service using the existing rail tracks. It is also contended that a service providing a tourist and community shuttle type service could be managed by a shuttle with soft wheels, which does not require the tracks and instead, could use a bike path, though one widened further to accommodate soft-wheeled vehicles and cyclists/walkers.

Let’s get agreed upon evidence, data and costings so we can all accurately and soberly compare the options. This NoM is concerned more about getting groups to agree to cost preferred options for the corridor within Byron Shire and compare them, than in supporting any one position. We can all make up our minds when we have the evidence.

2d) This seeks to ‘shake the tree’ so to speak and see who is ready and able to step up and provide services both we and visitors may use. Already a team developing cooperatively run tram services have voiced an interest, as have three private operators who wish to upgrade and maintain the tracks to provide a visitor experience that may to various degrees, provide a subsidised local use. There may be a trackless train operator who is waiting for the opportunity to make their case.

3. This ensures we speak to our neighbours so we may enhance any corridor long proposal to forms the EOI submission

What about the rest of the Corridor?

This NoM has deliberately only focused upon the rail corridor within Byron Shire. It has done so for a few reasons:

1. We, the Councillors deliberating on this, are representatives first and foremost of Byron shire and the benefits of its community must lead our considerations. It is great where an outcome that benefits Byron Shire can also benefit another shire. However, if an outcome that benefits another shire weakens a benefit for Byron it is problematic.

2. Our circumstances are different. We have a booming tourism industry, we have carried the weight of the tourism industry for the northern rivers, indeed for NSW outside of Sydney for decades and we deserve to gain as considerably as we can from the development of one of the most crucial pieces of infrastructure we have, with decisions that could enhance our community for generations or cause us to rue a missed opportunity for decades.

3. This NoM does not preclude or exclude any outcomes arising from the corridor long campaigns by different groups. As stated earlier, this seeks to get groups around one point of agreement-Byron Shire can and should seek to have multiple uses within the corridor. If the State government decides a walking and bike path is to be established along the full 132 km length of the corridor, providing an extra use within Byron Shire simply enhances the tourism product and appeal. If a rail trail is not established, a shuttle service is costed and ready to go in Byron Shire. Then, with a rail trail also incorporated, we will enhance the visitor and local benefit.

Bottom line- letting the different rail and trail groups advocate their positions as to desired uses of the corridor should not get in the way of both groups agreeing to ensure Byron shire tries its best to have both.

Recommended priority relative to other Delivery Plan tasks:

N/A

Definition of the project/task:

Supporting the establishment of a collaborative working group to develop a proposal for utilising the rail corridor within Byron Shire and requesting the local member, the Hon. Don Page to convene and establish the group.

Source of Funds (if applicable):

None required

Signed: Cr Simon Richardson

Management Comments by Ken Gainger, General Manager

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

Clarification of project/task:

To provide an opportunity for rail corridor stakeholders to collaboratively create a solution for Byron Shire that can be used to demonstrate feasible options for the shared use of the Casino to Murwillumbah rail corridor within Byron Shire.

Who is responsible for task implementation:

General Manager

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

The task is consistent with the Industry led Destination Management Plan program

Financial and Resource Implications:

To undertake the proposed tasks will require both Council staff and financial resources. As no budget is currently available for these tasks it is likely that external/grant funding would be required to achieve the actions outlined.

Legal and Policy Implications:

Nil

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion 9.4

Notice of Motion No. 9.4 Permanent Second Lane Shirley/Lawson Streets Byron Bay - "Two Lanes In"

File No: I2014/85

I move that Council:

1. Supports the creation of a permanent second lane along Shirley/Lawson Street into the Jonson/Lawson street roundabout linking with Bay Street via the Jonson Street north car park.

2. That we receive a detailed report at the first meeting in 2015 from staff including design options, necessary approvals from state agencies, funding sources, traffic impacts.

3. That $15,000 be sourced from the Bypass reserve funds or other funding sources be identified for consultants to be engaged to assist staff with the completion of the report.

4. That a workshop be convened as soon as possible at the site of the north Lawson Street car park inviting stakeholders, business owners and other interested parties to meet with staff consultants and traffic engineers to discuss this very important issue of traffic congestion that has plagued our town for decades.

Signed: Cr Rose Wanchap

Councillor’s Background Notes:

I believe a second lane into Byron is crucial to alleviate the ever growing bottle neck into town. It is clear that the bypass will be valuable to divert traffic that truly wants to bypass the town centre but all other traffic that is heading for Main Beach and the town centre is at present going via the “Lawson/Jonson st roundabout.

With a few changes this “beach” traffic can be diverted around this “hot spot” by creating a road through the Jonson street north car park or the First Sun Caravan Park and linking to Bay street at the northern end. By returning Bay street to two ways access from the North and the South to the beach can be made without congesting the Jonson/Lawson streets and roundabout.

In comparison to the major imposition the bypass will create there are very minor changes required to the present roads to accommodate two lanes in. See power point presentation of the road in through to the Jonson/Lawson St roundabout at this link.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3oqk93yljxcizks/TWO%20LANES%20IN%20sept%202014.ppt?dl=0

The main beach and shopping precinct is our main attraction, the big marquee, the big top tent and we need to manage the traffic that is going there. The major music events manage 30,000 visitors for the few days they are on but we need to manage this number of visitors weekly.

Whilst this solution may not alleviate all of our traffic problems it will go a long way to freeing up the bottle neck caused by random pedestrians who can number in the thousands daily by diverting traffic away from where they cross the road. This won’t reduce the traffic but it will decimate the numbers of time traffic has to stop.

The second lane into town will also provide relief from the traffic that backs up from the roundabout back as the beach traffic turns across the line of traffic coming from all three directions through town. The second lane will offer two lanes around the Service station roundabout which will reduce hold ups there on market days.

I believe it is time we all came together to do what we can to manage the 28,000 visitors per week who enter our town.

Recommended priority relative to other Delivery Plan tasks:

See staff comments below.

Definition of the project/task:

See staff comments below.

Source of Funds (if applicable):

See staff comments below.

Management Comments by Simon Bennett, Traffic and Transport Planner:

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

Clarification of project/task:

Subject to Council endorsement the NOM seeks as follows:

Part 1 - Council support for the creation of a permanent second inbound lane along Shirley Street (from Kendall Street) and onto Lawson Street through to the Jonson Street and Lawson Street roundabout with a road link to Bay Street provided via Lawson Street North car park.

Part 2 - a detailed staff report on Part 1 by the first meeting in 2015 which includes design options, necessary approvals from state agencies, funding sources, traffic impacts.

Part 3 - Council support to provide $15,000, either from the budget and funds reserved for the Byron Bay bypass, or failing that identify another funding source, for the purpose of engaging consultants to assist staff with the completion of the report.

Part 4 - that a workshop be convened as soon as possible at the site of the Lawson Street North car park inviting stakeholders, business owners and other interested parties to meet with staff consultants and traffic engineers to discuss the proposal.

Director responsible for task implementation:

Phillip Holloway, Infrastructure Services

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

With the exception of Part 4, the NOM is related to previous resolutions staff are working through including the following described below, i.e. three resolutions from 7 August and two from 9 October 2014 Council meetings.

Accordingly these are being progressed and will address the intention of Parts 1 and 2 with a report scheduled for the first meeting of 2015. This work has commenced with design to be completed and estimated. To this end funds for a third party consultancy (as per Part 3 of the NOM) is not required at this time.

Two from 9 October 2014

Report No. 13.13 - Proposed Bay Street Ring Road and Two-Lanes Inbound on

Shirley Street (#E2014/63280)

14-474 Resolved:

1. That in relation to resolution 14-363 Council:

a) refer the following to the Byron Bay Master Plan project for further consideration on the proviso it does not require changes to the project scope and budget as already agreed with the consultant:

i) reinstating two-way on Bay Street , Byron Bay

ii) the creation of a pedestrian precinct on Jonson Street, between Lawson Street and Bay Street

b) note the matter of direct access to the Lawson Street north car park from Lawson Street, Byron Bay is being considered as per the current Byron Bay parking study.

2. That in relation to resolution 14-366 Council note as per previous studies, such as Council’s own MR545 Strategic Study, a second inbound lane on Shirley Street, Byron Bay is to be considered in regard to the Byron Bay bypass project and does not require more than a 50m to 100m length on the approach to the Butler / Shirley / Lawson Street roundabout.

Notice of Motion No. 9.3 - Byron Trade Expo at proposed trial Lawson(sic) Street Mall (E2014/63518)

14-499 Resolved that Council approve the proposed trial for the "Bay Street Ring Road, Jonson Street mall and Two Lanes in" to promote a whole of shire "Arts & Industry" Expo in the Jonson street mall for a period of 10 days from the 1st April, 2015 subject to:

a) All necessary funding being identified

b) All required approvals from state bodies being obtained.

Three from 7 August 2014:

Notice of Motion No. 9.6. - Two lanes into Byron Bay (#E2014/48575)I2014\85

14-366 Resolved:

1. That Council ask for a report to be brought back to the 18 September 2014 Council Ordinary Meeting to examine the potential for the creation of a second in-going traffic lane into the CBD of Byron Bay along Ewingsdale/Shirley/Lawson Streets from Kendall Street through to Jonson Street before the coming summer holiday season 2014.

2. That the report include commentary as to how such a proposal may support or enhance the Park and Ride project with possible funding being considered from the Park and Ride budget.

Notice of Motion No. 9.4 - Bay Street Ring Road (the Bay 1) (#E2014/48587)

14-363 Resolved that a report be brought to Council to consider a temporary trial to coincide with the Summer in the Bay festivities for a 9 day period from the 27 December 2014 to the 4 January 2014:

a) Return Bay Street to two-way traffic from Middleton Street through to the northern end of the Lawson Street North car park before the coming summer holiday season 2014.

b) Make Jonson Street between Bay and Lawson Street into a mall by restricting all vehicle traffic other than commercial/retail vehicles from entering.

c) Link Bay Street to Jonson/Shirley/Ewingsdale Road through the Lawson Street North Car Park to create the ring road (The Bay1).

d) That funding of $15,000 be requested to be made available from either/or the following funds: the Summer in the Bay festivities, including New Year's Eve Soul Street, New Year's Day First Sun and the Park and Ride subject to availability.

e) That the "Soul Street" event be relocated to the pedestrian precinct and costs associated with closure could be restricted to a minimum of signage and traffic barriers to prevent vehicular access and funding at no more than $10,000 to be sourced from the "Soul Street" budget.

Notice of Motion No. 9.3 - Alternate Bypass route for Byron Bay (#E2014/48546)

14-362 Resolved that Council:

a) Include Byron Street in the "Kendall to Butler Street corridor, and any associated railway land between Shirley and Browning Street" for consideration in the development of the Byron Bay Master Plan; and

b) Council make any necessary representations and expressions of interest on the subject land for the purposes of future planning for the pedestrian, parking, transit, and general traffic improvements in this area.

Financial and Resource Implications:

The NOM nominates funds be sourced from the Byron Bay bypass, or failing that Council identify another funding source for consultants to be engaged to assist staff with the completion of the report.

Council have put aside $50,000 for bypass related work separate to the amount committed (approx. $250,000) to engage a third party consultancy (GHD) to undertake the project through to approval, including EIS and detailed design and costing.

Legal and Policy Implications:

Nil at this time.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Delegates' Reports 12.6

Delegate's Report No. 12.6 NSW Coastal Conference, Ulladulla NSW
12 to14 November, 2014

File No: I2014/83

Three streams operated for much of the Conference. One page synopses appear in the Program & Abstract Book. We spread ourselves across the streams. The reports are on the talks we attended, under the name of the lead author only (see the actual Abstracts for details):

Session 1 – plenary.

1. Ian Hoskins, historian and author:

· Ian carries an amazing breadth of knowledge of the NSW coast, with its >2,000km length, 130 estuaries, 100 coastal lakes and rich history.

· Ian’s book Coast: a history of the New South Wales edge is the first written history of the NSW coast and describes from Aboriginal use through to our current obsession with the beach as a place to live or holiday.

Session 2.

2. Norm Lenehan of Eurobodalla Shire Council on replacement sea level rise (SLR) figures:

· state guidelines removed but most still follow them, not so much the numbers as the approach.

· ocean level rise is the same for all NSW but varies according to beach and estuarine shapes.

· he suggests focusing on the risk and move away from its timing.

· and focus on the certainties: sea level will rise; this raises the risk of …...

· he suggests:

Hazard	Time (years)	Generation	SLR (m)
(current)	now – 15	now	0.1
(medium-term)	15 – 35	current	0.26
(strategic)	35 – 85	multiple	0.98
(maximum)	>85	future	2.0

we don’t need to be accurate on when, just work out what to do when SLR reaches say 0.25m, 0.5m, 1.0m, etc.

3. Roger McLean of UNSW Canberra on Moruya’s Bengello Beach 1974 - 2007:

· long record of beach profile surveys (longest around for NSW?).

· big storms and loss of sand in May 1974, June 2007.

4. Peter Helman of SCCU on management of our Brunswick River estuary:

· a whole-of-catchment approach to estuary health management, as for the Brunswick River.

5. Jarrod Dent of Baird Australia on climate models for ocean wave heights:

· world models are accurate predictors but do not account for local weather or for coastal shape.

· “downscaling” by including a local model accounts for these local effects.

· calibration is by hind-casting 60 years of records (since 1950s).

· first waverider buoy in February 1974 off Port Kembla. First directional waverider in 1999, off Byron Bay.

· wind hindcasts tested over 12 years of record, 1998 – 2009 then converted to wave height. Duncan thinks the test results gave a poor fit.

6. Phil Watson in private PhD (not OEH) on SLR acceleration / deceleration:

· deceleration was picked up in IPCC 2013 report, Chapter 3.

· 2nd order polynomial on records since 1850s at Cuxhaven (Germany).

· acceleration peaked in about 1990, thus now deemed deceleration.

Session 3A – Hazard Lines.

7. Chris Adamantidis of Worley Parsons on a new tool for mapping coastal hazard:

· flood hazard mapping is more reliable than coastal. Coastal relies on photogrammetry plus estimated storm cut plus the zone of reduced foundation stability. There is a need to integrate the photogrammetric records into the storm event series, to account for cut / accretion at the date of the photo.

· we now have Lidar data plus numerical models (like WaveRIDE) that can do this.

8. David Wainwright of Whitehead & Assoc and of UQ on SLR for Eurobodalla and Shoalhaven:

· the withdrawn NSW Guideline projections were “widely accepted” and “competent”.

· he cites s733 of the LGAct and ESD and intergenerational principles (EP&A Act).

· the sea level record at Fort Denison is suitable to monitor for NSW (4cm 1996 – 2013).

· since 1935 there has been only rise in Mean Sea Level (MSL), no falls.

· the IPCC projections are suitable (Second Target RCP8.5).

9. Doug Lord of Coastal Environment P/L on planning triggers:

· paper not complete but soon.

· planning to 1. discourage development in susceptible locations.

· he suggests (and I totally support): 2. don’t pick on individuals;

3. minimise future waste of money;

4. triggers (distance triggers have been unsuccessful);

5. certainty.

Duncan believes the right trigger for existing coastal structures is “when the repair bill after an event reaches $xxxx, abandon the structure or relocate it to a more landward position” eg our Jonson Street carpark. This needs to be planned and agreed, during fine weather not shouted about in the middle of a storm.

10. Angus Gordon of Coastal Zone M’ment & Planning on hazard lines:

· suggest hazard lines have not worked and need to go. We would be just as well served by using the already mapped contour of 5m AHD and not inhabiting land below that.

· Europe has thousands of years of experience; US has hundreds; Australia has only decades.

· a Vulnerability Matrix is created as likelihood times consequence.

· s149.5 tells a prospective purchaser that there is a hazard. s149.5 that there is a policy.

Comment by Alan Young that hazard lines be replaced with web-based info (click on a Lot).

Session 4 – Protection and Management.

11. Karen Coleman & Pat Aitken of King & Wood Mallesons on eight coastal communities:

· they are angry lawyers helping aussie battlers look after their castles at hotspots like Belongil, Winda Woppa, Blueys and Boomerang Beaches, Old Bar.

12. Mladen Kovac of OEH on nearby Caseys Beach project:

· seawalls were rebuilt in 1975 and still overtopped. The armour was scattered on the beach.

· STP has a surface level of 2.4m AHD.

· EurOtop 2007 manual will be used for new rebuild using existing granite and basalt.

· crest level will be 3.0m AHD for current conditions (Stage 1) and 3.7m eventual (Stage 2).

13. Simon Rowe of OceanWatch Australia on marine natural resource management (NRM):

· OceanWatch was created in 1989 to help with fish, oysters, and other commodities.

Session 5 – plenary.

14. Peter … of Marine Estate M’ment Authority on maximising community well-being:

· MEMA advises the Ministers of Primary Industries and of the Environment.

15. Enzo Pranzini of Italy on European experiences:

· European coast is about 80% defended, because land is dropping and sea is rising. People have contributed for centuries - paying for maintenance is not new.

· design is now generally steep and concave, to reflect waves and thus reduce overtopping.

· it’s easy to stabilise a beach if you are happy to sacrifice the sand.

16. Patrick Hesp of Flinders Uni on foredunes:

· plants retain sand to form foredunes.

· foredunes should not be interfered with and should be allowed to proceed landward.

· climate change includes affects on dunes, eg wind, dryness.

Session 6A – Applied Research.

17. Duncan McLuckie of OEH on coincidence of coastal and catchment events:

· in big rivers, the peak is often days after the storm. Not so for coastal creeks.

· the May 1974 was a huge ocean event (Duncan’s note: but January and March 1974 catchment events were much bigger).

· Roy et all in 2001 defined five types of coastal creeks:

#5 = Cudgen or Myall Lakes (long creek downstream)

#4 = intermittently closed estuary

#3 = fixed entrance (like the Brunswick River) or dynamic entrance or ICOLLS.

· step 7 of the guidelines is to determine ocean levels for each catchment AEP to get an envelope of results in the estuary.

· also need to model 1% flow into Neap tide, to cover high velocity scenario.

18. James Carley of WRL on modelling advances:

· XBEACH can include the dune. SWAN models to the surf break point. There are 1D models for wave set-up. Others for wave run-up and overtopping. And EurOtop.

· then use river 1D and 2D river models for travel upstream in an estuary.

19. Peter Horton of Royal Haskoning DHV on Acceptable Risk:

· he recommends the Risk Assessment methodology that the Aust. Geomechanics Society. Differ say a landslip risk (where risk includes loss of life) from sandy coast risk (property only).

· for the CZMP for Warringah Council, they adopted a planning life of 60 years = the life of the structures. Duncan thinks this is way too short.

20. Michelle Fletcher of BMT WBM on Estuary M’ment Plans:

· EMPs since 1992.

· in 2003 they reviewed 20 of the hundred or so EMPs done.

· EPA spent about $60m on 190 GPTs but they do not get maintained. They have become pollution sources!

21. Thomas Oliver of Uni of Wollongong on the coastal floodplain at Moruya:

· area studied over several decades.

· transects about 400m long perpendicular to the beach-front using Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) revealed old beach faces from hundreds to thousands of years ago.

· OSL dating gives time elapsed since the sand grains were buried.

Session 7 – field trips.

Conference Dinner.

22. Rob Stokes, Minister for the Environment on coastal policies:

· received an ovation for the climax of his speech “protect the beach”.

· he wants s1495 certificates to advise the what, when, how, etc of the coastal threat.

· the govt is drafting new coastal Guidelines.

· there will be no govt assistance for works after June 2015, if they are not part of a CZMP.

· a new Coastal Council will be formed.

Session 8B, 8C – Climate Change & Applied Research.

23. Paul Donaldson of BMT WBM on the influence of bedrock geology:

· bedrock at depths of 4m or less will influence coastal hazard lines, especially at headlands.

24. Jason Evans of UNSW on climate projections:

· Global Climate Models (GCMs) are to grids of 1° (=110km) to 4° of latitude / longitude. They have to be downscaled (see talk #5 above) for local features like Great Dividing Range, etc.

· the NSW/ACT Regional Climate (NARClim) model hindcasted 1950 – 2010 then forecasts 3 future windows for annual mean changes in climate factors like rainfall, temperature, wind on four seasons (summer, autumn, winter, spring).

· warmer water will come south, into the Tasman Sea.

· Northern NSW will have increased precipitation in summer and autumn, predicted by 3 of the 12 models tested.

· mean wind speeds won’t change.

· maximum wind speeds on our North Coast will increase in summer and decrease in winter.

25. Tyannah O’Donnell of Uni of Canberra on Rolling Easements:

· about the interface between public amenity & access with private property.

· planning decisions as in Port Stephens and Lake Macquarie LGAs have prioritised private interests over public.

26. David Rissik of the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility on NCCARF:

· funded by federal government to support coastal Local Government.

Session 9 – plenary.

27. Robert Young of Western Carolina Uni on US experience:

· they have a phone App, to look up the storm height for any property, and another App for beach nourishment / condition.

· the USA suffers having the US Army Corps of Engineers, who march and fix stuff after storms that should be reconsidered. Robert wants “responsible reconstruction”.

· there are ridiculous cases of elevating homes in crazy places as that is covered by insurance. If you can only raise in the same location, you have to hold the coastline in place.

· beach nourishment is a never-ending commitment; with side effects (it is not environmentally benign).

· you cannot make decisions whether to rebuild or not in the middle of a storm, you have to make them beforehand. When things have been destroyed is the opportunity to relocate.

· California inserts into title deeds at time of sale: (a) the building will not be reconstructed; and (b) it will be removed if it becomes threatened.

The 2015 Conference will be held in Forster, by Great Lakes Shire Council.

Signed: Cr Duncan Dey
Cr Simon Richardson

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - General Manager 13.1

Staff Reports - General Manager

Report No. 13.1 Fit for the Future - Local Government Reform

Directorate: General Manager

Report Author: Ken Gainger, General Manager

File No: I2014/13

Theme: Corporate Management

General Manager’s Office

Summary:

The NSW government embarked upon a state-wide local government reform program in August 2011 beginning with a summit of all Mayors and General Managers of NSW councils being held in Dubbo under the mantra of “Destination 2036”. Following the summit two key independent panels were appointed by the Minister for Local Government, namely the Independent Local Government Review Panel (ILGRP) and the Local Government Act Review Task Force (LGARTF). Each released a series of interim reports and the LG sector (and others) were given an opportunity to lodge submissions expressing their support or otherwise for the initiatives proposed in those reports. Earlier this year the final reports of both panels were presented to the Minister for Local Government, and in September 2014 the Minister announced the NSW government’s comprehensive response to the recommendations contained in those reports labelled “Fit for the Future” (FFF).

FFF has effectively adopted the bulk of the recommendations made by the two panels and laid out an implementation schedule for councils to follow. The package of reforms adopted by the government is broadly supported by local government and many of the actions in the package have been called for by the sector for many years and are seen as fundamental to the on-going sustainability of the NSW system of local government. The most controversial elements of the FFF package are those pertaining to local government mergers and the establishment of regional Joint Organisations across NSW and it is these elements that are canvassed in this report.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

That Council:

1. Expresses its broad support for the package of local government reforms outlined in the Fit for the Future program.

2. Supports the Independent Local Government Review Panel’s recommendation that Byron Shire Council is of sufficient scale and capacity to warrant it being able to continue as an autonomous local government authority.

3. Undertakes to submit a Council Improvement Proposal to the Office of Local Government by 30 June 2015 in accordance with the guidelines and templates distributed and based upon the Council’s successful implementation of its Financial Sustainability initiatives.

4. Supports the establishment of a Northern Rivers Joint Organisation and looks forward to contributing to the development of its purpose, functions and governance in collaboration with other Northern Rivers councils and the Office of Local Government.

Attachments:

1 Information regarding funding to local government for 'The Fit for the Future' reform package , S2014/10999 (provided under separate cover)

2 A roadmap for Stronger, Smarter Councils - September 2014, E2014/79298 (provided under separate cover)

3 NSW Government Response - September 2014, E2014/79282 (provided under separate cover)

4 Council Improvement Proposal, E2014/79285 (provided under separate cover)

5 Circular No. 14-30 Announcement of Joint Organisation Pilots - 12/11/2014, E2014/79292 , page 41

Report

Background:

Fit for the Future:

FFF has effectively adopted the bulk of the recommendations made by the two panels and laid out an implementation schedule for councils to follow.(The detailed response to each of the panel’s recommendations is included as an attachment to this report). The package of reforms adopted by the government is broadly supported by local government and many of the actions in the package have been called for by the sector for many years and are seen as fundamental to the on-going sustainability of the NSW system of local government. The most controversial elements of the FFF package are those pertaining to local government mergers and the establishment of regional Joint Organisations across NSW and it is these elements that are primarily canvassed in this report.

The release of the FFF program in September 2014 was quickly followed by a series of local government briefings across NSW. At these briefings councils were informed that the recommendations of the ILGRP relating to which NSW councils should be targeted for potential amalgamation and those which were earmarked to be of sufficient scale and capacity to remain as they are would be accepted by the government as the basis by which they proceeded to determine which councils were deemed to be Fit for the Future. These ILGRP report schedules list Byron Shire Council as being among those that are not being targeted, at least initially, for amalgamation. However, all NSW councils, including Byron Shire Council, must demonstrate their long term viability by submitting a report to the Office of Local Government (OLG) by 30^th June 2015 outlining their plans to become Fit for the Future.

To give guidance and assistance in this process the OLG recently released a series of papers which either:

1. Provide guidance on how to prepare and submit a Council Merger Proposal (for those councils identified for prospective merger); or

2. Provide guidance on how to prepare a Council Improvement Proposal (for those councils not identified for prospective merger).

Each guide is accompanied by a FFF reporting template and a self assessment tool. The self assessment tool focuses on each council providing bench-marked performance measures to do with:

1. Sustainability (3 performance measures, namely operating performance, own source revenue, and building & infrastructure asset renewal))

2. Infrastructure and Service Management (3 performance measures, namely infrastructure backlog, asset maintenance, and debt)

3. Efficiency (one performance measure, namely real operating expenditure

Assistance is available to councils from the OLG in preparing Council Improvement Proposals but the costs must be met by the council. Only those councils that are exploring merger proposals can apply for financial assistance.

Following the lodgement of Council Improvement Proposals in June 2015, the OLG will evaluate the sustainability of those councils based on recently established criteria. (This criteria is outlined in an attachment to this report). Those councils deemed as being fit for the future will be given access to a range of financial benefits including:

1. Access to cheaper loan funds through a new State borrowing facility to help fund local infrastructure;

2. More flexibility with procurement and simplified reporting;

3. Access to a streamlined IPART process for setting rates; and

4. Eligibility for additional planning powers

It is not clear what the fate of those councils deemed as not FFF will be.

While councils will welcome an opportunity to have their performance benchmarked across the sector it would appear that the criteria developed to determine which councils are Fit for the Future are limited to financial and infrastructure renewal factors. This would seem to be a very narrow perspective on effective local government performance. Byron Shire Council together with 71 other councils across NSW have been participating in a Local Government Professionals/PWC performance benchmarking process titled “Local Government Operational and Management Effectiveness Report”. This proactive bench marking initiative reviews council performance across an extensive range of performance criteria and is thus a more complete measure of each council’s effectiveness. It is intended that Council’s initial performance report generated by this program will be submitted to the OLG together with our Council Improvement Proposal.

Joint Organisations:

Among the initiatives adopted by the government is the formation of a Northern Rivers Joint Organisation comprising six councils, namely Byron, Ballina, Tweed, Lismore, Richmond Valley and Kyogle. The Northern Rivers Joint Organisation (NRJO) is broadly intended as a regional forum for collaboration on regional priorities which will (a) connect ideas and priorities; (b) create a consistent and structured way for regional councils to collaborate; and (c) elevate key priorities through effective strategic planning.

The government has recently established five pilot JOs across regional NSW which will operate during 2015. The Northern Rivers area was not selected as one of the pilot JOs. The pilot JO regions are Central West, Hunter, Illawarra, Namoi and Riverina.. These pilot JOs will work with the OLG in establishing successful models for the structure and operation of JOs that will assist in the roll out of JOs across the state in 2016.

A Way Forward:

Since the announcement of the FFF reforms there has been much speculation within the media and the community about what the future of individual councils in the northern rivers region will be. The only council in the region that has been identified for potential amalgamation is Kyogle Council which has been advised to enter discussions with Lismore and Richmond Valley councils regarding the potential for merger.

To date submissions by Byron Shire Council to the ILGRP have been predicated on Council’s preference to remain in its present form on a stand alone basis. While the Council received a negative financial sustainability report from the NSW Treasury Corporation (TCorp) in March 2013, much work has been done to steadily improve Council’s financial outlook to the point where all of Council’s key financial indicators are reflecting improved sustainability. The Council has referred to its successful Financial Sustainability Plans in each of its ILGRP submissions expressing its preference and capacity to remain as a discrete local government authority.

Despite significant financial (cash) incentives being offered by the government for NSW councils to develop amalgamation proposals (between $5M and $13.5M), Byron Shire Council has not been approached by any of its neighbouring councils to engage in discussions about a potential merger and preliminary informal discussions with those councils has indicated that each has a preference to remain as they are. Accordingly It would be helpful for the Council to formally resolve its stated preference not to be amalgamated (given the government’s consistently stated policy of no forced amalgamations) so that should Council be approached its position on the issue is clear.

With respect to the creation of a Northern Rivers JO, Council’s position has generally been supportive of this concept albeit with some concerns about the notion of a Council of Mayors overseeing the JO as a Board of Directors with the support of their respective council General Managers. Once again the Council has expressed this support in all of its submission to the ILGRP. For the sake of clarity it would also be helpful if the Council resolved its position with respect to the establishment of a NRJO

There has also been speculation as to the structure and auspice of a NRJO with NOROC recently (unsuccessfully) applying to become one of the pilot JOs. The FFF program is silent on the role of ROCs in the establishment of JOs and reference is generally made to constituent councils forming a JO rather than established organisations of councils although this does not seem to be necessarily precluded. To my view there is a certain attraction in a fresh approach to regional collaboration and regional strategic planning synonymous with a bold new forward looking local government regime that is not encumbered by the peculiarities of the existing ROCs with their unworkable consensus decision making and chronic under-funding. Some clarity from the Council regarding its preference for the structure and auspice of a NRJO would also be beneficial.

Conclusion:

The NSW government’s Fit for the Future program of local government reform has much to commend it. It provides an opportunity to reframe local government for the next 25 years and beyond and to establish much needed financial reforms that remove some of the unnecessary regulation and bureaucratic systems and provide councils with greater control of their finances and accountability for performance.

Byron Shire Council, through the successful creation and implementation of its Financial Sustainability Plans, has overseen a significant improvement in Council’s financial outlook to the point where long term sustainability seems eminently achievable. By framing Council as a stand alone local government entity into the future the Council will provide our community with an opportunity to retain existing levels of representation and advocacy undiluted by the creation of a merged entity typified by competing community development interests and conflicting priorities. A stand alone council is most likely to be able to sustain and nurture those inherent characteristics that make Byron Shire such an attractive and vibrant place to live, work and recreate. A clear statement by the Council as to its preference will give clear direction to its community and the broader local government sector as to its future direction.

Council should similarly restate its support for the establishment of a Northern Rivers Joint Organisation and promote a model that is not mired in the past but reflects a fresh approach more befitting the most significant reform of NSW local government in a generation.

Financial Implications

The financial implications flowing from FFF are potentially significant for the council. Much will depend on the business case put forward by the council in the Council Improvement Proposal to be submitted to the OLG in June 2015 and whether it is sufficiently compelling to warrant this council being declared as Fit for the Future.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The FFF reforms will inevitably lead to the rewriting of the Local Government Act 1993 which is the principal legislation governing the operation of local government in NSW. It is understood that the target date for the introduction of the new legislation is 2016.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - General Manager 13.3

Report No. 13.3 Bay Lane Activation Report

Directorate: General Manager

Report Author: Marisa Snow, Projects and Tourism Officer

File No: I2014/31

Theme: Economy

Economic Development

Summary:

This report provides an overview of the Bay Lane Activation held on 25^th October 2014 and feedback from involved and relevant stakeholders.

Council Resolved (14-97) to conduct a one-off trial event along Bay Lane from Lawson St entrance to The Beach Hotel Carpark entrance and that the event be held in conjunction with the 2014 Byron Bay Surf Festival.

RECOMMENDATION:

That

1. Council note the overview of Bay Lane Activation and feedback from stakeholders presented in this report

2. Council explore the cost of basic infrastructure that would contribute to pedestrian safety and enable future laneway activations e.g. removable bollards

3. Council explore the development of an Event Management Package that could be presented to third parties to produce future laneway activations

Attachments:

1 Event running sheet, E2014/77630 , page 65

2 Traffic Management Plan, E2014/77631 , page 66

Report

Introduction

Bay Lane Activation was very successful with a diverse cross art-form program that drew more than 3000 people through the laneway – engaging a multi-generational audience and confirming the strong community sentiment for activation of public spaces.

The programming appealed to a wide audience and drew a predominantly local crowd (70 %).

Stakeholders and general public were overwhelmingly positive and reinforced a strong desire for more site specific events that engage with public space and community, with particular reference to Bay Lane and the potential for enabling a semi-pedestrian laneway in the future.

Council Resolutions

14-468 09/10/2014 Resolved:

1. That Council note the report on the program update of the Bay Lane Activation Project for endorsement

14-401 28/08/2014 Resolved:

1) That the temporary road closure of Bay Lane, Byron Bay be endorsed to occur no earlier than 10am on Friday 24 October 2014 and be removed no later than 10am Monday 27 October 2014 subject to:

a) an accredited designed and implemented Traffic Control Plan being agreed upon by relevant stakeholders and specifies the hours of closure and access;

b) details being advertised prior in accordance with Roads Act requirements;

c) public liability insurance being current and not less than $20 million;

d) concurrence of the Police, independent of the Local Traffic Committee endorsement;

e) the event and road closure being notified on Council's website; and

f) in the event of changes outside these dates and hours and/or stakeholder agreement not being reached the matter be referred back to the Local Traffic Committee meeting Council considered a report on the Bay Lane Activation Project on 12 June 2014 and resolved as follows:

14-250 12/06/2014 Resolved:

1) That Council note that permission was not granted by the private car park owners of Bay
lane to utilise their car park for the purpose of a one-off trial event to enhance Bay Lane (as per the direction of Council Resolution (14-97).

2) That Council conduct a one-off trial event along Bay Lane from the Jonson Street entrance to the Private Car Park entrance and pilot this event in conjunction with the 2014 Byron Bay Surf Festival.

3) That Council allocate $9,000 from the Footpath Dining Reserve to contribute towards funding for a one-off trial event.

4) That a survey be conducted during the trial of footpath patrons and of local businesses within 14 days following the event and results be reported to Council.

5) That a report of the details of the intended event be provided to Council for endorsement.

14-97 20/03/2014 Resolved:

1) That Council note feedback received from the Bay Lane stakeholder meeting held on 18 February 2014.

2) That Council conduct a one-off trial event in Bay Lane from the Jonson Street entrance to the private car park (pending approval from the private car park land owners).

3) That Council allocate $9,000 from the Footpath Dining Reserve to contribute towards funding for a one-off trial event.

4) That a survey be conducted during the trial of footpath patrons and of local businesses within 14 days following the event and results be reported to Council.

5) That a report of the details of intended event be provided to Council for endorsement.

13-469 19/09/2013 Resolved

That in relation to Report 4.4.1 – Byron Bay Pedestrian Projects and Audits (Community Infrastructure E2013/54100), Council not adopt Committee Recommendation 4.4.1, but instead adopt:

Management Recommendation TrAC 4.4.1

a) That Council not proceed with the traffic modelling as proposed by Part 2(a) of Resolution 10-834, which was to investigate the potential banning of right-turn movements from Lawson Street into the First Sun caravan park, Byron Bay.

b) That Council undertake cyclist and pedestrian counts of Byron Bay town centre to further inform:

i) the resolved and funded 2013/14 review of Council s Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP), with priority given to Lawson Street, between Butler Street and Jonson Street, and Jonson Street, between Bay Street and Marvell Street

ii) the necessary investigations regarding the proposal for providing direct vehicular access from Lawson Street into the Lawson Street north car park

iii) the proposed development of a pedestrian precinct and / or shared zone in Jonson Street, Byron Bay, between Bay Street and Lawson Street and / or Lawson Street and Byron Street

iv) the enhancement of the existing shared zone in Bay Lane and the potential of including Jonson Street, from Bay Lane to Bay Street, and Bay Street, between Jonson Street and Fletcher Street

c) That in the event Council’s August 2013 funding submission for the development of a Byron Bay Master Plan is successful, the following projects not be undertaken and instead referred for further consideration in regard to the master plan project, that is:

i) the development of concepts and designs for projects detailed in above items 2(c) and 2(d); and

ii) construction of the 2013/14 programmed works at the intersection of Bay and Jonson Street, Byron Bay as per Council design plan 2065, noting that the budget for this project will be used as Council’s contribution toward the master plan.

d) That in the event Council’s August 2013 funding submission for the development of a Byron Bay Master Plan is unsuccessful, staff provide a report back to the Committee by March 2014 which details concepts and designs for projects described in above items 2(c) and 2(d) plus also detail:

i) in accordance with 10-834 part 2(b), materials for purposes of consultation; and

ii) the integration, delivery and/or modification of the proposed works at the intersection of Bay and Jonson Street, Byron Bay as per Council design plan 2065"

13-442 29/08/2013 Resolved:

1) That Council liaise with businesses and property owners along Bay Lane to ascertain interest and consider challenges in the after hours closure of Bay Lane, Byron Bay.

2) That the proposed closure would extend from Jonson Street, to the Beach Hotel accommodation car parking entrance.

3) That a report is brought to Council outlining outcomes of discussions.

Report

Programming Overview

The program was developed in response to the following key enablers:

Multi-Generational content: Kids activities, chalk drawing, silent disco, live music

Lighting & Colour: Projections along laneway, film screenings, creative / interactive site lighting

Art & Culture: Live mural artists, digital drawing on buildings, large scale sculpture

Surf Festival Collaboration and content: Projection of iconic surf footage, renowned surf mural artist – Howie Cooke, Ecological surfboard demonstration (How to make a surfboard out of waste materials), marine debris sculpture and interactive kids activities

Please see Annexure A for full running order

ENGAGEMENT 07

Stakeholder Consultation:

Extensive stakeholder consultation was conducted over an 8 month period to ensure a collaborative outcome was achieved and long term relationships and opportunities were built.

Three formal stakeholder sessions were held in February, July and September 2014, with surrounding business and Bay Lane Restaurant owners present. Further correspondence and consultation was conducted via letters and one-on-one site meetings to outline event logistics, road closures, and programming concepts.

A post-event debrief survey was sent out on the 11^th November where specific report data was collected. A face-to-face de-brief was held on Tuesday 18^th November, where stakeholders had a chance to give direct feedback on the event and future recommendations. Restaurant stakeholders unanimously gave their support for future laneway activations and were in agreement that the event was very successful.

Stakeholder Feedback

The Stakeholder feedback has been positive with 100% surveyed stating they would like to see laneway activations occur in the future on a regular basis.

Opportunities Stakeholders would like to explore are:

· Closing road to traffic permanently by use of bollard system

· Regular arts and music events in the laneway

· Extending future activations across 2 days

· Better waste management in laneway

The survey revealed that all stakeholders thought the event was successful and that the programming worked well with particular reference to its appeal across all age demographics.

Byron Bay Greeters Survey

Byron Bay Greeters conducted a visitor survey and canvassed more than 150 people from 4pm-7pm to gather data on a number of areas such as: duration of stay, programming for future activations, place of origin, demographics, marketing and event successes.

Some data analysis results from the Greeters Survey:

Where do you normally live?

What do you like to see in future laneway activations in Byron Bay?

Text analysis of most frequent responses from 105 entries:

Marketing Collateral:

The following collateral was produced:

1. Event poster: Distributed to shire wide businesses

2. Link to promotional Film produced by Turtle Films - http://vimeo.com/112116487

The event was also promoted in the following:

· Bay FM Package

· Echo Net Daily

· Byron Shire Council Event web page

· Facebook targeted advertising

Corporate and Creative Partners

A wide range of consultation was conducted across the community and business sector to canvass sponsorship opportunities. The following partnerships and in-kind investments were secured. The overall response from interested parties was that they would like to support more community events and see future activations in Byron Bay.

Major Partnerships:

· North Coast Events – in-kind investment of $15,000 in technical infrastructure ie projectors, rigging, large scale projection screens, staging.

· Turtle Films –in-kind investment of $6,000 in documentation of event – film and stills photography

· Byron Hire – in-kind investment of $600 for generator and temporary fencing

Contributors:

The following companies contributed in-kind personnel and resources in excess of $2,000 each:

· Beach Hotel

· Tangaroa Blue, Revolve your world, Marine Debris Association (Marine debris facilitation for sculptured and kids activities)

· Byron Bay Surf Festival

· Falls Festival

Overall in-kind Support: Estimated at $ 27,100

Road Closure

A Traffic Management plan was devised after consultation with Restaurant Stakeholders, Waste Resource companies, tenants and surrounding businesses and the following traffic controls were put in place:

· Bay lane was closed from 7am on 24^th October – 6am on 25^th October

· Bay lane was made two way from Fletcher St

· A traffic warden was placed at Fletcher St from 1pm -12pm to direct traffic and pedestrians

The road closure went very smoothly with minimal disruption to businesses with clear signage for pedestrians and vehicles. The only concern was cars parking on Bay lane in the 2 way traffic zone.

Please see Attachment 2 for the Traffic Management Plan

Linking to the Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan

The Bay Lane Activation Project provided an important stimulus for the BBTCMP consultants to engage with the community and attract ideas and concepts for placemaking. The Consultants set up an interactive project for the public to write their big ideas for Byron Bay on a large white board. They had an overwhelming response and canvassed more than 500 people, of which 189 where visitors. This was an invaluable opportunity for the consultants to gauge local sentiment and community interest in activation public space and the success of Bay Lane was very encouraging.

ENGAGEMENT 05
ENGAGEMENT 04

Future Activations

Conducting the trial event in Bay Lane confirmed that there is strong interest from stakeholders and the Byron Shire community to feature further activations in the Byron Town Centre and in particular - Bay Lane.

1. Infrastructure Proposal – Removable Bollards

Bay Lane Stakeholders are particularly interested in exploring infrastructure options to explore closing Bay Lane down to traffic from 4pm each day. This is due to current safety concerns with traffic and pedestrians and also the freedom to be able to hold future pop-up arts and cultural events in the laneway. One option that has been put forward is removable bollards that can allow for deliveries early in the day and can be put in place from 4pm.

Example bollard infrastructure:

2. Event Activation pack for third parties to run activations

We would like Council to consider the opportunity for local business and stakeholders to invest in producing future activations themselves.

The trial event allowed the opportunity to put together a comprehensive guide of logistics and costs involved in activating a laneway. This could be provided to third parties in the form of an ‘activation pack’ to be considered if individuals or companies would like to scope the feasibility of activating other laneways or public spaces. The pack would contain examples of the following documents:

· Risk Assessment

· Budget

· Traffic Management plan

· Waste Management plan

· Stakeholder consultation and engagement Schedule

· Production Schedule and program running order

· Volunteer schedule

Financial Implications

Bay Lane Activation was a demanding event to produce on a restricted budget. As a first-time trial event the projected budget was not reflective of what was required to deliver an event with high production values. The amount of infrastructure and technical crew needed in order to set up lighting, projectors, install and de-install sculptures, and set up and manage staging and audio-visual equipment was high and therefore used a large part of the allocated budget. There were also a number of unforseen costs in traffic management, providing a safe working environment and adhering to WH&S practices which weren't foreseen in the original budget. The allocated budget was $18,500, including in-kind costs, I estimate the real cost of producing the event to be approximately $50,000. However in-kind partnerships were secured from suppliers and technical contractors to the value of $27,000, allowing the project to be delivered on budget. Funds were allocated from Footpath Dining ($9000), Cultural Plan ($2000, 2331.017), Tourism Development ($2,500 2011.16), however a further target of $5,000 was projected early in the year to be raised from sponsorship however unfortunately this wasn't able to be secured. Therefore the project currently holds a shortfall of $5,000. Jane Laverty has requested that this is allocated from footpath dining, Phil Holloway has noted that this is to be discussed at the December review.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.6

Report No. 13.6 Lease Assignment - RJ Palmer to Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Leslie Beardmore, Leasing/Licensing Officer

Trish Kirkland, Manager Governance Services

Tony Nash, Manager Works

File No: I2014/11

Theme: Corporate Management

Property Management

Summary:

This report recommends that Council authorise the General Manager to execute a Deed of Assignment of Lease from Raymond John Palmer to a corporate entity, Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd, and authorises the General Manager to explore the option of a new short-term lease with Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd subject to certain conditions.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council authorise the General Manager to negotiate and grant a Deed of Assignment of the Lease between Council and Raymond John Palmer to a corporate entity named Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd, subject to existing lease terms and conditions continuing as amended by the Deed of Variation executed on 20 August 2010.

2. That Council authorise the General Manager to affix the Council Seal to the Deed of Assignment of Lease from Raymond John Palmer to Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd in accordance with Regulation 400 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005.

3. That Council decline to vary the terms and conditions of the current lease with Raymond John Palmer to extend the termination term from 3 months to 12 months and instead authorise the General Manager to explore the option of a new short-term lease agreement with Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd subject to:

a) Market Valuation; and

b) A lease term clearly aligned with the timeframe required by council to complete the compliance and safety works at the Airfield necessary to enable the offering of future and longer-term tenancy agreements via a competitive process; and

c) A lease termination clause that does not fetter Council’s ability to fully consider, determine and implement the future strategic direction of the Airfield.

4. That Council decline the offer of capital investment in the Airfield as it raises significant probity and value for money issues, and instead authorise the General Manager to consider capital investments from proponents as part of the future competitive process to offer future and longer-term tenancy agreements once Council has determined the future strategic direction of the Airfield and completed the necessary compliance and safety works required to enable that competitive process.

Report

Land Information

Part Tyagarah Airfield Part Lot 1 in DP 713023 known as Skydive Byron Bay being “plan for lease purposes” Lot 4 in DP 805678.

Owner –Byron Shire Council

Classification – Operational Land

Lease Background

From 30 January 1996 to 29 January 2003, Raymond J Palmer and William G Jamieson leased Lot 4 from Council as the owners of the Byron Skydiving Centre. Whilst there was an option to renew for a further 7 years in that lease, and the option was exercised in accordance with the lease provisions, the documentation was not finalised by 29 January 2003. As a result, as the lessees continued to occupy the premises, they became monthly tenants holding over.

During the holding over period, the Byron Bay Skydiving Centre was dissolved as a business. Skydive Byron Bay was formed as a company.

A new lease was executed on 14 May 2004 between Council and Raymond John Palmer (a director of Skydive Byron Bay) to end on 29 January 2010.

At its Ordinary Meeting on 17 December 2009, Council considered report “11.11 Tyagarah Airfield - Lease L9 Lot 4 DP805678” (http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/meetings/2009-12-17-ordinary) and resolved:

09-1059

“1. That Council authorise the General Manager and Mayor of Council to sign all necessary documents with Raymond Palmer under which:

a) the term of the current lease over Lot 4 DP 805678 is extended to 31 December 2010; and

b) an extended period of 3 months is provided for the termination and vacation of the Land to the current lease over Lot 4 DP 805678.

2. That Council authorise the General Manager and Mayor of Council to affix the seal to the variation of lease with Raymond Palmer over Lot 4 DP 805678.”

A Deed of Variation was subsequently executed on 20 August 2010 with the lease to end on 31 December 2010. The lessee continued to occupy the premises upon expiry. The lessee is considered a monthly tenant holding over, with the tenancy determinable by 3 months notice in writing by either party.

Use of the Airstrip

Raymond Palmer’s lease not only allows occupancy of the premises for skydiving and associated activities carried out by Byron Bay Skydiving Centre, but includes provisions for access and use of the airstrip at Clause 33 “Use of Airstrip”, as stated below:

“33.1 The Lessee shall have the right to utilise the airstrip and airstrip aprons for the purpose of taxiing, take-off and landing of aircraft utilised by the Lessee for hire, flight training and flight testing from time to time provided that the Lessee shall comply with all requirements of any local body or authority and comply with the local regulations and procedures for operation of aircraft using Tyagarah Airstrip as set out from time to time by Byron Shire Council.”

Current

Staff met with Skydive Byron Bay on 10 June 2014, and discussed their concerns regarding their tenure arrangements and provided them with an update regarding the future options process that Council is progressing for the Airfield.

Subsequent to the meeting, on 12 June 2014, Council received an email proposal from Skydive Byron Bay requesting the following:-

1. Assign the existing lease from RJ Palmer to their preferred corporate entity.

2. Deed of Variation to alter their lease termination period from the current 3 months to 12 months.

3. An offer to pay more rent.

4. An offer to contribute to upgrades and maintenance to the runway.

Staff provided a written response on 22 July 2014 consistent with the discussions of the earlier meeting, including the following:

1. Requested confirmation of preferred corporate entity. Advised that any assignment will be subject to existing lease terms and conditions continuing, including current holding over provisions established by the Deed of Variation executed 20 August 2010; and requested undertaking that the assignee meet all the fees and charges - including legal advice.

2. That the request to extend their termination period from 3 months to 12 months would be considered as part of Council’s future options considerations for the Airfield so that those options are not fettered for Council by the 12 month termination proposal.

3. That the offer of more rent and capital investment should be considered as part of any future competitive process once the future strategic direction of the airfield has been determined by Council.

In relation to this point 3, please refer to the Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications section below.

A reply was received from Skydive Byron Bay on 3 November 2014 that confirmed:-

1. Assign the current lease from RJ Palmer to Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd ACN 602 608 864 including an undertaking that all expenses, fees and charges will be paid on receipt of Council’s tax invoice.

2. Another request to alter their lease termination period from the current 3 months to 12 months.

Assignment of Lease

Skydive Byron Bay’s request to assign the lease from Raymond John Palmer to Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd is in accordance with Clause 12.1 of the current lease which states the following:

“12. The Lessee may not sublet, licence, assign or transfer (collectively referred to as the “dealing”) without the prior written consent of the Lessor and the Lessor shall not unreasonably refuse to consent to the dealing if prior to the dealing:

(a) the Lessee has not committed any default under this Lease or has committed a default which has been waived or excused or remedied by the Lessee;

(b) the Lessee has proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the Lessor that the ingoing occupier is a reasonable, responsible and solvent person capable of adequately carrying on the use permitted under this Lease.”

A current company search (extract from ASIC) confirms Raymond John Palmer as one of three directors of Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd. The same three persons make up the management committee of Skydive Byron Bay Inc.

This report recommends that the lease assignment from Raymond John Palmer to Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd is granted.

Amend lease termination period from 3 months to 12 months

Skydive Byron Bay is requesting their existing lease termination period be amended from 3 months to 12 months. Their email proposal of 12 June stated that “3 months would not give us sufficient time to relocate assets from the land which are critical to our operations.”

This report does not recommend that the request for variation to the termination clause be granted at this time and is based on the following considerations:

· The existing lease provides for access and use of the airstrip at Clause 33 that give Skydive Byron Bay unfettered access to operate its commercial activity.

· The 566 obstacles in the glide slope identified by the TAG consultants for remedial works and the financial implications as discussed in the Tyagarah Airfield Future Options section of this report.

· The requirement for council to consider and determine the future strategic option and financial implications for the Tyagarah Airfield without those options being fettered by terms of current lease tenancy agreements.

Alternatively, this report recommends that Council explore the option of a new short-term lease arrangement with Skydive Australia Group Pty Ltd. Given the ICAC Guidelines regarding direct negotiations, any new lease agreement negotiated would need to:

· be based on a market valuation; and

· have the lease term clearly aligned to the timeframe required to complete the compliance and safety works at the airfield (refer Tyagarah Future Options section below), which are necessary prior to offering future or longer term tenancy agreements via a competitive process; and

· have a lease termination term that does not fetter Council’s ability to fully consider, determine and implement the future strategic direction of the airfield.

Skydive’s offer of capital investment in the airfield raises significant probity issues and is best considered by Council, from a probity and strategic direction perspective, as part of the preparation of tender or expression of interest once Council has considered and determined the future strategic option for the airfield.

Tyagarah airfield future options

Council considered the future options for Tyagarah Airfield in the Aviation Options Report presented by The Airport Group (“TAG”) at a Councillor workshop on 29 May 2014.

Since that time staff have been progressing a number of areas highlighted by the Aviation Options Report. Council will consider the recommended options for Tyagarah Airfield in report titled “Tyagarah Airfield Future Options” listed in the Agenda for the Ordinary Meeting of 11 December 2014.

The Aviation Options Report highlighted the need for immediate remedial works to comply with CASA standards. These remedial works include:

· Rectification of runway strip width

· Removal/lopping of trees encroaching on required airspace on both sides and both ends of the runway

· Rectification of steepness and variability of the grades on the sides of the runway.

Staff commissioned a further report from TAG to establish the nature and extent of obstacle penetrations into the airspace glide slope. The Obstacle Penetration Survey Report identified 566 obstacles on Council’s land, Crown land, and adjoining privately owned land. The recommendations from TAG include:

· Advising pilots of obstacles

· Report obstacles to CASA

· Remove obstacles, or if directed by CASA, mark/light obstacles.

As the vast majority of obstacles are tops of trees, lopping, felling or clearing is required.

Comments from Manager Works, Tony Nash

A letter has been sent to CASA (CASA – OPERATIONS - Eastern Region), requesting that CASA consider the Obstacle Penetration Survey Report from the TAG report and provide a response to the above recommendations in this report and the treatment of the obstacles.

At the time of writing this report no response has been received.

Further details of the steps required and financial implications involved to address the remedial works and bring the Airfield into compliance are outlined in report titled “Tyagarah Airfield Future Options” listed in the Agenda for the Ordinary Meeting of 11 December 2014.

Financial Implications

The assignee has provided an undertaking to pay all expenses, fees and charges associated with the Deed of Assignment of the Lease.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

ICAC guidelines

ICAC guidelines define direct negotiations as exclusive negotiations between an agency and a proponent without first undergoing a genuine competitive process.

Varying or extending existing contracts and agreements by negotiation with the incumbent is also considered direct negotiations.

Where there is a close relationship between an agency and an incumbent there is a risk that the agency and/or its staff and/or officials will develop either an overly close relationship or dependency. This form of ‘capture’ can deter the agency from testing or retesting the market, which in turn may lead to poor value for money. ‘Capture’ tends to involve subtle influence and is often established over time or as a result of small favours of acts of friendship. A public official who over identifies with an incumbent may not even be aware of the fact and as such would unlikely contemplate or recognise any type of bias.

‘Captured agencies can be susceptible to offers or suggestions made with the intention of avoiding competition or persuading the agency to depart from its usual procedures. Where the agency allows itself to be persuaded by such special offers, it can lose effective control of the process and sacrifice value for money.

ICAC guidelines recommend that as a general rule direction negotiations should be avoided. In the case of proposed variations or extensions to existing contracts or agreements, it is recommended that any proposed changes or variations greater than 10% be supported by applying the principals of probity and accountability, value for money, and be supported by a business case.

Ultimately, an open competitive selection process such as a tender or expression of interest process enables Council to demonstrate accountability and transparency and makes it difficult for private interests to influence, or be seen as influencing the outcome or variation of contracts and agreements.

Obtaining best value for public money is a fundamental principle of public sector work. When it is known that there are other proponents who could feasibly compete for a contract, agreeing to direct negotiations with a single proponent increases the risk that the agency may not obtain best value for money. When a proponent does not have to compete for contracts there is a higher risk that the proponent may unjustifiably increase profit margins, exaggerate expenses or otherwise boost returns on the contract.

Local Government (General) Regulations 2005

400 Council seal

(1) The seal of a council must be kept by the mayor or the general manager, as the council determines.

(2) The seal of a council may be affixed to a document only in the presence of:

(a) the mayor and the general manager, or

(b) at least one councillor (other than the mayor) and the general manager, or

(d) at least 2 councillors other than the mayor.

(3) The affixing of a council seal to a document has no effect unless the persons who were present when the seal was affixed (being persons referred to in subclause (2)) attest by their signatures that the seal was affixed in their presence.

(4) The seal of a council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to the business of the council and the council has resolved (by resolution specifically referring to the document) that the seal be so affixed.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.7

Report No. 13.7 Review of Payments to Section 355 Committees, Members and Agents

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Gayle McCallum, Governance Officer

Greg Ironfield, Manager Community Development

File No: I2014/12

Theme: Society and Culture

Community Services – Community Development

Summary:

At the Ordinary meeting of 1 May 2014 Council considered a report to increase the honorarium payments to the Bookings Officer and Treasurer of the Ocean Shores Community Centre Section 355 Committee and resolved:

14-198 Resolved that the payments to members of Ocean Shores Community Centre Section 355 Management Committee be retained at the current level until a broader review is undertaken.

14-199 Resolved that a broad review be undertaken of payments to Booking Officers, Treasurers and agents/members of Committees managing halls in the Shire so that rates and workloads can be compared across the Shire and that the review include a roundtable meeting with committee representatives.

On the 11 November 2014 Council staff met with representatives from Section 355 Committees and Boards of Management (Committees) and outcomes are detailed in this report.

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the information collected and report on the review of payments to committee members and agents requested in the resolutions referenced above.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council receive the notes of the meeting held on 11 November 2014 with representatives from the Section 355 Committees and Boards of Management regarding the review of payments to committee members or agents.

2. That Council acknowledge the significant contribution made by Section 355 Committees and Boards of Management and officially thank all representatives that attended the meeting held on 11 November 2014 for their input.

3. That the following parameters are set for Section 355 Committees regarding remunerate of committee members or agents with an honorarium for duties undertaken in their role as follows:

a) Up to $100 (excl. GST) maximum per week for Booking Officers or other roles determined by the Committee (eg Volunteer co-ordinator at the Lone Goat Gallery).

b) Up to $100 (excl. GST) maximum per month for other Administration positions.

These payments must firstly be recommended by the Committee and recorded in their Meeting Minutes. Approval by Council’s Finance Manager is required prior to implementation to ensure the income generated from the facility is sufficient to sustain these costs.

4. That Committees wanting to engage a Committee Member to clean the venue, a payment of $20 (excl. GST) per hour may be paid provided Work Health and Safety procedures are in place and the maximum hours are agreed to by the Committee and recorded in the Committee Minutes.

5. That Committee members or agents receiving payments note that:

a) The positions are not permanent and can be ceased by the Committee or Council at any time;

b) Payments are performance based and positions will be reviewed by the Committee as required with the assistance of Council;

c) They be registered for GST or if they do not hold an ABN complete a “Statement by a Supplier” Australian Taxation Office is to be completed and held with Council.

d) Payments requested outside Point 2 or 3 will require approval of Council.

6. That Council note a networking meeting for Section 355 Committee representatives will be organised bi-annually to provide opportunities for discussion and to acknowledge the work of the committees.

7. That the Section 355 Committee and Board of Management Guidelines to Operations be updated to reflect the changes in the recommendations of this report.

Attachments:

1 Questionnaire for Section 355 Committees review of payments, E2014/29544 , page 89

2 PowerPoint Presentation Section 355 Management Committees - review of payments [Compatibility Mode], E2014/75100 (provided under separate cover)

3 Notes from Section 355 Committee Roundtable Meeting held on 11/11/14, E2014/74774 , page 92

Report

On 1 May 2014 Council considered a report to increase the honorarium payments to the Booking Officer and the Treasurer at the Ocean Shores Community Centre and resolved:

14-198 Resolved that the payments to members of Ocean Shores Community Centre Section 355 Management Committee be retained at the current level until a broader review is undertaken.

To gather information in response to the above resolutions all Section 355 Committees were asked to complete a questionnaire (as shown at Attachment 1) that asked various questions about the size of the facility, current payments being made to its committee members and agents, the available space to hire, and the time it takes for Committee members to perform their particular role.

All Committees completed the questionnaire and information was collated to create a PowerPoint Presentation (Attachment 2) which was discussed at the roundtable meeting with representatives from each Committees held on 11 November 2014 at the Byron Regional Sport and Cultural Complex. All Committees were represented at this meeting except for Heritage House (and Tennis Court) Bangalow Section 355 Committee who had a function at the hall on the same day.

The following payments are being made to Committee members or Agents:

· Bangalow A&I Hall
Agent - Booking Officer, contract position with Council up to 20 hours per week @ $25 hours = $2,000 per month.

· Mullumbimby Civic Memorial Hall
Agent - Booking Officer, contract position with Council up to 10 hours per week @ $25 hours = $1,000 per month. Note the present occupant has resigned from this position and the Board are reviewing its options with regard to a replacement Booking Officer noting the present income generated is not sufficient to afford this expense.

· Ocean Shores Community Centre
Committee member – Booking Officer up to $300 per month
Committee member – Treasurer up to $50 per month

· Brunswick Valley Community Centre
Committee Member - 5% per annum of the centre’s bookings, payable on a quarterly basis to the person holding the position of Bookings Officer. (This equates to approximate $120 per month)

· Brunswick Heads Memorial Hall
Agent – Brunswick Heads Visitor Centre, Booking Officer $300 per month

· Cook Pioneer Centre Mullumbimby
$2,500 per annum to Mullumbimby Senior Citizens (honorarium payment for their management of the Cook Pioneer Centre – money used for recreational gatherings of the Mullumbimby Senior Citizens, agreed to at time of becoming a Section 355 Committee)

· Heritage House (and tennis Court) Bangalow
No payments being received by Committee members. Historical Society major user with Tea House

· South Golden Beach Community Hall
No payments being received by Committee members.

· Suffolk Park Hall
Committee member - $65 per week for Booking’s Officer

Committee member - $90 per month Treasurer
Committee member - $50 per month Secretary
Committee member - $20 per hour cleaning and gardening.

· Lone Goat Gallery

Agent – Booking officer $50 per week to assist with fees. Are requesting further monetary assistance for a Volunteer Coordinator.

· Bangalow Parks (Showground) Trust
Agent - $900 per month (caretaker) $4,000 per month (market manager)

· Durrumbul Hall
Agent – Booking Officer 10% of Booking (approx $90 per month) (caretaker)

As shown in the PowerPoint Presentation (Attachment 2) the work of the volunteer members on these Committees managing Council facilities is significant. Total Bookings Officer hours across all facilities was equated at 315 hours per month, the Treasurer and Secretary position across all facilities estimated 130 hours per month spent on their roles. The Committees ensure venues are made available for the community use and well maintained, and all members have a sense of community pride with their venue.

The work the Committees undertake in the provision of the facilities for the community could not be undertaken by Council staff within the current resources allocated. It should be noted that the number of hours the committee volunteers have indicated they put into these facilities equates to 4 full time positions working 35 hours per week.

As advised in previous reports to Council all facilities managed by Section 355 Committees and agents are of differing sizes, number of available rooms for hire, usage patterns, size of events, hire fees being charged and income being generated.

Discussion from the Roundtable Meeting

Committee representatives agreed that maximum parameters for payment should be formed to control all payments being received by committee members or agents. If payments to members or agents are required they could be recommended by the Committees to Council staff for approval within the determined parameters. Council staff acknowledge that all existing payments established under resolution of Council will be maintained. The Committee representative recommendations are as follows:

· That Committees should be financially viable to before payments to anyone can be considered. Payments should be reviewed annually by Committees and Council staff.

· That with Council approval parameters could be set for payments. A recommendation in the Committee’s Minutes would be required and also approval from Council staff (Finance Manager) that the income generated from the facility is sufficient to make these payments.

· That all positions over the years have become more demanding with changes to legislation that Council and committees need to adhere to.

· That if a Committee could pay a member or agent up to $100 per week for the role of Booking’s Officer or role determined that requires this payment (eg. Volunteers’ Coordinator) and up to $100 per month for other Administration positions as determined and recommended by each Committee this would be sufficient.

· That these payments must come from the income generated from the facility and the facility be financially viable.

· That if Council agrees to these recommended payments all proposed payments will need to be recorded in their meeting minutes with final approval by the Council staff(Finance Manager).

· That a performance review of the Committee member or Agent be conducted by the Committee, on all paid positions with assistance from Council.

· That Committee Members can do one off cleaning of the facility (eg after a Birthday Party) rather than calling in the contractor. Note all WHS practices need to be followed and a per hour monetary limit needs to be set by Council. This arrangement with the Committee member should be recorded in the Minutes with a maximum time allowed to perform this task.

· That a meeting, with all Committee members invited, be held every 6 months. This meeting to be held at different Council facilities, showcasing each venue.

Financial Implications

Whilst in the past payments were not consistent across all committees, the recommendation proposed will set parameters for those committees seeking to remunerate Committee members or agents, as it is difficult to make a consistent fee across all committees, as the halls/centres are vastly different in size and usage patterns.

It is also recommended that it should remain the responsibility of each Committee to determine the amount of the payment, up to the maximum amount adopted by Council. What is critical is that these payments in addition to small building maintenance expenses are able to be funded from the income generated from the hall. The assessment of the recommended payments by each Committee will be made by the Finance Manager.

As stated in the report the significant work undertaken by these volunteer committee members could not be performed by Council staff under current resourcing.

Committee members are to be reminded that to receive payments they must be registered for GST or if they do not hold an ABN complete a “Statement by a Supplier” Australian Taxation Office. If required the Council’s finance staff assist the committee member with the process of registering for GST or completion of the ATO “Statement by a supplier” form.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Adopted Section 355 Committee Guidelines and Board of Management Guidelines can be found of Council’s web site at http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/section-355-committees

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.7 - Attachment 3

Notes from the Section 355 Management Committee Roundtable Discussions held on Tuesday 11 November 2014 at the Byron Regional Sport and Cultural Complex

The meeting commenced at 10.06am.

BSC Staff: Greg Ironfield, Manager Community Development

Gayle McCallum, Governance Officer

Lisa Brennan, Corporate and Community Services

Present	Representing
Tony Heeson	Bangalow A&I Hall Board of Management
Toni Appleton	Bangalow Parks (Showground) S355 Committee
Linda Hibbard	Brunswick Heads Memorial Hall S355 Committee
Marj Trimble	Brunswick Heads Memorial Hall S355 Committee
Jenny Moore	Brunswick Valley Community Centre S355 Committee
Howard Sedgmen	Byron Bay Library Exhibition Space S355 Committee (Lone Goat Gallery)
Prue Regan	Byron Bay Library Exhibition Space S355 Committee (Lone Goat Gallery)
Margaret White	Byron Bay Library Exhibition Space S355 Committee (Lone Goat Gallery)
Keith Basing	Cook Pioneer Centre S355 Committee
Bruce Buckthorpe	Cook Pioneer Centre S355 Committee
Wayne Smith	Durrumbul Hall S355 Committee
Judy MacDonald	Mullumbimby Civic Memorial Hall Board of Management
Helen Graveson	Ocean Shores Community Centre S355 Committee
Angela Dunlop	South Golden Beach Hall S355 Committee
Annabelle Sinclair	Suffolk Park Hall S355 Committee

Apologies: Heritage House Bangalow

Gayle McCallum gave a PowerPoint presentation (#E2014/69771), followed by an open discussion chaired by Greg Ironfield.

The following matters were discussed, with Committee members’ recommendations listed in point form.

Should facilities have a cash reserve to be able to make payments to Booking Officers, Treasurers and Secretaries

· Committees should have money before they undertake payments.

Staff Comment: Agree that Committees should be financially viable to before payments to anyone can be considered. Payments should be reviewed annually by Committees and Council staff.

Should Committee members be able to take up these paid positions

· Yes is the general agreement that Committee members should be able to take up these paid positions.

Staff Comment: In accordance with the Guidelines for Committees, a committee member receiving payment for undertaking a particular role on the Committee requires a resolution of Council.

· Booking Officers need to be available for 24 hours a day, are they prepared to do that?

Staff Comment: This is not the expectation of Council.

· There should be parameters set up for payments for all Committees, so that individual requests for payment do not have to go back to Council for approval. If the intended payment is over that parameter it would require the approval of Council.

Staff Comment: Agree that with Council approval parameters could be set for payments. A recommendation in the Committee’s Minutes would be required and also approval from Council staff (Finance Manager) that the income generated from the facility is sufficient to make these payments.

· Secretary role very demanding keeping up with rents, insurance, risk management etc.

Staff Comment: Agree that all positions over the years have become more demanding with changes to legislation that Council and committees need to adhere to.

· Committee may recruit people with specialised skills to come onto their committee, with particular skills to offer.

Staff Comment: Agree that if a particular position on a committee becomes available, Council assist the Committee to recruit a new committee member with the skills required to perform that position.

If positions are required to be paid because of workload should they be outsourced

· Positions should be open for Committee members to undertake, who will be more committed than a paid (non-committee) person. So much more demanded of Committees now with regard to financial accounting, insurances, WHS.

Staff Comment: Agree that with changes in legislation with regard to extra requirements for checking hirer’s insurance, risk management assessments and work health and safety compliance there is now more work required of Committee members to assess hirers for compliance.

With parameters set by Council and the Committee in a position to financially pay for these services, payments should be able to be made. It should be up to the Committee whether the payment goes to a Committee member with the appropriate skills or the position be outsourced.

Agreement with any person being paid must also be performance based. If Committees need assistance with this Council will provide.

How else could we do this

· The group asked of other working methods that could be used.

Staff Comment: Greg Ironfield advised that in his previous experience with another Council they introduced a centralised booking system (all bookings done in one place). This system did not work, but produced standardised booking forms, including all WHS and other required information, but created long forms which were onerous to complete.

The group agreed that with the varying sizes and users of the facilities this would not work.

· A question was raised if a Committee Member can Invoice the Committee for your expenses to perform a particular task required rather than this being outsourced for much more cost.

Staff Comment: Initially staff advised that this procedure would be suitable with the Committee approval and recorded in the Minutes.

For openness and transparency and potential conflict, if particular paid jobs are required by the Committee, it should at least obtain 3 quotations for the work (which the Committee member can also submit a quotation). The Committee can approve (if under $1,000) the most suitable quotation and it be recorded in the Minutes (note if the Committee member submits a quotation for works he/she must declare an interest and leave the meeting and not participate in the discussion or the vote). After the recommendation recorded it should be noted that all works over $1,000 then require the approval of Council.

· How can voluntary work be performed if Committee members due to WHS requirements cannot change a light globe, climb a ladder etc. Who else will do it?

Staff Comment: Committee members may change light globes and climb ladders if they feel competent to do this and WHS is followed. In most cases Council would prefer not to put Committee Members at risk and wherever possible they engage suitable contractors to provide the work. All Committee members are covered by Council’s insurance. It was noted this was discussed at a previous meeting, and guidelines were provided to Committee members – these guidelines to be recirculated to all Committees.

Paid positions

How do you think these position/s should be remunerated (if at all)

· Booking Officer. If the Booking Officer is managing bookings well, and there has been an increase in bookings, it could change to 10% of rental income.

· Boards of Management. If a booking charge is $27,000 (Election booking) for example, the committee cannot pay 10% on that income.

· Bangalow A&I Hall Booking Officer does at least 20 hours per week, at $25/hour, contracted with Council.

· Hourly rate of up to $25/hour would be helpful, but there has to be an expectation that the job will be done well. There should be a review of people in those positions, conduct performance reviews to create equality of performance, quality and payment. This could prove difficult if this is someone on the Committee, as opposed to an outside person, and their performance is poor.

· Introduce a position description for these roles.

· Not all Committees need to pay for these positions.

Staff Comment: All examples were taken on board and it was suggested that if a Committee could pay a member or agent up to $100 per week for the role of Booking Officer, or role determined that requires this payment (eg. Volunteers’ Coordinator) and up to $100 per month for other Administration positions as determined and recommended by each Committee this would be sufficient.

It was also agreed that all Committees may not need to make payments at all.

It was noted that these payments must come from the income generated from the facility and the facility be financially viable.

If Council agrees to these recommended payments all proposed payments will need to be recorded in their meeting minutes with final approval by the Council (Finance Manager).

A performance review of the Committee member or Agent be conducted by the Committee, on all paid positions with assistance from Council.

All Committees should have an annual general meeting for positions to be shared if required.

Cleaning the facilities

Are Committees happy to keep the status quo that all committees organise their own cleaning of the facility

· Bangalow A&I Hall – have had to change cleaners from time to time. Seems to work best if Committees manage their own cleaners as they can get access to their regular cleaners quickly.

· Brunswick Memorial Hall – use their cleaner to do minor maintenance as well.

Staff Comment: It was noted that in general agreement that all committees have their own cleaning arrangements are happy with the status quo.

· Would be handy if Council had a scissor lift to clean the lights.

Staff Comment: Advised that Council does not have a scissor lift and would not want Committee Members to use one. This job should be outsourced to a suitable contractor. Note always a good idea if you have 1 light globe requiring to be replaced all light globes should be replaced at once.

· Can Committee members do one-off cleaning for special functions and are they covered by public liability?

Staff Comment: This has been checked by Council’s insurers in the past and yes Committee Members can do one off cleaning of the facility (eg after a Birthday Party) rather than calling in the contractor. Note all WHS practices need to be followed and a per hour monetary limit needs to be set by Council. This arrangement with the Committee member should be recorded in the Minutes with a maximum time allowed to perform this task.

Again this monetary position should be performance reviewed by the Committee.

Recognition

What form of recognition would your Committee like from Council?

· A meeting with morning tea / lunch provided occasionally, much appreciated biannually.

· Ask the Committees for agenda items prior to the meeting.

· It is good networking with other Committees.

Staff Comment: It was agree that a meeting, with all Committee members invited, be held every 6 months. This meeting to be held at different Council facilities, showcasing each venue.

Council will request Committees to submit agenda items for these meetings a couple of weeks prior to the meeting so appropriate staff can be available to address the meeting if required. Morning Tea/Lunch to be provided by Council.

Introductions

Introductions were made around the table, each Committee member advised which venue they were representing and provided a brief outline of current matters relating to their venue.

Staff Comment: Noted a lot of pride in each Committee member’s facility and work being performed. Council acknowledgement of the great work these volunteer committee members are doing.

What do you think about the future of volunteer Committees managing these facilities?

· Need the Committees to keep the venues open.

· Problems with getting new members for particular positions.

Staff Comment: The recruitment of new members to come from the Committee themselves, in conjunction with Council advertising. Advertising for these new members not be generalised and where required actual volunteer positions eg Treasurer be advertised.

The Committee representatives time in attending this meeting once again thanked and appreciated.

The meeting concluded at 12.08pm, followed by lunch and networking.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.8

Report No. 13.8 2015 Compliance Priorities Program

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Ralph James, Legal Services Coordinator

File No: I2014/14

Theme: Corporate Management

Compliance Services

Summary:

This report seeks the adoption of the proposed Compliance priorities for the 2015 calendar year.

The focus in 2015 should continue to be on those priorities listed as Very High and High and, where resources permit, on priorities listed as ‘Medium’ or ‘Routine’, with the aim that all matters will ultimately be addressed (as has been achieved in recent years).

This report details the compliance with the adopted 2014 priorities.

The report provides the recommended 2015 program for the consideration of Council.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That this report be noted.

2. That the proposed 2015 Compliance Priorities Program be adopted.

Attachments:

1 2015 Compliance Priorities, E2014/76436 , page 115

Report

Attachment 1 is the recommended 2015 Compliance Priorities Program.

Up to February 2014 the Regulatory Services team consisted of the Compliance and Ranger/Parking officer teams and the Environmental Health Team.

In February 2014 the Environmental Health Team was relocated into the Sustainable Environment and Economy Directorate.

Council is working towards relocating the Compliance and Ranger/Parking Officer teams into the Sustainable Environment and Economy Directorate as part of implementing the Organisational Structure adopted by Council.

This report covers the operations of the Compliance and Ranger/Parking Officer and the Environmental Health teams.

2014 COMPLIANCE PROGRAM – PRIORITIES

Compliance activities and statistics addressing the 2014 Compliance Priorities Program and the Byron Shire Council Management Plan (Compliance, Public Order and Safety) have been addressed in the half yearly and annual report.

For the half year ending June 2014, all Compliance performance indicators were met. The second half year performance is on track for a similar outcome.

In 2013/2014 the Compliance Team received 2,126 Customer Request Management (CRM’s). These, and their outcomes, are tabulated as follows:

	Received 2013/2014	Completed 2013/2014
Illegal Works (Building; Land Clearing; Places of short term accommodation; Land Use)	372	408
Animals (Nuisance; Barking; Attack; Restricted; Livestock; Poultry)	800	805
Fire Hazard	2	2
Vehicle (Abandoned, Street Camping; For Sale; Parking)	844	834
Noise disturbances, public nuisance from premises, non compliance with AFZ	108	96
TOTAL	2,126	2,145

Note: *Some CRMs have been carried over from the previous financial year but completed in the 2013/14 financial period. There were also 39 CRM’s carried over into the next financial year. These included CRM’s under investigation, being dealt with or those that were in the system and being followed up in the next 30 day period.

The following information is provided on the implementation and actions taken in relation to the adopted 2014 Compliance Priorities Program . The 2014 Compliance Priorities Program can be viewed at www.byron.nsw.gov.au/.../compliance-priorities-program-2014

Very High Priorities:

1.1 Developments, actions, works, activities or uses that places people’s lives at immediate risk or that cause or are likely to cause environmental harm or pollution;

In the calendar year to date Compliance has received 316 CRMs relating to unauthorised development and has concluded 303 (see notes in Table above). Not all of those CRMs fell into this priority although the percentage concluded is accurate for this priority.

Significant environmental prosecution.

As a result of a complaint in relation to pollution arising from the use of premises Council inspected the premises pursuant to its POEO Act powers. The following information is provided in relation to this matter.

More than 30 trucks had been parked at a location not authorised as a truck depot.

During the course of Council’s inspections the following observations were made.

· Several oil spills, including one large oil spill as a result of onsite repairs to a truck.

· Overfilled bins, litter and truck parts strewn across the site.

· Poor management of waste oils, grease and truck parts associated with an open truck repair station at the site. Waste oil was being stored on site in a tank that was overflowing. A large pan of sump oil had been emptied of its contents and turned upside down on top of two oil drums under a tree. The remnant oil in the pan had dripped onto the ground and the soil was stained. This was directly below a Swamp Mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta), which is a declared Koala food tree, under SEPP 44 (Koala Habitat Protection).

· Disposal of waste by way of burning of truck parts and other industrial type waste in a drum on site. This activity was considered likely to release toxic gases and particulates in to the atmosphere, which may pose a serious risk to public health and safety.

· Several areas within the site have been “carved up” as a result of trucks driving through mud. There were significant areas of disturbed soil on the site without the implementation of sediment and erosion controls.

Council issued clean-up directions (POEO Act ) as a result of which 51.4 tonnes of contaminated soil was removed from the site.

Council issued the site owner with Penalty Notices totalling $4,500. This was on top of the $18,000 expenses incurred by the owner in respect of compliance with Council’s directions.

The site Manager was issued Court Attendance Notices. He pleaded guilty and on 29 August 2014 was convicted and fined $4,500 and ordered to pay Council’s costs of $1,750.

Unauthorised development

Compliance staff have recently been investigating a property as a result of complaints from tenants at the property.

The original building had been converted into 7 residential units housing approximately 20 residents including children.

The owner had done most of the works himself including the building, electrical and gas plumbing works all of which appeared to be of a poor standard.

Residents complaints included the fact the water was tainted and they could smell constant gas leaks. Many claimed to have health problems related to the premises.

Council issued an Order to cease use.

Compliance staff worked closely with Department of Fair Trading to the effect that all but 4 residents have been rehoused with the others due to move in the near future.

The investigation is continuing. Fair Trading is investigating issues such as bonds not being lodged, no payment receipts provided and lease breaches.

The property is now for sale.

1.2 Significant environmental, health and public health incidents.

Most matters falling within this priority have been dealt with by way of Penalty Notices and Formal Warning Notice to Prevent Environmental Harm.

There was, however, one significant prosecution where the Defendant was convicted and fined, in total, the sum of $17,000 and ordered to pay Councils costs of $1,500 making a total financial penalty of $18,500.

The property has significant land use planning and environmental constraints.

The property adjoins Simpsons Creek Sanctuary Zone within the Cape Byron Marine Park. That part of Simpsons Creek adjacent to this property is tidal. The NSW Marine Parks Authority has advised Council that ‘gross debris and other waste entering Simpsons Creek from this property could potentially influence water quality, habitat and species beyond the boundary of Simpsons Creek, by entering the open ocean and other parts of Cape Byron Marine Park’.

The property contains habitat suitable for a range of threatened species and is bordered by Simpsons Creek to the east (Cape Byron Marine Park) and is also adjacent to the 750 ha Tyagarah Nature Reserve. The property forms a natural extension of this reserve system. The property is classified as high conservation value (HCV) according to the methodology used in the Byron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2004.

Aerial photographs taken of the property by the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) depict waste on the property categorised as ‘building and demolition (ie B&D) waste, tyres, household waste and aggregates’.

Council attended the property.

Officers observed that earthworks present during a prior attendance (and prosecution) had been significantly expanded by way of increasing the depth of excavations and by increasing the height of filled material in piles or on the track that runs parallel with the southern boundary fence.

Excavated earth material had been placed against trees in a manner which will damage or destroy the trees.

Officers observed a significant amount and variety of waste material on the property. This material included tyres (mostly large size truck, tractor type tyres), cardboard, polystyrene containers, large industrial size insulation panels, vehicles (ranging from cars to trucks, trailers and earthmoving equipment), bottles, pipes, hoses, concrete rubble, household items and kitchen waste (in small plastic bags tied to tree branches or laying on the ground).

1.3 Dangerous and/or menacing dogs.

Customer Request Management Received		1/1/14 – 14/11/14
	Dogs Attacks	33
	Dogs Barking	147
	Dogs Found	185
	Dogs Nuisance	223
	Dogs Restricted	3
TOTAL		591

· There are presently 10 dogs in the Shire under a Nuisance Dog order.

· There are presently 3 dogs in the Shire declared dangerous.

· There are presently 5 dogs in the Shire declared menacing.

· There are presently 3 restricted breed dogs in the Shire.

1.4 Traffic, parking and unapproved camping activity enforcement.

Parking enforcement saw 8,424 Penalty Notices issued (to 14 November 2014).

The gross face value of the Penalty Notices was $1,077,448.00.

In the period 1 January 2014 to 14 November 2014 Council Rangers issued 675 camping related infringements.

The State Debt Recovery Office has provided the following benchmarking statistics for Byron Shire Council and its neighbours for 2013-2014.

COUNCIL	ISSUED	FACE VALUE	RECOVERED

Byron Shire	12,147	$1,536,32	73.84%
Coffs Harbour City	3,492	$ 518,178	80.58%
Lismore City	3,000	$ 534,754	74.95%
Ballina Shire	1,828	$ 338,909	69.41%
Bellingen Shire	284	$ 70,313	75.00%
Clarence Valley	145	$ 26,987	88.60%

Byron Shire Council issued :

· 0.88% of the Penalty Notices issued statewide.

· 58.10% of the Penalty Notices issued by itself and its neighbours.

· 3,398 Penalty Notices more than the other listed Council’s combined.

The Statewide average for recovery was 77.79%

Council’s Enforcement Policy provides that Council has the discretion to withdraw a PIN on its own motion, and on any grounds it sees fit. However, the Fines Act stipulates mandatory grounds on which a PIN must be withdrawn. On review, a PIN must be withdrawn if Council finds that:

a) The PIN was issued contrary to law,

b) The issue of the PIN involved a mistake of identity,

c) The PIN should not have been issued, having regard to exceptional circumstances relating to the offence

Of the 12,147 Penalty Notices issued in 2013/2014

i) 1.20% (aprox 145) were withdrawn,

ii) 1.94% (aprox 236) were withdrawn and replaced by a caution,

iii) 0.69% (aprox 84) were the subject of a court election.

In respect of those Penalty Notices court elected Council incurred no adverse costs orders and was successful and obtained costs orders in all which proceeded to a hearing.

Camping prosecution

Three Sydneysiders were prosecuted in the Local Court for street camping in the residential area of Cavvanbah Street, Byron Bay. The following information is provided in relation to this matter.

Council officers woke up the occupants of a hired removal trailer who offered no explanation as to why they were camping in the area, or express remorse for camping or littering.

An abundance of rubbish was strewn around the immediate vicinity of the trailer. The rubbish strewn across the ground included bottles, plastic, cans, cardboard and other domestic waste.

A "No Camping" sign located on the verge of Cavvanbah Street was about 50 metres to east of the location of the trailer.

Given the nature of the camping, the litter and the flagrant breach of Council signage, the three campers were issued Court Attendance Notices.

Two received penalties of $1,300 and the third received a penalty of $1,650. The differing amounts were due the two indicated that they would plead guilty prior to going to court.

Cavvanbah Reserve

Between April and November 2014 Council Compliance Officers/ Rangers and Police have conducted an operation to safely remove illegal campers and rubbish from the Cavvanbah Reserve (from the First Sun Caravan Park to Belongil).

Conditions on the ground has been hazardous due to presence of human faeces and other waste.

During the operations ropes attached to tree branches and trunks were removed.

Many open fire pits and fireplaces were observed, some formed up by use of ballast stone material taken from the nearby railway line;

Destruction of vegetation was confirmed. Many branches were broken and removed for tent poles, firewood, seats around fire places etc. Some trees were being used for carving and painting as if totem poles.

It appeared that bush turkeys may have been killed - the remains of one was observed hanging on a tree.

Items observed such as toasters, CD players, swimming masks and bicycles some of which were suspected by the Police of being stolen.

Council outdoor staff removed more than 5 trucks loads full of rubbish. Waste material included tents, personal items, lounge suites and chairs, mattresses, cartons, crates, plastic containers, alcohol bottles and cans, food waste and scraps, clothes and footwear.

Compliance staff issued infringements for camping and littering.

Move on directions have been given by Police.

Media releases

The following media release was issued:

24 April 2014 Street campers – lowest number of community complaints in five years

9 May 2014 $500 to street camp in Byron Bay

15 August 2014 Illegal street camping results combined fines of $4,250

In addition, the Manager Governance commented on camping issues on numerous occasions on local radio.

2 High Priorities

2.1 Run education or workshops and undertake compliance enforcement programs on:

(a) Places of shared accommodation (commercial and non commercial)

(b) Swimming pool safety including legislative requirements

(c) Bringing unapproved dwellings into compliance

(d) Onsite sewage management systems

(e) Food safety premises

(f) Awareness of current public health requirements

(g) Companion Animals

including issuing a minimum of two media releases.

2.1(a) Places of shared accommodation (commercial and non commercial)

“Backpacker hostel” prosecution.

The prosecution involved the occupation of an industrial unit in Centennial Circuit in the Byron Bay Industrial Estate for habitation as a dwelling.

Council issued a Court Attendance Notice for the offence of development not in accordance with development consent.

In the Byron Bay Local Court on 9 April 2014 the Defendant pleaded guilty and was convicted and fined the sum of $4,500 and was ordered to pay Council’s costs of $1,,500.

Short-term holiday accommodation

Penalty Notices were issued to two premises in relation to the use of the premises for short-term holiday accommodation in a manner that caused substantial negative impacts on neighbourhood amenity in a residential zone.

One of the premises was used by about twenty males for a party that went for the duration of the weekend. There was significant alcohol consumption. There was offensive language, shouting, beer sculling and chanting.

One female neighbour who had been out walking during the course of the afternoon was returning to her home when she was subjected to pornography being shown on the large screen TV adjacent to an unobscured window on the upper level of the property.

The other premises were used by about twenty males for a buck’s party that went for the duration of the weekend. Strippers were in attendance and there was significant alcohol consumption.

The Police were called to both premises due to noise and disturbance.

The investigation of each brought staff to the conclusion that the use of the subject premises over the identified period and the resulting impacts on neighbourhood amenity were sufficiently significant so as to warrant enforcement action.

Staff issued each land owner with a $750 penalty infringement notice for development without consent.

2.1(b) Swimming Pool Safety including legislative requirements

A swimming pool register was established in November 2011 and now has 1,098 pools registered. Of this number 662 premises were added in 2014.

A total of 270 swimming pool barriers have been inspected. Of these at least 90% did not meet the required standard and required rectification. There have been 297 reinspections conducted

The major non-compliant issues were pool gates that will not self close, footholds provided on the pool barrier and vegetation growing close to the barriers providing access to the pool areas.

Letters are being sent to all pool owners with the results of the inspection. Non-compliant items are required to be repaired by set dates and follow up inspections occur where major repair works are required.

Penalty Notices have been issued to seven pool owners for non-compliance. In one case a Direction was issued to undertake identified rectification work.

This is an ongoing program of pool barrier inspections which will eventually see all pools within the Shire entered onto the register.

The following media release was issued:

30 October 2014 Is your pool registered and ready to be inspected? 95% are not passing

In addition, the Manager Governance commented on pool barrier issues on numerous occasions on local radio.

2.1(c) Bringing unapproved dwellings into compliance

On 27 June 2013 Council resolved (Res 13-338) that Council staff prepare a briefing paper for a workshop towards the development of a policy on unauthorised dwellings in the Shire taking into consideration Council’s compliance and enforcement policy, unapproved dwelling policy, results of any relevant past workshops, trends and practices in other Shires with similar issues.

It was resolved that the briefing paper include:

1. Discussion of potential objectives.

2. Benefits and risks for the community and Council.

3. Social, environmental and financial impacts for residents, Council and the community.

4. Possible strategies and implementation alternatives.

A Briefing Paper (E 2014/17590) was prepared, distributed to Councillors and presented to Councillors at a workshop.

The issue is now the subject of consideration by the SEE Division.

2.1(d) Onsite Sewage Management Systems

Council adopted the Community Engagement and Risk Communication (CERC) program in 2013 to address the issues of public health and environmental risks associated with the operation of private on-site sewage management system (OSMS) throughout Byron Shire.

Stage one of CERC was completed in June 2014 after information and educational material was posted to 1563 OSMS operators. The engagement received 960 individual responses which were returned to Council allowing Council’s information database to be updated to facilitate further community education and advice. Following the updating of the details, further information and a response was provided to all respondents.

The remaining group of OSMS operators relate to issues such as multiple systems on ‘multiple-occupancy’ developments and OSMS operators who are yet to engage in the new educational approach to sustainable operation of their systems. This group will continue to be included into the next stages of the CERC program.

As recognition of feedback comments about the accessibility and usefulness of information on OSMS, and the desire to improve council processes and efficiencies, the next stage has been commenced to address these matters.

Information about the CERC is being regularly reported to the Council Water, Waste and Sewer Advisory Committee to demonstrate compliance with the timely program objectives and that the project is continuing to be achieved within the set budgetary limits.

2.1(e) Food safety

Council reported to the NSW Food Authority in the annual report (2013/14) that all high-risk and medium-risk retail food businesses within Byron Shire had been inspected as required by the NSW Food enforcement agency. The report favourably compared Byron Shire Councils’ results with all other local government authority food activities.

Byron Shire is somewhat unique in that the number of fixed food premises may vary around the total number of 320, but there is a growing and significant number of temporary retail food businesses (markets, farmers markets, shows, events and festival food businesses) of similar proportion that need to be effectively inspected and regulated to ensure community health and safety standards are being maintained. A total of 631 primary food premise inspections were conducted during 2013/14.

As part of the educational support for retail food businesses, two information ‘mail-outs’ were provided in January and July 2014 to inform food business operators about changes in regulations, food safety content and staff access information on the specific topic of food safety.

The number of complaints and food-borne illness reports continues at very low levels. Considering the small number of staff hours allocated to this function, Byron Shire is achieving an improving standard of food safety under growing demands from food businesses in Byron Shire. The following table summarises the activities performed by staff as regulators of the NSW Food Act 2003.

Table 1: Food business inspection program – comparison between 2012/13 and 2013/14

	2012/13	2013/14
Fixed premises categorised as ‘high’ risk inspected	404	293
Fixed premises categorised as ‘medium’ risk inspected	168	27
Fixed premises categorised as ‘low’ risk inspected	‘see below’	31
Temporary food businesses operating in Byron Shire inspected	Included in above statistics	355
Mobile food businesses operating in Byron Shire inspected	3	5
Number of food-related complaints received / investigated	9	11
Number of warning letters issued to address minor defects	139	191
Number of Improvement Notices issued to address food safety defects	28	38
Number of penalty notices issued	15	7
Number of prosecutions / successful result	1 / 1	0
Number of seizure notices issued	0	1
Number of Prohibition Orders issued	0	0
Full time equivalent staff resources dedicated in maintaining food safety program	1.5	1.5

2.1(f) Public health premises

Council noted the gradual introduction of a number of statutory requirements under the Public Health Act 2010 and Public Health Regulation 2012. As the NSW Ministry of Health are the primary regulator of public health standards across NSW under this legislation, council has limited activity in regulating public health premises.

The annual report to NSW Health advised that no improvement or prohibition notices had been issued to any public health premises in Byron Shire for 2013/14.

Environmental Services had further assisted compliance investigations where public health and safety standards had been compromised by illegal development of shared housing activities. The shared team response produced some very effective results preventing a number of individuals being injured, and assisted to inform the court when prosecutions were required.

Resources under the current priorities and staff resources remain low for public health premise activities.

2.1(g) Companion Animals

Rangers attended community events at Federal Park and the Brunswick Heads Primary School, providing information on pet welfare, restraints and requirements for companion animals.

Council’s Rangers have provided support to NPWS and community conservation groups and carried out patrols in the bird breeding area at Belongil Spit to enforce restriction on dogs being under effective control.

A letterbox drop has been undertaken to owners/occupiers in cat and dog free estates.

The following media release was issued:

21 October 2014: Shorebirds and dogs don’t mix

31 October 2014: Cat and dog free areas to be enforced

In addition, the Manager Governance commented on companion animal issues on numerous occasions on local radio.

2.2 Noise disturbance, public nuisance from premises, maintenance of alcohol free zones;

Matters falling within this priority have been dealt with by way of advice both to the complainant and the occupant of the noise source.

2.3 Unauthorised events, including unapproved dwellings, wedding receptions, parties, 'doof and 'rave' parties.

Acting on community complaints Council obtained evidence that premises at McLeods Shoot were used as an unauthorised wedding reception centre on 8 and 9 November 2014.

The unauthorised use of the subject premises imposed negative impacts on neighbourhood amenity including, but not limited to noise and traffic.

Offensive noise was generated from the premises until 1am on 9 November 2014. Residents had cause to contact the Police.

Council previously had cause to issue a noise abatement direction in relation to the premises.

Action in the NSW Land and Environment Court was taken against the previous owner of the premises in relation to the unauthorised use of the premises for weddings and other functions

Council issued the owner of the premises a $3000 penalty infringement notice for the offence of development without consent, specifically relating to the events of the 8 and 9 November 2014. The fine was issued under the terms of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The following media release was issued:

21 July 2014 Garage sales need to stay inside the property not on street verges

In addition, the Manager Governance commented on garage sales on local radio.

3 Medium Priorities

3.1 Development or activities without consent, or non-compliance with consent, permit or licence conditions where these appear to pose no immediate threat to life, property, public health or the environment;

Development not in accordance with development consent

Convicted. Fined and costs $5500.

Council attended a property in relation to a complaint alleging that a number of unauthorised buildings on the property were being used for occupation.

Council wrote to the Defendant and directed him to cease use of the unapproved septic system and to seek planning advice in relation to the other two buildings.

The Defendant advised Council in writing that the farm shed would be converted back to a shed and that he would have the kitchen decommissioned and that the relocatable dwelling would have the kitchen decommissioned and consent would be sought to have it approved as a studio.

Council sent the Defendant a letter in respect of excessive water usage at the property. Usage was approximately twice that of the previous twelve months.

The Defendant lodged a development Application (Occupation of the farm shed and studio). The Application was refused by Council. On the 31 January 2014 the Defendant submitted a request for review of the Determination.

Council conditionally approved the use of the demountable buildings as studio and a farm shed.

The studio approval was conditioned that the studio building;

· not to be used as a separate dwelling

· must not interfere with local amenity.

· must not contain any lounge room, dining room, kitchen bedroom or other habitable room, and

· must not be used as a separate dwelling.

The shed approval was conditioned that the shed must not be used for any form of residential occupation.

Council officers and the Police attended the property to execute a Search Warrant.

The farm shed and observed that it was set up with a lounge room / kitchen area and a bedroom.

The kitchen comprised a fridge, microwave oven and a sink. The lounge area comprised a lounge, television and stereo unit. There was also a separate bedroom area with a double bed and numerous personal effects.

The studio consisted of a lounge / bedroom area, separate bathroom and laundry and a separate kitchen. The studio was tenanted.

The Defendant admitted that;

· he was living in the shed.

· under his Development Consent he was not allowed to use the studio and sheds for habitation.

· a long term tenant was living in the studio.

Penalty Notices issued:

a. 1 x $1,500 Cease using premises for purpose specified in an order (Individual)

b. 1 x $1,500 Building without Construction Certificate (Individual)

c. 2 x $750 Development without development consent (Individual)

d. 1 x $1,500 Pollute land (Corporation)

e. 1 x $3,000 Development without development consent (Corporation)

f. 1 x $1,500 Development without development consent (Individual)

g. 1 x $220 Fail to obtain prior approval for activity

h. 8 x $500 Not give fire safety statement

3.2 Livestock on public roads:

The table produced earlier detailed that 805 CRMs had been received in respect of Animals (Nuisance; Barking; Attack; Restricted; Livestock; Poultry).

Of those 133 related to livestock on roads. All were dealt with by Rangers, usually within hours of receipt of notification..

3.3 Non-compliant signage (07-550, 06-204).

2014 saw an influx of electronic signage. It was dealt with by way of advice and warnings.

Rangers have been out actively impounding unapproved signage throughout the Shire and have noted that there has been a significant drop in numbers in most areas.

Compliance staff issued one Penalty Notice during the period.

Compliance staff have been talking to different stake holders as to ways to resolve the problem.

Discussions with Council’s Economic Development and Tourism Officer has resulted in Compliance staff reviewing resolution 626/2012 and investigating placing poles at the entrances to each town so that markets and community events can be advertised in a more visually friendly matter.

4 Routine Priorities

4.1 All other matters.

Environmental Services respond to many community inquiries and where the customer wants a council response the requests are recorded into the Authority database. The following is a comparison of customer request activity between 2012/13 and 2013/14

Table 2 – Environmental Services summary of customer action requests

Category	2012/13	2013/14
Noise complaints	82	88
Pollution of land	27	13
Air pollution	21	23
Water pollution	13	15
Odour pollution	10	19
Stormwater impacts	7	13
Asbestos	3	16
TOTAL	163	187

As was reported earlier for the half year ending June 2014, all Compliance performance indicators were met. The second half year performance is on track for a similar outcome.

2015 COMPLIANCE PROGRAM – PRIORITIES

(Amendments to 2014 Priorities are highlighted in red. Comment is provided.)

Very High Priorities:

1.1 Developments, actions, works, activities or uses that places people’s lives at immediate risk or that cause or are likely to cause a significant risk of environmental harm or pollution;

Comment: The addition of the word “a significant risk of” is intended to highlight the degree of risk required to activate this priority and to distinguish it from Medium Priority 3.1.

1.2 Significant environmental and public health incidents;

1.3 Dangerous and/or menacing dogs;

Comment: The removal of “uncontrolled dogs” from this priority is offset by its inclusion in new Medium Priority 3.4. Dangerous and menacing dogs ought be the higher priority. If a dog which would ordinarily fall within priority 3.4 were to attack or threaten to attack a person or another animal that dog would become a dangerous or menacing dog and would be dealt with within the higher priority.

1.4 Traffic, parking and unapproved camping activity enforcement;

1.5 Asbestos containing material (ACM) being illegally dumped on public land

Comment: Council received requests from the community to respond to illegally dumped Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) within Byron Shire. The staff response is not currently supported by any budget or council policy. The containment of any ACM required trained professionals to attend, use appropriate personal protective equipment, collect all visible materials and wrap securely. Once contained and secured, the ACM was transported and buried at an approved landfill site, at a cost to the Environmental Services budget.

Byron Shire Council currently does not have a landfill site approved for the disposal of ACM. The nearest approved landfill sites are in Lismore and Tweed local government areas.

The increasing media and community information surrounding the topic of ACM has increased general community concerns where ACM is being removed from private properties, and the issue of this commonly found building material in residences along the eastern coast of Australia, including Byron Shire.

The community concerns relate firstly to an increase in community demands for Compliance and Environmental Services staff to attend authorised demolition sites.

Secondly private individuals see value by saving the considerable costs of engaging a Workcover accredited demolition contractor and disposing of the ACM at an approved landfill site at a cost of more than $130/tonne, by illegally dumping ACM on public land. Such unsecured ACM left exposed in public places poses a risk to community health, and to the workplace health and safety of council staff. The priority has been raised for ACM in light of the trends observed in Byron Shire, and across NSW.

2. High Priorities

2.1 Provide (Comment: “Provide” better expresses Council’s intention than does “Run”) education or workshops and undertake compliance enforcement programs for;

(a) Places of shared accommodation (commercial and non commercial)

(b) Swimming pool safety including legislative requirements

Comment: The common practices of property owners developing unapproved accommodation structures for the occupation by young families and the socially and economically disadvantaged is establishing unacceptable development standards for housing in Byron Shire.

Structural adequacy, fire safety and basic public health requirements such as drinking water, light, ventilation, wastewater disposal etc especially where such housing is located in high risk situations, such as in flood or fire zones, will be addressed by the provision of better information and, if necessary, compliance action.

(d) Onsite sewage management systems (including CERA project)

Comment: Council adopted the Community Engagement and Risk Communication (CERC) program in 2013 to address the issues of public health and environmental risks associated with the operation of private on-site sewage management system (OSMS) throughout Byron Shire. The amendment incorporates the project.

(e) Promoting better food safety standards

Comment: Provision of educational materials has been shown as being effective in promoting positive local food outcomes. Changing regulations need to be identified and shared with boat the community and food business operators for the uniform establishment of better compliance outcomes for Council’s community.

(f) Awareness of current public health requirements

Comment: The NSW Public Health Legislation has included local government as an important member in supporting public health outcomes across the State.

The community need to be informed and reminded about important public health measures which can offer specific protection for vulnerable individuals such as the young, the ageing and the medically compromised.

Positive messages on relevant local government issues such as tobacco smoking restricted areas, improving water quality in swimming pools and spa pools etc work to have an immediate health promoting reaction from the community and to further assist Council to be effective when more serious natural disaster or pandemic messages require a more immediate recognition by the community.

(g) Companion Animals

(h) Safe Procedures for handling and disposal of Asbestos Containing Materials

Comment: The growing concerns within the Australian community surrounding the existence, removal and disposal of us best’s containing material must be managed by reliable and readily accessible information.

Council, as the level of government closest to the community, are an important resource to inform, educate and, where serious public safety risks are created, prosecute offenders.

(i) Seasonal public health issues and community preparedness

Comment: Media advice on topical public health matters for example “heat waves; a recognition of the risks to the elderly, sick and small children, and how to best manage the heat”, or water quality for users of rainwater tanks during dry times, or asbestos removal etc. will be produced and publicised as necessary to improve community preparedness and safe community health outcomes.

including issuing a minimum of two media releases.

2.2 Responses to complaints about recurring (Comment: The priority is better expressed in this manner) noise disturbance, public nuisance from premises, maintenance of alcohol free zones;

2.3 Unauthorised events, including unapproved dwellings, wedding receptions, parties, 'doof and 'rave' parties;

3. Medium Priorities

3.1 Development or activities without consent, or non-compliance with consent, permit or licence conditions where these appear to pose no immediate threat to life, property, public health or the environment;

3.2 Livestock on public roads;

3.3 Non-compliant signage (07-550, 06-204).

3.4 Uncontrolled dogs and/or cats including those kept on land where Policy or Development consent prohibits it.

Comment: See above in respect of priority 1.3. The inclusion of a reference to

dog and cat free properties reflects Council’s recent resolution.

4. Routine Priorities

4.1 All other matters.

Financial Implications

2015 Compliance Priorities will be addressed within existing budget allocations.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

There a number of Acts which give local government regulatory powers. They include the:

§ Companion Animals Act 1998

§ Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

§ Food Act 2003

§ Impounding Act 1993

§ Local Government Act 1993

§ Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

§ Public Health Act 2010

§ Roads Act 1993

§ Swimming Pools Act 1992

Compliance action is considered and managed through Council’s adopted Enforcement Policy (DM 1103173). Enforcement Guidelines (E2013/21238) have been formulated to supplement the Enforcement Policy. They give guidance in putting the Enforcement Policy into practice.

Part 10 of the Enforcement Policy deals with "Taking Enforcement Action". Part 11 deals with "The Nature and Seriousness of the Unauthorised Activity."

Those Parts encapsulate the principle that the decision to take enforcement action must be based on sound grounds and must include consideration of whether Council has a duty to act and then whether;

a) the available evidence establishes an initial ('prima facie') case for action,

b) the public interest is served by bringing such an action,

c) procedural fairness been afforded and demonstrated.

At the conclusion of an investigation, Council may have one or more of the following options;

1. Take no action;

2. Counsel the alleged offender;

3. Issue a caution;

4. Issue a PIN;

5. Issues Notices and Orders;

6. Commence criminal proceedings;

7. Commence civil proceedings;

8. Report broader matters to Council.

Procedures aimed at bringing about consistency in decision-making include;

a) Procedure 13/01 (E 2013/20622) The functions, power and role of the Compliance Action Panel.

b) Procedure 13/02 (E 2013/2207) Local Court-Court elected Penalty Notices.

c) Standard Operating Procedures for Rangers (E2013/44134).

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.9 - Attachment 1

Minutes of the Byron Shire Council Public Art Assessment Panel Meeting held on Thursday 6 November 2014

E2014/75055

PRESENT: Cr P Spooner

Staff: Joanne McMurtry (Community Policy Officer)

Greg Ironfield (Manager Community Development)

Community: Rick Molloy (Practising Artists Network)

Suvira McDonald (Community Artist member)

Tracey Whitaker (Community member)

Peter Wood (Arts Northern Rivers)

Paula Cordeiro (Community Artist member

Guest: Samantha Collyer (Brunswick Nature Sculpture Walk) for Report No. 6.2

Paul Spooner opened the meeting at 1.07pm and acknowledged that the meeting was being held on Bundjalung Country.

APOLOGIES: Cr S Richardson, Andy Erskine (Superintendent Parks), Gavin Brown (Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal)).

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST – PECUNIARY AND NON-PECUNIARY

There were no declarations of interest.

CONFIRMATION OF A QUORUM:

There are eight people on the Panel following the resignation of Belinda Smith. Quorum numbers were met.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Public Art Assessment Panel recommend to Council:

1. Write a letter of thanks to Belinda Smith for her valuable contribution to the Public Art Assessment Panel since May 2013.

2. Nominees on the list of alternate members for the PAAP which was created following the call for nominations conducted in early 2013 will be contacted, to ascertain current interest in filling the vacant position on the PAAP.

3. If there is no interest from the alternate members, a call for nominations will be conducted for the vacant position on the PAAP, with nominees to be reported to Council for a Community Representative member to be selected.

(Cordeiro/Whittaker)

CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES:

That the minutes of the Public Art Assessment Panel meeting held on 11 September 2014 be adopted.

(Molloy/McDonald)

BUSINESS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES (Verbal updates)

5.1 Unity Pole

Staff have been advised by the Unity Pole owners that they are withdrawing their application to erect the pole in a public place due to engineering advice received. There are plans to erect it on private property.

5.2 Inscribe Youth Street Art Project

An email from Karma Barnes was circulated to the PAAP members with a request for a letter of support to move forward with plans around the Byron Bay Pool fence near Main Beach.

Action:

The PAAP provided the following advice to be communicated to Karma:

· No decision has been made regarding the pool fence

· There is a significant town centre masterplanning process underway for Byron Bay

· Please talk to Byron United about their ‘Postcards’ project for alternative sites

· Encouraged to apply for the Small Public Art Grants program when launched in the new year

5.3 Judy Cassab Paintings - update

The paintings arrived at the Byron Bay Library this week, however some of the frames appear damaged (yet to be assessed). Lismore Art Gallery are proposing to hold a ‘Judy Cassab’ exhibition and the PAAP were supportive of the four paintings on loan to Byron Shire Council to be part of that exhibition.

Action:

· Request Jay Pearce (Lone Goat Gallery committee) and Paula Cordeiro to look at the artworks and advise on the frame condition.

5.4 Essential Energy padmount in Lawson St, Byron Bay

As discussed at the previous PAAP meeting, a small group came together to discuss the possibility of public art on the Essential Energy padmount which will be in a high profile location. Throughout the discussion, it became clear that the padmount is a large steel box, with open grills etc on several sides, with one side located very close behind a park bench. In short, it appeared it wasn’t suitable as a public art project and it was decided to try and camouflage the padmount by planting appropriate plants around it.

PUBLIC ART PROPOSALS

6.1 Public Art Proposal – Memorial Mosaic Seat, Brunswick Heads

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Public Art Assessment Panel recommend to Council to accept the donation of a Memorial Mosaic Seat, placed in a suitable location on Council land in Memorial Park, Brunswick Heads, subject to PAAP members meeting with the artist around some design questions and being satisfied with the final concept designs. (Wood/Molloy)

Action:

· Tracey Whittaker and Suvira McDonald will meet with the artist on site to ascertain further details about the artwork, such as:

o What is the extent of the area covered by the mosaic? Will the back of the seat be tiled?

o Will the seat be of a suitable height and comfort level (eg feet underneath?) to be used as a seat.

· Tracey will report back to the PAAP by email.

· Staff to add clarification on the Public Art Proposal form to provide design drawings and specifications and photo’s if the artwork is already created, in order to provide PAAP with more information on which to base decision making.

6.2 Public Art Proposal – Brunswick Nature Sculpture Walk

Samatha Collyer attended the meeting to outline the proposal and answer questions from PAAP members.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Public Art Assessment Panel recommend to Council that a donation of $5,000 be made to the Brunswick Nature Sculpture Walk to seed fund the commencement of development of a number of artworks, for the following reasons:

· Encourages high quality art, in line with the aims of the Public Art Policy

· Encourages participation by professional artists (for example, is timed after Swell in Tweed Heads and before Sculpture by the Sea in Bondi – the sculpture trail)

· The workshops offer an important educational aspect for locals and visitors

· There is evidence of excellent community participation

· It provides an opportunity to work with several partners

· There is currently no arts showcase or event in Brunswick Heads.

2. That Council note that prior to any installation of artworks, appropriate formal application will need to be made to Council for the event in the form or a Development Application, Temporary Licence or Public Art Application, whichever is identified as required.

(Cordeiro/Molloy)

6.3 Late Report - Public Art Proposal – Kellie O’Dempsey murals from Bay Lane Activation

A late report was tabled at the PAAP meeting.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Public Art Assessment Panel recommend to Council to thank the artists for their offer and provide congratulations on a great event (Bay Lane Activation), however the artworks are declined for the following reasons:

· The works are not relevant to the current public art program

· There is a lack of suitable locations identified to display the works

(Wood/Molloy)

6.4 Late Report - Public Art Proposal – Ocean Shores Community Centre

A late report was tabled at the PAAP meeting.

The PAAP provided in principle support but requested the following actions:

Action:

· Would like to see evidence of community support for the project

· Would like to invite the artist to address the next PAAP meeting

· Would like to see Ocean Shores Community Centre’s financial support for the project

Peter Wood left the meeting at 4.03pm.

6.5 Identification of appropriate public art locations

This was deferred until the next meeting.

7. DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the Public Art Assessment Panel will be determined in the new year, probably February 2015.

There being no further business the meeting concluded at 4.05pm.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.11

Report No. 13.11 Companion Animal Welfare Incorporated (CAWI) Relocation to West Byron STP Council Animal Pound

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Colin Sims, Project Coordinator - Buildings

Wayne Bertram, Manager Certification and Assessment

Ralph James, Legal Services Coordinator

Trish Kirkland, Manager Governance Services

File No: I2014/23

Theme: Corporate Management

Compliance Services

Summary:

Council at its meeting held 19 August 2012 resolved Resolution 12-264 (in part) to consent to CAWI’s use of Operational land at Tyagarah (Part Lot 49 DP 881232), to establish and operate a Companion Animal Shelter and associated services.

As part of the Financial Sustainability Project Plan, Council is seeking to maximise land development commercial potential as part of the Tyagarah Airfield Future Options Project, and part Lot 49 DP 881232 previously indicated for CAWI has been identified with potential commercial development value.

After further consultation with CAWI, in principal agreement has been reached to relocate their proposed Animal Shelter to Council’s Animal Pound at West Byron.

This report to replace resolution 12-264 with a new resolution providing consent for CAWI to occupy part of Lot 2 DP 706286, Council Operational land at West Byron STP, including the existing Animal Pound, for the purpose of providing Byron Shire with a Companion Animal Refuge and associated companion animal services.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council consent to operational land, part Lot 2 DP 706286 as indicated in Attachment 1 (E2014/65093), being occupied by Companion Animal Welfare Inc (CAWI) to establish and operate a Companion Animal Refuse and associated services, subject to the following conditions:

a) CAWI and council enter into a deed of agreement to guide the process including surveying, development and associated approvals (including subdivision), provision of council’s pound services, and occupation of the site under a 20-year term lease at annual minimum crown rent.

b) That advancing the proposal occurs at no cost to council.

c) That CAWI withdraw Development Application 10.2014.006.1 relating to resolution 12-264 regarding the Operational land at Tyagarah (Part Lot 49 DP 881232).

2. That Council provide owner’s consent for CAWI to lodge a Development Application for subdivision of part Lot 2 DP 706286 that is consistent with the land area indicated in Attachment 1 (E2014/65093).

3. That Council authorise the General Manager to negotiate and execute all necessary documentation and agreements to advance the proposal.

4. That Council authorise the General Manager to affix the Council seal to the deed of agreement, lease agreement, and land titles documentation for subdivision of part Lot 2 DP 706286, and any other associated documents.

5. That Council provide financial reimbursement of up to $25,000 from the Tyagarah Airfield Future Options Project to CAWI for the consultancy costs they incurred to prepare and lodge Development Application 10.2014.006.1 over Operational land at Tyagarah (Part Lot 49 DP 881232) subject to CAWI providing appropriate receipts for those expenses incurred to the satisfaction of the General Manager.

Attachments:

1 Preferred plan for CAWI (Companion Animals' Welfare Inc) pound area, E2014/65093 , page 133

Report

Land Information

Part Tyagarah Airfield Part Lot 49 DP 881232

Owner –Byron Shire Council

Classification – Operational Land

Part West Byron STP Part Lot 2 DP 706286

Owner –Byron Shire Council

Classification – Operational Land

Background

At the Ordinary Council meeting held 19 August 2012, Council considered a report titled “Establishment of companion Animal Shelter at Tyagarah Airfield”, and resolved [12-264] in part for CAWI to occupy and develop Operational land at Tyagarah (Part Lot 49 DP 881232) for the purposes of a Companion Animal Refuge and associated services. In accordance with this resolution, CAWI lodged DA 10.2014.006.1 to subdivide the land area and develop the land for this purpose. The development application is yet to be determined by Council.

Tyagarah Airfield Options Report

The Tyagarah Airfield Options Report prepared by The Airport Group (TAG) in March 2014 identified the proposed CAWI site as being part of the Council owned operational land at Tyagarah with potential commercial value to Council for inclusion in future options at Tyagarah in order to create a higher financial return for Council.

The recommendations contained in the TAG report prompted staff to consult with CAWI to investigate suitable alternative site options within the shire boundaries.

Proposed Alternative Site

The Operational land at West Byron Sewer Treatment Plant (STP) including the existing Animal Pound (Part Lot 2 DP 706286) was identified as being suitable for the purposes of an animal shelter.

Further consultation with CAWI and inspections of the newly proposed site were conducted by staff to clarify the extent of the CAWI’s proposal and operational requirements, whilst also taking into consideration future expansion requirements of the West Byron STP.

CAWI have provided their in principal agreement to the proposed alternative site, as set out in Attachment 1. In principal support for the alternative site for CAWI was provided by Director Infrastructure Services, with further consideration of access gates, fencing and drainage be undertaken during the development application for subdivision.

Development Applications

Development Application 10.2014.6.1 has previously been lodged for the Establishment of companion Animal Shelter at Tyagarah Airfield to relation to resolution 12-264. CAWI will withdraw the development application over the land at Tyagarah (Part Lot 49 DP 881232) on council resolving to advance the proposed new location at West Byron.

A new development application will be lodged by CAWI for the subdivision of the land at West Byron STP in accordance with the agreed land area and for any proposed other works required by CAWI. CAWI have indicated their intention to stage any necessary works, as initially they would simply be operating from the existing pound building.

CAWI have requested Council consider a reimbursement of the consultant costs they incurred to in preparing and submitting the Tyagarah Airfield site development application to the value of $25,000.

Deed of Agreement, Lease and Service Level Agreement (SLA) for Pound Services

Council’s previous resolution 12-624 for CAWI’s occupation of the Tyagarah Airfield site, provided for funding and preparing the necessary legal documentation. These have been substantially completed and will require small modifications to accommodate the site location and pound service provisions.

The SLA recognizes the business relationship that exists between Council and CAWI. Its purpose is to enhance this relationship by defining the levels of service agreed upon.

Foundational to the SLA is that Council seeks to provide its pound of facilities to CAWI to service Council’s needs in providing care and management of impounded and surrendered animals.

Council seeks to provide facilities to CAWI which will enable CAWI to provide (at its cost entirely) facilities, buildings, personnel, plant, equipment, technology and communication systems, administration and management necessary or incidental to the provision of pound services in Byron Shire.

The body of the SLA documents the terms and conditions of the agreed services. It sets out in specific and measurable terms the services to be provided, problem resolution, delivery roles and responsibilities for the services and the duration and administration of the SLA.

CAWI will need to ensure that at all times, an adequate number of its animal attendants or

agents are available at the Pound to carry out CAWI functions, pursuant to the agreement.

CAWI will need to acknowledge and accept responsibility for ensuring that Council’s community standing and credentials are maintained through the operation of the Pound.

Consistent with this there would be greater pound supervision and release of Rangers from almost all pound functions. This would result in a significant increase in Ranger productivity by allowing Rangers to be freed up to more actively patrol problem areas thus reducing complaints and associated costs.

Financial Implications

It is proposed that all costs and fees associated with the recommendations are to be paid by CAWI in accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges.

There is a direct cost to Council for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by CAWI for the development application lodge over the previous Tyagarah Airfield site. It is proposed to fund the $25,000 reimbursement form the Tyagarah Airfield Future Options Project budget recommended for establishment, refer the report in this agenda titled “Tyagarah Airfield Future Options”.

Establishing a service level agreement for pound services between CAWI and Council could provide cost and productivity offsets over time with the reduction of animal impounding and handling costs and freeing up rangers from animal handling to more activity in their other patrol functions.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Clause 400(4) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 provides the seal of a Council

must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to the business of the Council and

the Council has resolved by resolution specifically referring to the document that the seal be so

affixed.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.14

Report No. 13.14 Review of Long Term Financial Plan 2014-2024

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2014/45

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

The Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) is a requirement under the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework for NSW Local Government and forms part of the Resourcing Strategy.

A Council in its Resourcing Strategy is required to identify the resources required to implement the strategies established by the Community Strategic Plan (CSP). The Strategy must include, in addition to the LTFP, a Workforce Plan and a Asset Management Plan.

The Finance Advisory Committee considered a report at its Meeting held on 21 August 2014 where it recommended to Council the following:

‘That a report be provided to Council with the updated Draft Byron Shire Council Long Term Financial Plan 2014-2024 incorporating the assumptions and scenarios indicated in this report or otherwise determined by the Finance Advisory Committee.’

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 18 September 2014 adopted this recommendation through resolution 14-444.

This report is provided to Council to reconsider and defer the development of the updated 2014-2024 Long Term Financial Plan given the release by the NSW Government of its proposed reforms for the local government sector as part of being ‘Fit for the Future’.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council defer the updating of its Long Term Financial Plan until it has prepared its response to the NSW Government’s Fit for the Future assessment, so that the Plan aligns with that assessment, and incorporates the revised asset management planning work currently being undertaken.

Report

Background

The Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) is a requirement under the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework for NSW Local Government and forms part of the Resourcing Strategy. A Resourcing Strategy is a document Council must produce to detail the provision of resources required to implement the strategies established by the Community Strategic Plan (CSP).

Council developed and adopted its first Long Term Financial Plan through resolution 12-542 in 2012 and is required to update it at least on an annual basis as part of the development of the Operational Plan.

As background, the requirement for an LTFP is governed by Section 403 of the Local Government Act 1993.

The LTFP provides a framework in which a Council can assess its revenue building capacity to meet the activities and level of services outlined in its Community Strategic Plan. It also:

· Establishes greater transparency and accountability of Council to the Community.

· Provides an opportunity for early identification of financial issues and any likely impacts in the longer term.

· Provides a mechanism to solve financial problems as a whole, see how other plans fit together and understand the impact of some decisions on other plans or strategies.

· Provides a means of measuring Council’s success in implementing strategies.

· Confirms that Council can remain financially sustainable in the longer term.

The Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) must support or provide for the following essential elements:

· Must be used to inform the decision making during the finalisation of the Community Strategic Plan and the development of the Delivery Program.

· Must be for a minimum of 10 years.

· Must be updated at least annually as part of the development of the Operational Plan.

· Must be reviewed in detail as part of the four yearly review of the Community Strategic Plan.

The basic structure of the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) must include the following:

· Projected income and expenditure, balance sheet and cash flow statement.

· Planning assumptions used.

· Methods of monitoring financial performance.

· Sensitivity analysis and modelling for different scenarios.

Draft Long Term Financial Plan 2014-2024

The Finance Advisory Committee considered a report to its Meeting held 21 August 2014 where it recommended to Council proposed assumptions and scenarios to update the Long Term Financial Plan for the period 2014-2024. These were adopted by Council on 18 September 2014 through resolution 14-444 as follows:

Assumptions

· Working Funds Balance to be set to at least $1,000,000.

· Rate pegging to be linked to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

· General rate income growth per annum (new assessments) from development 0.5%.

· Salary and wage indexation to be set at Consumer Price Index (CPI) plus 0.75%.

· Asset construction and maintenance indexation 5%.

· All other costs to be indexed by the Sydney All Groups Consumer Price Index (CPI)

· Investment rates will be the 90 day bank bill rate.

· Loan borrowing rates will be assumed at the current investment bill rate for the respective term plus 0.70%.

· New loan borrowings will only be for the following:

o Capital works where funding for annual recurrent operational costs attributable to new assets has been factored into the budget as affordable and funded.

o To reduce the funding gap for the renewal of existing infrastructure. Including application for loan interest subsidies under the Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme (LIRS).

o When it is for commercial purpose and repayments can be met from additional revenue sources.

o The term of the loan must also accord with Council’s loan borrowing policy 09/006 in that the loan borrowing term should be relevant to the useful life of the asset being funded from the loan borrowings.

In addition to the above, the Byron Shire Council Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) is assumed to have as its base case all of the outcomes identified by the Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program and Operational Plan and by virtue of that is linked to those documents.

Scenarios

The base case scenario contained in the updated Draft LTFP 2014-2024 is the current 2014/2015 budget estimates relevant to the current Operational Plan adopted by Council on 12 June 2014 (Resolution 14-285). This will be further supplemented through inclusion of the outcomes of the report concerning Budget Carryovers for inclusion in the 2014/2015 Budget to be considered by Council at its Ordinary Meeting to be held on 28 August 2014 and to this meeting of the Finance Advisory Committee.

Three scenarios will be built off the base case scenario to be included in the updated Draft LTFP 2014-2024. The proposed scenarios will be represented by projected financial statements including income statement and balance sheet based on the disclosure requirement of the LTFP. The scenarios are proposed to be on a Consolidated Fund basis ie General, Water and Sewerage combined and are based on the following:

· Base Scenario – Current Original 2014/2015 Budget Estimates plus 9 year projections based on current service levels as per resolution 14-285 plus incorporation of the Budget Carryovers for inclusion in the 2014/2015 Budget yet to be adopted by Council. Funding for the subsequent 9 year projections for capital works will need to be resolved as there are works included with no funding source that is outlining deficits

· Scenario 1 – Based off the Base Scenario but includes realisation of operational land assets that may be considered surplus to Council requirements as per the adoption of the Financial Sustainability Project Plan (FSPP) 2014/2015, Section 5 – Land Review and Property Development. This scenario will demonstrate a change in the balance sheet as cash and investments are increasing due to the asset sales being realised only as the scenario does not disclose what is happening to the sale proceeds (ie restricted in the infrastructure renewal Reserve for the purpose of funding infrastructure renewal works determined by Council).

· Scenario 2 – is based on scenario 1 but also includes an impact on the introduction of a paid parking regime in Byron Bay. Again at this scenario will impact the income statement through additional paid parking revenue and expenditure for managing the paid parking along with the balance sheet relating to asset renewal as the scenario is based on funding additional roads and open space/recreation capital works.

· Scenario 3 – is based on scenario 2 but also includes an annual ongoing rate increase of 3% above the rate peg. This option considers a view of the Independent Local Government Review Panel that rate increases over and above the rate peg amount of no more then 3% may not require approval by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. (IPART). This scenario will impact the income statement through additional rate income and the balance sheet via cash and investments increasing as expenditure of the additional rate revenue is not currently included but would obviously be related to infrastructure renewal/maintenance.

The Office of Local Government as part of the NSW Government’s ‘Fit for the Future’ reforms for the local government sector issued Circular 14-28 on 31 October 2014. This circular canvassed the release of the Fit for the Future Self Assessment Tool, Templates and Guidance Materials to assist Council in preparing their response to the NSW Government by 30 June 2015 how it will be ‘Fit for the Future’.

A significant part of the response to the NSW Government will centre around asset management and Council’s ability to deal with its infrastructure backlog, asset maintenance and its overall financial sustainability. These are significant parts to the Long Term Financial Plan to forecast to Council and to the NSW Government how Council will deal with these matters in the longer term.

Council’s current Long Term Financial Plan requires the development of a funded ten year capital works program and appropriate levels of service in terms of asset maintenance. Work is currently underway to address these matters that will link into the Long Term Financial Plan to indicate how Council can address its financial sustainability and manage its significant asset inventory in the longer term. It is also proposed to incorporate the performance measures outlined in the Fit for the Future response into a revised Long Term Financial Plan.

It is considered essential that the revision and preparation of an updated Long Term Financial Plan includes the information that is currently being developed by the asset management area. It is seen that the best approach is for Council to supplement its response to the Fit for the Future requirements with an updated Long Term Financial Plan, that incorporates more realistic projections for asset maintenance and renewal then what are currently available.

Whilst the guidelines referred to in the Statutory and Compliance section of this report require the Long Term Financial Plan to be updated annually, these were issued in 2010, prior to the Fit for the Future requirements being developed and released. Given the importance of the Council submission by 30 June 2015, it is considered the Long Term Financial Plan is updated in conjunction with the preparation of Council’s submission and includes reference to the asset management work currently being undertaken. .

This report was presented to the Finance Advisory Committee Meeting held on 13 November 2014 for consideration but the recommendation was not able to be considered due to there not being a quorum at the Meeting but is now presented to Council for consideration.

Financial Implications

There are no direct financial implications associated with this report. The Long term Financial Plan (LTFP) provides Council with a tool to model financially impacts of policy decisions and be able project the financial sustainability of Council based on assumptions over the longer term.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The requirement for Councils to develop a Long Term Financial Plan is detailed in Section 403 of the Local Government Act 1993 as follows:

403 Resourcing strategy

(1) A council must have a long-term strategy (called its resourcing strategy) for the provision of the resources required to implement the strategies established by the community strategic plan that the council is responsible for.

(2) The resourcing strategy is to include long-term financial planning, workforce management planning and asset management planning.

The Division of Local Government has also issued a publication in regard to the LTFP on 7 December 2010 and this can be found at the following link:

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Information/Integrated%20Planning%20and%20Reporting%20-%20Long-Term%20Financial%20Plan.pdf

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.15 - Attachment 1

bsc_logo300dpi

DRAFT TEMPLATE

Year to Date Finance Report – September 2014

Report to Councillors

Executive Summary

Council is required under the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 to maintain a system of budget control. This is a key responsibility of the Council’s Responsible Accounting Officer.

Byron Shire Council has an adopted budget for the 2014/2015 financial year that was adopted at the Ordinary Meeting held on 12 June 2014 (Resolution 14-285). Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 28 August 2014 adopted carryover budgets that were unexpended in 2013/2014 for inclusion in the 2014/2015 Budget Estimates (Resolution 14-389).

In overall summary terms the budget and actual situation is as follows at 30 September 2014 at the time this report has been prepared:

Item	Actual + Committed Result	Adopted Budget 2014/2015	Actual to Budget %
Operating Revenue	43,510,726	76,454,700	56.91
Less: Operating Expenditure	22,933,550	69,125,050	33.18
Add: Capital Revenue	835,966	5,772,700	14.48
Less: Capital Expenditure	3,524,026	18,503,300	19.04
Less: Loan Principal Repayments	531,547	2,704,800	19.65
Actual/Budget Result	17,357,569	(8,105,750)
Net Reserve Movements		(8,122,600)
Overall Budget Result – Surplus/(Deficit)		16,850

The current budget result for 2014/2015 is a projected $16,850 surplus. This result will then should it occur derive a likely accumulated surplus (working funds) for the General Fund of $1,253,050 by 30 June 2015 pending the outcome for 2013/2014 still to be finalised.

The current budget result for 2014/2015 is illustrating a proposed reduction in cash of $8,055,450 of which $8,072,300 is expected to be funded from reserve funds held resulting in a net surplus position of $16,850.

Further explanations as to the financial results are provided on subsequent pages in this report but overall the short term financial position of Council relative to the 2014/2015 adopted budget is considered satisfactory based on actual results to date excluding commitments.

Introduction

This report provides a snapshot of Council’s financial performance as at the end of September 2014 for the 2014/2015 financial year. The report outlines the following results:

· Comparison of operating revenue to budget by Fund graphically.

· Comparison of operating expenditure to budget by Fund graphically.

· Comparison of capital expenditure to budget by Fund graphically.

· Comparison of other financial indicators graphically in the areas of:

o Recovery of outstanding rates and annual charges.

o Recovery of outstanding water and sewerage consumption charges.

o Level of cash and investments held.

o The progress on repayment of Council’s outstanding loan principal against budget.

o Interest on investments generated compared to budget.

Assumptions/Report Parameters Used

· Budget comparisons in this report are against the original 2014/2015 budget approved by Council plus the inclusion of the carryovers.

· No depreciation expense has been included in the budget estimates or actual results outlined in this report as it does not involve the flow of funds.

· Capital revenue has not been presented in the report as it is more of a revenue that is used to fund current and future capital works, is more variable in nature and to reduce the size of this report.

· Report includes budget profiling where the overall budget is profiled for each month based on expected actual monthly results or average results taken from the last three years experience.

· The report provides a graphical snapshot or ‘dashboard’ of Council’s financial performance in the areas of actual compared to budget along with some balance sheet indicators. Complete with the graphs is some relevant commentary.

· Other performance indicators may be added from time to time to suit the information needs of Council.

· This report is short term in focus ie the current financial year and is about measuring more so the liquidity position of Council and ensuring the short term financial position of Council remains sound as a going concern. This ensures Council continues to meet its expenditures and liabilities when they become due and payable.

OPERATING REVENUE

Total operating revenue at 30 September 2014 is $43,510,726 (actual) compared to a budget of $76,454,700. Percentage wise operating revenue actual is at 56.91% of budget whereas the financial year is 25% complete.

Graphically this is represented as follows by Fund:

Operating Revenue by Fund

OPERATING EXPENDITURE

Total operating expenditure at 30 September 2014 is $22,933,550 (actual plus committed) compared to a budget of $69,125,050. Percentage wise operating expenditure actual is at 33.18% of budget whereas the financial year is 25% complete.

Graphically this is represented as follows by Fund:

Operating Expenditure by Fund

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE

Total capital expenditure at 30 September 2014 is $3,524,026 (actual plus committed) compared to a budget of $18,503,300. Percentage wise capital expenditure is at 19.04% of budget whereas the financial year is 25% complete. Please note the level of capital expenditure actual compared to budget is not necessarily representative of the level of capital works project completion.

Graphically this is represented as follows by Fund:

Capital Expenditure by Fund

OTHER FINANCIAL INDICATORS

The following pages outline some other financial indicators that are relevant in the assessment of the short term financial position of Council. These include comparison of other financial indicators in the areas of:

o Recovery of outstanding rates and annual charges.

o Recovery of outstanding water and sewerage consumption charges.

o Level of cash and investments held.

o The progress on repayment of Council’s outstanding loan principal against budget.

o Interest on investments generated compared to budget.

o Level of outstanding sundry debtors and the debt age.

A comment is provided for each indicator.

Recovery of Outstanding Rates and Annual Charges

Comment:

An acceptable industry benchmark for a Council like Byron would be to maintain outstanding rates and annual charges below a 5% benchmark to measure the effectiveness of debt recovery activity. Currently this indicator is below the benchmark which is a positive result. It can vary during the year especially in the months where instalment payments by ratepayers are due.

Recovery of Outstanding Water and Sewerage Consumption Charges

Comment:

An acceptable industry benchmark for a Council like Byron would be to maintain outstanding water and sewerage consumption charges below a 5% benchmark to measure the effectiveness of debt recovery activity. Currently this indicator is above the benchmark which is not ideal but will improve. It can vary during the year especially in the months where instalment payments by ratepayers are due and early in the financial year where revenue has not been raised due to billing as revenue is the denominator in the formula.

Level of Cash and Investments Held

Comment:

The cash position during September 2014 has increased since August 2014. This is partly due to continual payments from rate instalment and developer contribution receipts are higher then expected.

The progress of repayment of Council’s Outstanding Loan Principal against Budget

Comment:

The above graph tracks the progressive repayment of Council’s loan principal repayments throughout the financial year.

Council is expected to repay an estimated $2,704,800 in loan principal during 2014/2015. Profiling of this budget item is still to be completed.

Interest on Investments generated compared to Budget

Comment:

Interest on investments was previously negative which happened up until 31 August 2014. This is due to the reversal of accrued interest on investment revenue raised in June 2014 that has not been physically paid to Council. As the payments have been received this has cleared and then interest on investment revenue relevant for 2014/2015 is now starting to be shown. This is to ensure consistency and matching of revenue relevant for the particular financial year.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.16

Report No. 13.16 Sale of Land for Unpaid Rates and Charges

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

Jane Steiger, Revenue Accountant

File No: I2014/64

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services – General Purpose Revenues

Summary:

Section 713 of the Local Government Act 1993 empowers Council to sell land for which rates and charges have remained unpaid for more than five (5) years from the date on which rate and/or charge became payable.

The properties in the confidential attachment to this report satisfy the requirements of Section 713 of the Local Government Act 1993. Consequently, it is proposed that the properties listed, be sold by Public Action in accordance with the provisions of this legislation, should Council adopt this course of action.

Subject to the adoption of the recommendation by Council, the sale of land by auction must be conducted at a time fixed by Council, being not more than six (6) months and not less than three (3) months from the publication in a newspaper of the advertisement of the proposed sale and place for the sale.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council sell by public auction the land and properties detailed in Part A and Part B of the confidential attachment to this report in order to recover unpaid rates and charges pursuant to Division 5 Local Government Act, 1993.

2. That following the advertisement of the sale of properties for unpaid rates in a newspaper pursuant to Section 715(1) (b) of the Local Government Act, 1993, that Council only accept payment in full of rates and charges outstanding, as a satisfactory arrangement, to avoid the sale proceeding.

Attachments:

1 Confidential - Properties Identified for Sale of Land for Unpaid Rates and Charges, E2014/78185 (provided under separate cover)

Report

In accordance with Section 713(2) of the Local Government Act, 1993, Council may determine to sell any land for which a rate or charge has remained unpaid for more than five years from the date on which it became payable. Section 716 of the Local Government Act, 1993 requires that the sale of land under this division must be by way of public auction.

If Council adopts the recommendation to sell the listed properties by way of Public Auction for Sale of Land for Unpaid Rates and Charges, a Certificate under Section 713(3) of the Act must be signed by the General Manager stating what rates and charges are payable on the land, when each of those rates were made, and when they were payable.

Section 715 of the Act requires Council to fix a convenient time and place for the auction of the properties listed. The time must not be more than six (6) months, or not less than three (3) months from the date an advertisement for the sale appears in a newspaper and the Government Gazette.

The Act also requires that Council take reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of any person who has an interest in the land and to notify each such person of the Council’s intention to sell the land under this Division.

Under Section 715(2) of the Act, the sale of the land must not proceed if the outstanding Rates and Charges are paid in full or a satisfactory arrangement is made with Council to repay the debt. Given the considerable time and effort already undertaken by Council to recover the outstanding debts on most of these cases, it is recommended that Council only accept payment in full, as a satisfactory arrangement, to avoid the sale proceeding. It is also recommended that Council specify that all costs relating to the auction process (including legal fees, advertising, search fees, etc.) be reimbursed to Council either at time of payment in full, or to be included at the time of the Sale.

To ensure that all the criteria for the Sale of Land for Unpaid Rates under Division 5 of the Act is met within a timely manner and the necessary advertisements, searches, notifications and the appointment of an Auctioneer are completed within the timeframes specified under Section 715 of the Act, it is proposed to set a date for the sale within the next six months.

All of the properties subject of this report meet the criteria for Sale of Land for Unpaid Rates under Section 713 of the Act, having rates and charges which are unpaid for more than five years from the date on which they became payable.

Councillors at a Strategic Planning Workshop held on 17 April 2014, received a presentation on this legislative process for the sale of land for overdue rates and charges. Some of the properties being the subject of this report were used as examples in this presentation.

For the purposes of this report, the properties identified in the confidential annexure have been categorised into two groups being:

Part A - properties where the owners have been actively pursued to recover the outstanding Rates and Charges.

Part B – properties where the attempt to recover the debts through legal proceedings have proved unsuccessful as the registered owners are either untraceable or deceased and council has no known address for the service of Rates and Charges notices.

Financial Implications

Total Rates and Charges outstanding as at 6 November 2014 on the properties listed in this report amount to $194,413.95, being $183,677.33 for outstanding Rates and Charges, $9,424.65 for outstanding Water and Sewerage Usage Charges and $1,312.00 for outstanding Sundry Debtor Accounts. There is a total outstanding of $89,510.58 on the properties in Part A of the confidential attachment to this report and $104,903.40 outstanding on properties in Part B of the confidential attachment to this report.

All proceeds of the sale, should this occur, are paid to Council and in accordance with Section 718 of the Local Government Act 1993 are to be discharged in the following order:-

a) Reimbursement of all Council expenses associated with the sale, then;

b) Discharge of any rate or charge in respect of the land due to Council, or any other rating authority, and any debt in respect of the land (being a debt of which the Council has notice) due to the Crown.

Should insufficient funds be recovered to satisfy all rates, charges and debts, then a pro-rata of funds to debts occurs, with all debts deemed as satisfied.

Surplus funds are held within Council’s Trust Fund pending discharge to persons having interest in the properties. Where no claim is forthcoming the balance of sale proceeds will be remitted to the State Government in accordance with the Unclaimed Monies Act.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The Sale by Public Auction of the properties listed in this report will be completed under the provisions of Division 5, Sale of Land for Unpaid Rates and Charges, which states:-

713 Sale of land for unpaid rates and charges

(1) For the purposes of this Division, a rate or charge is overdue if:

(a) in the case of vacant land, it has remained unpaid for more than one year, or

(b) in the case of any other land, it has remained unpaid for more than 5 years,

from the date on which it became payable.

(2) A council may, in accordance with this Division:

(a) sell any land (including vacant land) on which any rate or charge has remained unpaid for more than 5 years from the date on which it became payable, and

(b) sell any vacant land on which any rate or charge has remained unpaid for more than one year but not more than 5 years from the date on which it became payable, but only if:

(i) the council obtains a valuation of the land from the Valuer-General, and

(ii) the total amount of unpaid rates or charges on the land exceeds the valuation, and

(iii) the council sells the land within 6 months after the date when the council received the valuation.

(3) The council must not sell any such land unless the general manager or the public officer certifies in writing:

(a) what rates and charges (including overdue rates and charges) are payable on the land, and

(b) when each of those rates and charges was made and how it was levied, and

(c) when each of those rates and charges became payable, and

(d) what amounts are payable by way of overdue rates and charges on the land, and

(e) what amounts are payable by way of rates and charges (other than overdue rates and charges) on the land.

(4) The council may, in the case of adjoining parcels of land (whether in the same or different ownerships) each of which may be sold under this Division:

(a) sell them separately or as a single parcel and under whatever conditions of sale it considers proper, and

(b) do such things as it considers appropriate for the purpose of selling the land at its full value.

714 Estates and interests of the Crown in land

This Division does not enable the sale of:

(a) any estate or interest of the Crown in land, or

(b) any interest in land owned by the Crown that may not be transferred at law.

715 Notice of proposal to sell land

(1) Before selling land under this Division, the council must:

(a) fix a convenient time (being not more than 6 months and not less than 3 months from the publication in a newspaper of the advertisement referred to in paragraph (b)) and a convenient place for the sale, and

(b) give notice of the proposed sale by means of an advertisement published in the Gazette and in at least one newspaper, and

(c) take reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of any person who has an interest in the land, and

(d) take reasonable steps to notify each such person (and the Crown, if the land concerned is owned by the Crown) of the council’s intention to sell the land under this Division.

(2) If, before the time fixed for the sale:

(a) all rates and charges payable (including overdue rates and charges) are paid to the council, or

(b) an arrangement satisfactory to the council for payment of all such rates and charges is entered into by the rateable person,

the council must not proceed with the sale.

716 Sale of land by public auction

(1) Any sale of land under this Division must be by way of public auction, except as provided by this section.

(2) Land that fails to sell at public auction may be sold by private treaty.

(3) Land may be sold under this Division to the council, a councillor, a relative of a councillor, a member of staff of the council or any relative of a member of staff of the council in the case of sale by public auction, but may not be so sold in the case of sale by private treaty.

717 Payment of purchase money

(1) The purchase money for land sold under this Division must be paid to the council, and the council’s receipt is a discharge to the purchaser in respect of all expenses, rates, charges and debts referred to in section 718.

(2) The purchase money for land purchased by the council must be paid by way of a transfer between the appropriate funds kept by the council.

(3) Any such transfer is taken to be:

(a) payment to the council of the purchase price of the land, for the purposes of section 722, and

(b) purchase money received by the council on the sale of land for unpaid rates and charges, for the purposes of section 718.

718 Application of purchase money

The council must apply any purchase money received by it on the sale of land for unpaid rates and charges in or towards payment of the following purposes and in the following order:

(a) firstly, the expenses of the council incurred in connection with the sale,

(b) secondly, any rate or charge in respect of the land due to the council, or any other rating authority, and any debt in respect of the land (being a debt of which the council has notice) due to the Crown as a consequence of the sale on an equal footing.

719 What if the purchase money is less than the amounts owing?

If the purchase money is insufficient to satisfy all rates, charges and debts referred to in section 718 (b):

(a) the amount available is to be divided between the rates, charges and debts in proportion to the amounts owing on each, and

(b) the rates, charges and debts are taken to have been fully satisfied.

720 What if the purchase money is more than the amounts owing?

(1) Any balance of the purchase money must be paid into the council’s trust fund and held by the council in trust for the persons having estates or interests in the land immediately before the sale according to their respective estates and interests.

(2) The council may pay the balance of the purchase money or any part of the balance to or among the persons who are, in its opinion, clearly entitled to it, and the receipt of the person to whom any payment is so made is an effectual discharge to the council for it.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.17

Report No. 13.17 Tyagarah Airfield Future Options

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Tony Nash, Manager Works

Trish Kirkland, Manager Governance Services

Wayne Bertram, Manager Certification and Assessment

James Brickley, Manager Finance

Ralph James, Legal Services Coordinator

Colin Sims, Project Coordinator - Buildings

File No: I2014/19

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Open Space and Recreation

Summary:

This Airport Group (TAG) Consultants presented its Tyagarah Airfield Future Options Report to the Councillors workshop of 29 May 2014. Since the workshop, the internal staff working group have been working further with TAG and other associated consultants to secure the necessary data to support a preferred future strategic option and management model, supported by a holistic package of findings as recommended in the TAG report.

The report provides a status update, seeks additional funding allocation required to finalise the studies and assessments, and establishes key actions and timetable to finalise the additional information required to finalise and support a recommended future strategic direction and management model for Tyagarah Airfield.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council reaffirm its commitment to the continued operation of Tyagarah Airfield.

2. That Council consider funding additional costs, to the value of $105,000, required to complete the identified assessments and investigations as part of the 31 December 2014 quarter budget review.

3. That on completion of the required assessments and investigations, The Airport Group provide Council with a final report containing the preferred strategic future option and management model with a cost/benefit analysis or business case supporting the recommendations for Tyagarah Airfield.

4. That funding allocation for the capital works identified to date be considered in the 2015/16 financial year budget.

5. That Council consent, as the land owner, to the lodgement of the subdivision development application at Tyagarah Airfield.

Attachments:

1 Tyagarah Airfield Options Report - Councilors Workshop Presentation by The Airport Group, E2014/35533 (provided under separate cover)

2 Tyagarah Airstrip: Obstacle Penetration Survey Report The Airport Group August 2014, E2014/75602 , page 182

3 Confidential - Tyagarah Airfield - Legal advice on matters raised and attached tax invoice from McMahon Broadhurst Glynn Lawyers Incorporation Aviation Legal Services..., DM786115 (provided under separate cover)

4 Confidential - Legal advice on Tyagarah Airstrip, E2014/77529

5 Confidential - Letter from The Airport Group - Final Draft for Tyagarah Airfield Aviation Options Report 2013-0033-, S2014/3604 (provided under separate cover)

6 Tyagarah Airfield Future Options - Works Plan for Staged Implementation, E2014/78797 , page 189

Report

Set out in the table below is the Crown land, Council owned operational land, and lease tenant information for Tyagarah Airfield.

Table 1 – Land Information

Lot 49 DP 881232	Lot 181 DP 755692
Parcel No. 225340	Parcel No. 241414
Owner: Byron Shire Council Lease: L5 to Tyagarah Recreation and Flying Club Inc; L6 Vacant; L4 Tyagarah Hall; L10 Tyagarah Clay Target Club. (holding over on month-to-month basis)	Owner: Crown (Land Parcel has 2 Reserve Nos: 83262 (landing place); and 93871 (future public requirements): Council leases from Crown (Special Lease), acting as manager of sub-leases under the Tyagarah Airstrip Plan of Management Lease: L1 to Power Gliding Club; L11 to Pistol Club; L10 Clay Target Club (holding over on month-to-month basis)
Classification: Operational	Classification: Operational purposes

Part Lot 1 DP 713023	Lot 9 DP 856832
Parcel No. 194910 (Plan for Lease Purposes Lot 4 DP 805678)	Parcel No. 208040
Owner: Byron Shire Council Lease: Ray Palmer (L9) (holding over on 3 month-to-3 month basis)	Owner: Byron Shire Council Lease: Tiger Moth Aerial Service Pty Ltd (L8) (expires November 2015)
Classification: Operational	Classification: Operational

Part Lot 1 DP 713023	Lot 2 DP 749851
Parcel No. 194630 (Plan for Lease Purposes Lot 5 DP 805678)	Parcel No. 205780
Owner: Byron Shire Council Lease: Vacant Land	Owner: Byron Shire Council Lease: Callanan Holdings Pty Ltd (L2) (holding over on a month-to-month basis)
Classification: Operational	Classification: Operational

Lot 6 DP 836867	Lot 8 DP 856832
Parcel No. 205770	Parcel No. 208030
Owner: Byron Shire Council Lease: W F Bailey (L7) (holding over on month-to-month basis)	Owner: Byron Shire Council Lease: Byron Lapidary Society Inc (L3) (holding over on month-to-month basis)
Classification: Operational	Classification: Operational

POM: adopted 28 March 1995 (#91315)
Policy: No. 3.45 – Commercial Operations at Tyagarah Airfield

Comments from Colin Sims, Projects Coordinator

Background

Council considered a report titled “Confidential Tyagarah Airfield” at its Ordinary Meeting held 21 October 2010, and resolved, in part:

Res. 10-842

2. That Council note the progress made toward improving operations and financial sustainability of the Tyagarah Airfield, and endorse the continued implementation of initiatives outlined in the report.

3. That Council retain ownership, control and management of the Tyagarah Airfield.

Council considered a Notice of Motion titled “Investigations into options for the sale of Tyagarah Airfield’ at its Ordinary Meeting held 1 December 2011, and resolved:

Res. 11-987

That the General manager investigate and provide a report to Council on the options available to Council in relation to the future management of its operational land at Lot 49 DP 881232 Tyagarah Airfield.

Resolution 11-987 has been incorporated into the 2014/15 Financial Sustainability Project Plan and the initiative is being progressed as part Section 8, Potential Commercial Opportunities. A procurement process was undertaken to appoint a suitably qualified consultant, and an internal staff working group formed to provide information, briefings, advice, and to work with the successful consultants. The Airport Group (TAG) where the successful consultants appointed.

In March 2014 TAG submitted its Tyagarah Airfield Future Options Report, refer Attachment 5. The summary of findings was presented to the elected Council at the Councillors’ Strategic Workshop held 29 May 2014, refer Attachment 1.

Following the Councillors’ Strategic Workshop, the internal working group continued working with TAG and other associated consultants to undertake the necessary assessments and studies required for TAG to support a preferred future strategic direction and management model for the Airfield.

TAG options and further investigations and assessments

This report summarises the TAG recommendations from their report, and provides an update of the further investigations that have been undertaken and reported by staff to date, and the key actions still currently underway. These further investigation elements have been addressed in accordance with those issues identified in the TAG options report, and are designed to inform the decision making process for Council to set a strategic direction for the future of the Airfield.

The options presented to Council, and discussed at the Councillors workshop on 29 May 2014 were:

Option 1 - Maintain the current operational use of the airfield, upgrade the airfield to compliance with regulatory standards, ratify the occupancy arrangements, and implement improved management practices.

Option 2 - Minor upgrade works to equip the airfield with an all weather strip (AWS), ratify the

occupancy arrangements and implement improved management practices.

Option 3 - Sell the airfield ‘as is’

Since that time, the internal working group have been progressing a number of areas highlighted by the Aviation Options Report which included further investigative works and subsequent reports. The information coming out of these investigative works is set out below:

Comments from Tony Nash, Manager Works (Airfield Manager)

1. Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) penetrations and current airfield operations

In accordance with a recommendation contained in the TAG report, staff commissioned a complete detailed obstacle survey to identify tree heights that penetrate into the OLS and the land parcels upon which the obstacles are located to establish the nature and extent of obstacle penetrations.

The Survey identified 566 obstacles in the OLS which are located on Council’s land, Crown land, Road and Maritime Services (RMS) land, and adjoining privately owned land. The supplementary TAG report recommended:

a. Firstly and most importantly, pass on the information to pilots through a notice to airmen (NOTAM) as per reporting procedures in the MOS Part 139 (chapter 10); and

b. Report it to CASA; and

c. Have the obstacle removed; or

d. Alternatively, CASA may direct that it be marked (red and white strips) or light with a red obstacle light.

As the vast majority of the obstacles are the top of trees, lighting or marking of these trees is not applicable and so removal of the obstacle would need to be in the form of:

- Lopping of the trees to below the OLS as per heights of the penetrations in the appendix;

- Felling of the tree by cutting at its base; and/or

- Clearing of major clumps of trees with earthmoving equipment

An alternative to removing the obstacles on the ends of the runway is the reduction of the runway length down from the current published 950m length. Any reduction in runway length would not affect the requirement to eliminate the obstacles along the sides of the runway. The obstacles on both ends of the runway are reasonably close and high and so the runway length reduction would need to be of the order of 160m to reduce the extent of tree removal on the ends only by 50%. This reduction of runway length is substantial and would curtail any development or expansion as the runway would be too short for most aircraft operations and certainly for emergency aircraft such as the Air Ambulance and RFDS. As substantial tree removal would still be necessary on the sides and ends of the runway and the function of airport would be affected, this reduction of runway length is not recommended.

Our recommendation would be clearing of the trees close to the sides of the runway and close to the runway strip ends, then felling of trees beyond the close-in zone and lastly lopping of the trees that are more distant from the runway strip and are viewed as of environmental significance.

At the time of writing this report no response has been received.

Legal advice received indicates that the implementation of an appropriate risk mitigation plan will be required, refer section 4, Legal Advice, below. In addition to notifying CASA, Council’s insurers have been notified, and we await the response from CASA prior to determining the next necessary steps in relation to the OLS penetrations. In the interim, however, environmental assessment process required to remove the OLS penetrations has commenced, refer section 2. Compliance Works below.

2. Compliance Works

Establish scope, time frames and funding required for compliance works in accordance with options 1 & 2 for:

2.1 OLS penetrations and environmental assessments

There was preliminary work done by the Council consultant ecologist several years ago that was never finalised. All the three reports are still in draft form. These reports were the preparation of ecological assessments for flora and fauna impacts associated with the drain clearing and vegetation works for removal of penetrations through the OLS.

For the consultant to review these reports and increase the scale of the ecological assessments for the 566 trees penetrating through the OLS is expected to cost between $25,000 and $35,000, refer to the Financial Implications Section of this report.

Infrastructure Services has engaged a second consultant to undertake a review of planning options, project management and preparation of review of environment factors for the airstrip, including the management of the revised ecological assessments. This work will also include preparing an estimate of the range of likely costs for the tree lopping, tree removal, compensatory planting and any other works required to remove the penetrations through the OLS.

At this stage, the consultant’s early comments need to be noted that all of the vegetation works to remove the penetrations through the OLS may not be able to be undertaken due to environmental constraints associated with the Ecologically Endangered Communities (EEC) that reside in the lands (both private and public) around the airfield.

This planning consultancy work is expected to cost between $15,000 and $20,000 and take between 14 to 18 weeks to complete. The cost of this consultancy work will be funded from the existing Infrastructure Services 2014/15 operational budget for the airfield.

It is necessary to engage these two consultants due to the complexity of the environmental, planning, land tenure, CASA regulations and other matters associated with these issues at the airfield.

The costs to undertake the vegetation works to lop trees, remove trees, compensatory planting and any other works to remove the penetrations through the OLS will be undertaken as part of the planning consultant’s work. At this stage these work costs are unknown as it is to difficult to ballpark a cost due to the number of trees impacting OLS, their location on both private and public lands in difficult terrain, that is difficult to traverse, as well as being in EEC habitat. However, it is likely to be hundreds of thousands of dollars and would require the works to be tendered due to the requirements of the Local Government Act (Section 55).

The cost of works are being considered as part of the 2015/16 budget.

Section 4, Legal Advice, in this report sets out the appropriate framework and approval processes for rectification of the OLS penetrations and vegetation clearing.

2.2 Clearing of vegetation in the open drains

Estimates of costs have been prepared to clear the drains immediately adjacent to the runway and those just outside the runway. These are described as section 1 and 2 works, as below:

· section 1 is expected to cost between $50,000 and $60,000 and take between 2 to 3 weeks to complete

· section 2 is expected to cost between $65,000-$80,000 and take between 1 to 2 weeks to complete

Both these sections of work cannot be undertaken until the required environmental assessments have been completed and approved as per item 2.1 above. These estimates also do not include any compensatory planting and other actions that may arise from the completion of the ecological assessments and review of environmental factors and planning options.

The cost of works is being considered as part of the 2015/16 budget.

2.3 Rehabilitation of the grassed runway surface

Investigations were undertaken in 2013 by Council’s turf consultant to investigate the existing condition of the grassed runway surface and to detail the type, extent and estimated costs for any rehabilitation work required initially to bring the runway up to a satisfactory standard and any ongoing annual costs to maintain the turf surface.

The one-off initial capital cost to bring the grassed runway surface up to a satisfactory condition has been estimated at between $80,000 to $100,000 and is expected to take between 2 to 3 weeks to complete.

The cost of works are being considered as part of the 2015/16 budget.

After completion of the capital works above, the ongoing annual costs have been estimated at between $10,000 and $15,000 and could be completed within one week. These could be funded by the existing annual Airfield operational budget.

3. Management model considerations

The TAG report raises several issues with the current management model:

- Lack of requisite airport knowledge within BSC

- Maintenance issues are not identified or acted upon within a timely manner (this has caused environmental constraints to arise)

- Leases are not properly managed

- Many landings are not captured or invoiced (therefore revenue is lost); and

- Sense of ownership amongst the tenants at the airport due to the lack of supervised management and council presence.

These issues are not uncommon for regional ports; however they should be addressed to ensure optimal efficiency and viability of the airfield.

The report goes on to provide the following recommendation regarding airfield management:

Given the nature of Tyagarah Airfield as a Council owned and operated airfield, we recommend that BSC retain ownership of Tyagarah Airfield and either appoint a designated Airport Manager at the airfield, or enter into a Management or Technical Services Agreement with an external party for the day-to-day running of the airfield.

It is recommended that the future management model options be considered as part of the final recommendation report from TAG, as set out in the Future Options - Next Steps section below, once the risk mitigation steps, scope of works, cost of works, environmental factors and approval and land access matters have been established to manage the 566 identified OLS penetrations.

Comments from Ralph James, Coordinator Legal Services

4. Legal advice

Council sought and received legal advice regarding Tyagarah Airfield in 2008, refer Confidential Attachment 3.

Recently, further legal advice was sought to provide clarity about Council’s powers (as the airfield owner and operator) to attend to the OLS penetration removal and vegetation clearing, and CASA powers and regulations in relation to the OLS penetrations, refer Confidential Attachment 4.

The advice was sought from Michael Young Solicitor of Ballina. Mr. Young is an accredited Law Society specialist in Local Government and Planning Law.

Mr Young was asked to consider:

· land use zones where particular types of infrastructure are permissible

· infrastructure works requiring development consent (under Part 4 of the Act)

· infrastructure works that do not require consent and may require assessment under

Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EP&A Act)

· infrastructure works that may be undertaken as complying development, once a complying development certificate has been obtained

· infrastructure works that may be undertaken as exempt development.

Mr. Young advised in general terms, ignoring questions of ownership, that:

· Land that is zoned RU2 and SP2 can be cleared for the purposes of an airport without the need to obtain consent (SEPP Infrastructure).

· Land that is zoned W1 can be cleared with consent (Byron LEP 2014).

· Land that is “deferred” - and which apparently retains the 7(b) zoning - can be cleared with consent (Byron LEP 1988).

· Land to which SEPP 14 and SEPP 26 applies can be cleared with consent - however the concurrence of the Director is required (and the concurrence of the Minister is required for integrated development on land to which SEPP 26 applies).

· In circumstances where the land is affected by SEPP 26 because it is within the boundary of the maps to which SEPP 26 relates, such development is designated development and will require an EIS.

· Council is in a position to grant consent to itself to clear vegetation on W1 zoned land, 7(b) zoned land and land to which SEPP 14 and SEPP 26 apply. Development for the purposes of the airstrip includes vegetation management.

· In circumstances where SEPP Infrastructure applies and vegetation can be cleared without consent that is not an activity which requires assessment under Part 5 of the EP&A Act.

Council can lodge a development application with itself to undertake work on land which it owns.

It is also possible for Council to lodge a development application with itself for the purposes of undertaking work on land that it does not own - and such a DA does not require the consent in writing of the owner of that land in order to make the DA lawful.

The relative freedom granted to Council to lodge a DA and grant to itself consent to undertake work, even on land that it does not own, does not derogate from the requirement that council otherwise observe the obligations on the making of a lawful DA.

Therefore, and in circumstances where land is identified as being of "high conservation value" it would be necessary for Council to prepare (at least) a Statement of Environment Effects. If in the course of the investigation prior to the preparation of the SEE a conclusion is reached that the “development [is] 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 (SIS) will need to be prepared (s.78A(8)(b)).

Council can undertake the work to remove the “obstacles” that penetrate the OLS. Council can undertake that work either with or, in the nominated circumstances, without consent.

However Council will need to obtain the permission of the owner of the land to enter the land and undertake the work.

Crown Land

It will be necessary to liaise and negotiate with the Crown about entering the land and undertaking the work.

Council (Crown) Land

Council is able to grant to itself consent to clear the land (where consent is necessary) and will be able to enter the land to undertake the work.

Privately owned land

The position with respect to entering land in private ownership is not dissimilar to entering land in Crown ownership: Council will need to liaise and negotiate with the owner about entering the land.

An easement over neighbouring land would be the most certain way of ensuring that Council, both now and in the future, has a right to enter land to carry out works – remove vegetation – in order to preserve the functionality of the airstrip.

Council may seek to negotiate the grant of an easement with the neighbouring owners.

In circumstances where the neighbouring owners are not prepared to grant an easement, the Council can make application either:

· to the Supreme Court; or

· to the Land and Environment Court

The following Table assists in identifying the planning matrix and where consent is required.

Table 2 - Planning Consent Matrix

Instrument & Zone or designation per SEPP	Is use of land for an airstrip permissible	Is clearing of land permissible (2)	Does SEPP Infrastructure apply and how
Byron LEP 2014 (1)
RU2	Yes – with consent	Yes – with consent	Yes - development and particularly vegetation management may be carried out by or on behalf of a public authority without consent (5)
SP2 Infrastructure	No – prohibited	Yes – with consent	Yes - development and particularly vegetation management may be carried out by or on behalf of a public authority without consent (5)
W1	No - prohibited	Yes – with consent	No
Byron LEP 1988
7(b) Deferred matter	No – prohibited	Yes – with consent (3)	No
SEPP 14	N/A	Yes – with consent and concurrence of the Director	SEPP Infrastructure does not prevail over SEPP 14
SEPP 26	N/A	Yes – with consent and concurrence of the Director (at least) (4)	SEPP Infrastructure does not prevail over SEPP 26

Notes to Table

1. The Land Use Table for Byron LEP 2014 is consistent with the form of the Standard Instrument. If the development is not expressly permissible (with or without consent) then it becomes "prohibited" (“Any other development not specified in item 2 or 3”).

2. Clearing of Land is not a use that is independently defined or recognised in Byron LEP 2014. The controls on clearing of land are contained in separate clauses (cls 5.9 & 5.9AA). Clearing of land is separately defined in Byron LEP 1988 and is a "use" of land identified in the Land Use Table.

3. Clause 52 of Byron LEP 1988 permits Council to make a "Tree Preservation Order”. If such an order is made and applies consent is required to “clear” vegetation.

4. State Environmental Planning Policy 26 – Littoral Rainforest deems that development to which clause 7(1) applies is “designated development”. That is, if development (clearing) is proposed on land identified on a map to which SEPP 26 applies, then it is designated development and an environmental impact statement will be required (s.78A(8)(a)). Land that is within 100 metres of the land identified on the SEPP 26 maps still requires consent. In either case the concurrence of the Director is required - and if the development is also integrated development the concurrence of the Minister is required.

5. SEPP Infrastructure adopts the term "airport" and that term is broad enough to include "airstrip". Note that the development may be carried out without the need to obtain consent. This should be distinguished from "exempt development". The definition of "activity" for the purposes of Part 5 of the EP&A Act specifically does not include "exempt development”. The question remains whether development that does not need consent, and is not exempt development, might also be an activity for the purposes of Part 5. The decision in Gales Holdings Pty Ltd v Tweed Shire Council [1999] NSWLEC 195 suggests that such development is not an activity to the purposes of Part 5.

Mr Young advises that Council should prepare and implement a management plan that observes the following steps:

1. Negotiations should commence with adjoining landowners about the work that Council proposes to undertake. Their input should be sought with a view to generating agreement about the work and the process to lawfully undertake the work. Any opposition identified at this early stage will assist Council to determine what steps it needs to take later in the process, including whether an easement will be necessary.

2. An assessment should be made of the vegetation that will be cleared. Council will need the consent of adjoining landowners for these investigations to be undertaken - otherwise there is a risk of trespass (in which case an application may need to be made for an easement at a very early stage).

3. Once an assessment is made of the vegetation Council will be in a position to consider whether consent should be sought to clear that vegetation in circumstances where consent is required. The assessment should also be able to advise Council whether vegetation will be cleared on land regulated by SEPP 14 and importantly SEPP 26.

4. On the assumption that Council concludes the vegetation should be cleared, a development application will need to be prepared in circumstances where a DA is required. If the vegetation will be cleared on land regulated by SEPP 14 and/or SEPP 26, Council can commence negotiations with the Director and the Department about “concurrence” and the requirements of an environmental impact statement. If an EIS is not required, then a statement of environmental effects will be required. Council will also need to give written notice to the owners of relevant land of its intention to lodge a development application in so far as the DA will affect that owner’s land.

5. The DA will need to be processed and dealt with in the usual way (advertising, submissions, consideration, assessment – and a decision by Council).

6. Once consent has been obtained for the clearing of vegetation, a systematic program of works can be prepared whereby the clearing is progressively implemented. By this stage the consent of the neighbours to enter the land to carry out the works should have been obtained - or if their opposition has been identified as early as paragraph 1, then the process whereby easements can be obtained by order of the Court should have progressed and be nearing conclusion.

In Section 1 above there is a reference to CASA consideration of the Obstacle Penetration Survey.

Mr. Young considered Commonwealth legislation and particularly the Airports Act 1996 (Cth) (Part 5 “Land use, planning and building controls” and Part 12 “Protection of airspace around airports” ) and associated legislation and regulations (Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulation 1996).

This legislation provides a regime for the control of airspace around airports (depending on their classification) and particular control with regard to the construction of buildings that will intrude into the OLS.

The regime is not well suited to controlling such things as vegetation: indeed it may not govern or regulate vegetation at all.

Having regard to the nature of the "airstrip", CASA has no authority or power to direct the removal of vegetation - and there is no authority given through the Federal legislation to a body such as the Council to enter land and remove the vegetation.

In the current circumstances, if the operation of the airstrip was compromised as a result of the location of the vegetation, CASA would address the issue (that gave rise to the compromise) by issuing protocols on how the airstrip should be used. It could not address the underlying cause of the compromise by ordering the removal of vegetation.

Comments from Colin Sims, Projects Coordinator Buildings

5. Automated Aircraft Monitoring System

The TAG options report noted that under the current tenant agreements there is no current legal agreement or mechanism for BSC to enforce landing fees and charges. The report stated:

“Non-collection of landing fees is a major loss of revenue for BSC and measures should be taken to ensure these are enforceable.

We recommend BSC undertake the following steps:

1. Replace or Repair existing sign for fees and charges at the airfield;

2. Include a clause for landing and related fees as a required payment in any future lease agreements; and

3. Implement an accurate reliable airfield activity monitoring system”

Appendix 18 of the options report provided a fee proposal for the installation of an on-site automated monitoring and billing system to track the movements of aircraft landings and takeoffs. Staff requested this initial proposal be further refined with a view to accurately reflect the on-site requirements of the system and gain a firm quotation for the entire installation and commissioning of the entire works. The final quotation allowing for 4 strategically placed cameras and infrastructure to service the cameras and associated equipment was $50,560.00 ex GST.

Ongoing annual running costs for the system was quoted at $5,228.00 for rental and data connection, and a $0.90 per landing fee for data processing. A further invoicing administration fee of 10% of gross revenue also applies.

It is recommended that these works are funded and coordinated with the compliance works set out in section 2.

Comments from Wayne Bertram, Manager Approvals and Certification

6. Subdivision development (DA 10.2014.357.1)

The internal staff working group indentified commercial land development potential at the Tyagarah Airfield, and included the subdivision development of Yaran Road, Tyagarah part Lot 49/881232 (adjacent to Tyagarah Aerodrome – northern side) in Section 5, Land and Property Development, of the 2014/15 Financial Sustainability Project Plan.

A portion of the subject land parcel relates to a previous council resolution for the Establishment of Companion Animal Shelter by Companion Animal Welfare Incorporated (CAWI). This development is currently on hold, pending the outcome of a concurrent report to today’s Council meeting regarding CAWI’s request for relocation of the proposed Establishment of Companion Animal Shelter from Tyagarah to the site of Council’s animal pound at West Byron.

Council has prepared and lodged development application for Torrens subdivision over Lot 79 DP881232 at Tyagarah Airfield for the proposed reconfiguration of existing allotments and provision of additional allotments to create 15 allotments in and around the existing aircraft hangers. Due to environmental constraints on the land, including high conservation vegetation; acid sulphate soils and flooding additional studies are currently being prepared to demonstrate that the proposed subdivision is suitable for the area and can be undertaken with minimal environmental disturbance.

It is estimated that additional $15,000 will be required to finalise the necessary environmental and flood studies to support the development application, refer to the Financial Implications Section below.

Comments from Trish Kirkland, Manager Governance Services

7. Crown Land - Lease

As set out in Table 1, Tyagarah Airfield is partially located on Crown Land, and in accordance with Council resolution 10-872 is occupied by Council under a Crown Lands S34A Licence Agreement.

With reference to the recommendations from TAG at Section 3, Management model considerations, Council sent a letter to Crown Lands on 17/9/14 seeking feedback and advice regarding the Crown’s position about possible future tenure arrangements at Tyagarah:

1. extend Council’s Crown Lease term beyond the current expiry date of 31/12/2030

2. provide for Council to sub-lease the land to a manager/lessee

3. provide for the manager/lessee to further sublease sites to airfield operators and users

The letter and Council’s Tyagarah Airfield project was briefly discussed at a subsequent meeting between Crown land and council staff. However, to date Council is yet to receive a written reply. The matter is listed for discussion at the next meeting with Crown Lands.

Comments from Colin Sims, Project Coordinator Buildings

Further Options - Next Steps

Key steps, time table, funding requirements, and assignment of tasks have been established with the internal working group to progress the project to establish the preferred strategic direction and management model, refer Attachment 6.

The project program at, Attachment 6, sets out the completion of the environmental studies, treatment of the 566 OLS penetrations, subdivision proposal, scope of works and capital funding requirements, and other key work to inform the final report from TAG.

It is envisaged that the final report will provide a preferred strategic direction and management option for Tyagarah Airfield with a cost/benefit analysis or business case in support of that recommendation. At this time, a strategic workshop will be arranged with councillors and followed by a report to Council for final consideration.

Financial Implications

Council initially allocated $30,000 to fund the TAG consultancy fees, and this has been expended. Addition consultancy services are required to establish and cost final recommendations for Tyagarah Airfield’s future strategic direction. The working group have estimated additional consultancy and assessment fees are set out below:

TAG additional services and final report $20,000.00

Environmental studies for Obstacle Limitation Surface intrusions $35,000.00

Environmental and flood studies for subdivision DA $15,000.00

Project Coordination/Administration $10,000.00

Reimburse DA costs to CAWI for relocating proposed animal shelter $25,000.00

Total Estimate $105,000.00

Comments from James Brickley – Manager Finance

To undertake the required assessments and investigations, it is suggested Council consider the funding of an additional $105,000 as part of the 31 December 2014 quarter budget review.

Consideration of the capital works costs, estimated to date, will be considered for the 2015/16 and forward budget.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Nil

Major	Examples: · Splendour in the Grass · East Coast Blues and Roots · Falls Festival
Significant Homegrown	· Mullumbimby Music Festival · Sample Food Festival · Byron Writer’s Festival · Byron Surf Festival
Emerging	· Bangalow BBQ & Bluegrass Festival
Community	· Living Earth Festival · Kites & Bikes · Old & Gold

Organisation Name:	Event Date:
Event Name:	Phone:
Contact Person:	Email:
Address:

Name of COMMUNITY CENTRE/hall
No of Rooms available to be hired		Eg. 1 Hall, 2 meeting rooms, Kitchen
Total person capacity of rooms
Equipment available		Eg. 10 tables, 50 chairs, etc.
If financials are not with Council Income and Expenditure		Income: $ Per Month		Expenditure: $ Per Month
Payments being paid to committee members (as resolved by Council)		Booking’s Officer: Chairperson: Secretary: Treasurer: Other ?____________	$ per month $ per month $ per month $ per month $ per month
Payments being made to agents as agreed to by the Committee		Booking’s Officer: Treasurer: Other ? ____________	$ per month $ per month $ per month
Total payments being made		Total of above: $ per month
Cleaning costs		$ per month Cleaning carried out by? Committee Member / Contractor / Other How often is the cleaning done? Daily / Weekly / Other___________
Regular Bookings	How many regular bookings are held at the facility each month?
	Duration of bookings? Eg 5 @ 2 hours each
Other Bookings	How many other bookings are held at the facility each month?
	Duration of bookings? Eg 5 at 4 hours each
Bookings Officer’s Position: To be completed by Committee member or Agent	Name:
	How many prospective clients are shown the facility each month?
	How much time does this take you per visit?
	Are you required to open and close the facility for each hirer using the facility?		Yes/No other:
	How much time do you take answering enquiries either telephone or email per month?
	How many times do you visit the facility for other maters each month?
	How much time per month do you spend on bookwork etc.
	Any other information you would like to include?
Treasurer’s Position:	Name:
	How much time spent on bookwork per month?
	How many visits to the bank are required each month for banking moneys?
	Any other information you would like to include?
Chairperson’s Position:	Name:
	How many meetings held per year?
	Approx. duration of each meeting?
	How much time per month is spent on other matters with the Management of the Facility?
	Any other information you would like to include?
Secretary’s Position	Name:
	How much time spent on Minutes and letters as requested by the committee per month?
	Any other information you would like to include?
Committee Members	Name(s):
	No of general Committee Members?
	How much time spent on Committee matters per month?
	Any other information you would like to include?

Date of Meeting:		Friday 14 November 2014
Time Commenced:		2.13pm
PRESENT:	Councillors:		Cr Simon Richardson, Cr Rose Wanchap
	Community Representatives:		There are no community representatives.
	Invited Representatives: Guests		Paul Spooner (Byron Community Centre), Greg Jago (Police) Mouche Phillips (Byron Community Centre)
	Staff:		Greg Ironfield (Manager Community Development), Joanne McMurtry (Community Policy Officer), Claire McGarry (Events and Grants Support Officer).

1. APOLOGIES:	Peter Wood (Arts Northern Rivers), Michael O’Grady (Byron United/ Destination Byron/ Backpacker Group), Hannah Spalding (Byron Liquor Accord)

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS:	Paul Spooner (Byron Community Centre) reinforced previous declaration that he was in attendance as Community Centre Manager not Councillor, and that the Byron Community Centre were selected through the EOI to run the operations of Soul Street – item 6i on the agenda.

3. CONFIRMATION OF A QUORUM:	There are 7 members appointed to this group (not including staff). Quorum numbers are met.
4. confirmation of minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 24 October 2014 were adopted. (Richardson/ Jago)
5. genERAL UPDATE ON STRATEGIES

8. date and time of next meeting:		Thursday 4 December 2014 11am - 1pm Executive Meeting Room, Mullumbimby

Time Meeting Closed:	3.30pm

Purch Date	Principal ($)	Description	CP*	Rating	Maturity Date	Type	Interest Rate Per Annum	Current Value
26/09/05	1,500,000	EMU NOTES	CP	AAA-	25/10/15	MFD	0.00%*	1,447,800.00
20/06/12	500,000	HERITAGE BANK LTD BONDS	N	BBB+	20/06/17	B	7.25%	536,650.00
12/06/14	1,000,000	ING BANK (AUSTRALIA)	N	A1	09/12/14	TD	3.56%	1,000,000.00
07/08/14	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	08/12/14	TD	3.45%	2,000,000.00
08/08/14	2,000,000