Agenda of Extraordinary Meeting

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion 3.2

Notice of Motion No. 3.2 Biosecurity

File No: I2017/1724

I move:

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

2. That the report pay particular attention to:

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

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

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

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

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

Signed: Cr Cate Coorey

Councillor’s supporting information:

In April 2017 Council discussed the draft Biosecurity Act 2015.

The 10 Acts being wholly repealed when the Biosecurity Act 2015 commences are:

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

· Apiaries Act 1985

· Deer Act 2006

· Fertilisers Act 1985

· Non-Indigenous Animals Act 1987

· Noxious Weeds Act 1993

· Plant Diseases Act 1924

· Stock (Chemical Residues) Act 1975

· Stock Diseases Act 1923

· Stock Foods Act 1940

The Acts being partly repealed when the Biosecurity Act 2015 commences are:

· Fisheries Management Act 1994 (Aquatic Biosecurity)

· Stock Medicines Act 1989

· Local Land Services Act 2013 (Part 10 Pests)

· Wild Dog Destruction Act 1921

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biosecurity Implications on Agriculture:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Changing consumer expectations require new and adaptive biosecurity capabilities

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

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

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

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

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

Biosecurity Implications on Biodiversity:

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

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

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

Objects of Biosecurity Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· NSW Biosecurity Act 2015

· NSW Biosecurity Strategy 2013-2021

· Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

· Australian Weed Strategy and Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity

· North Coast Regional Strategic Weed Management Plan 2017-22

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

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

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

Yes.

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

· Prepare a Shire Wide Integrated Pest Management Strategy

· Continue to undertake the Biodiversity Strategy review

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 7.1

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services

Report No. 7.1 Review of Natural Disaster Response Protocols

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Jessica Orr, Strategic Risk and Improvement Coordinator

Sarah Ford, Manager Community Development

Anna Vinfield, Manager Corporate Services

James Flockton, Drain and Flood Engineer

File No: I2017/1361

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary:

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

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

· Byron Shire Council Emergency Communications Plan

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

· Community relationships, coordination of community organisations or volunteer groups

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

RECOMMENDATION:

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

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

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

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

Attachments:

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

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

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

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

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

6 SES Community Action Teams Presentation, E2017/105036 ⇨

Report

Background

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

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

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

· Response to extreme weather and disaster communication protocols

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

· Council’s community support protocols and approach

· Review organisational preparedness including

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to issues raised in Mayoral Minute

1. Response to extreme weather and disaster communication protocols

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council’s position on the Mud Army

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

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

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

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

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

3. Council’s community support protocols and approach

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

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

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

· Mental health awareness training for government and community agencies

· Mental health awareness workshops for the community

· Disaster preparedness workshops for Community Service Organisations

· Community Engagement Flood Resilience Building Program

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

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

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

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

SES debrief

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

The presentation is attached to this report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Role of Councillors

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

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

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

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

Next steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial Implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

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

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

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 7.2

Report No. 7.2 Meeting Schedule 2018

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: David Royston-Jennings, Corporate Governance Officer

File No: I2017/1497

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary:

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

RECOMMENDATION:

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

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

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

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

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

Planning Review Committee

Thursday 4.30pm

18 January

15 February

15 March

12 April

17 May

14 June

9 August

13 September

25 October

15 November

29 November

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

Local Traffic Committee

Tuesday 10.30am

16 January

20 March

15 May

17 July

18 September

20 November

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

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

Attachments:

1 Council Meeting Matrix 2018, E2017/102958 ⇨

Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial Implications

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

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

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

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 7.6

Report No. 7.6 PLANNING - 10.2017.360.1 Rural Tourist Accommodation Comprising Four (4) Cabins at 75 Rifle Range Road, Bangalow

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Simone Reeves, Planner

File No: I2017/1660

Theme: Ecology

Development and Approvals

Proposal:

Proposal description:	Tourist and Visitor Accommodation Comprising Four (4) Cabins
Property description:	LOT: 39 DP: 625255
Property description:	75 Rifle Range Road BANGALOW
Parcel No/s:	76780
Applicant:	Balanced Systems Planning Consultants
Owner:	Legate Pty Ltd
Zoning:	RU1 Primary Production/1B1 Agricultural Protection
Date received:	7 July 2017
Integrated Development:	Yes
Public notification or exhibition:	- Level 2 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications - Exhibition period: 27/07/17 to 09/08/17 - Submissions received: Nineteen (19)
Planning Review Committee:	28 September 2017 – Council to determine
Issues:	- Koalas - Bushfire Prone land; - Small Scale

Summary:

Development approval is sought for tourist and visitor accommodation comprising four cabins at 75 Rifle Range Road. The subject property is zoned RU1 Primary Production and 1B1 Agricultural Protection pursuant to Byron LEP 2014 and 1988 Respectively. The property has an area of 39.15 hectares and historically has been utilised for farming purposes with limited grazing of livestock currently undertaken on the land. The property still retains paddocks of pasture, but also contains large vegetated areas dominated by camphor laurel.

The four cabins are proposed in the vicinity of the existing dwelling with access provided from Rifle Range Road via the existing driveway. The cabins are single storey with one single bedroom disabled cabin, with the remaining cabins comprising 2 bedrooms each. Each cabin comprises bathroom facilities and a small kitchen/living area opening onto a small deck area.

The proposed development is consistent with the relevant environmental planning instruments and planning controls applicable to the site including the LEP and DCP provisions for this type of development. Concern was raised in relation to koalas in the area and on the property. In this regard the land is not considered to be Core Koala Habitat under SEPP 44, however the applicant has proposed to remove camphor laurel on the land and plant some 3600 native trees and further enhance habitat for Koalas and other native fauna in the Bangalow area. Appropriate conditions of consent are recommended including measures to controls cats and dogs and vehicle speeds within the development. It is considered the proposal raises no significant issues in terms of environmental impacts which cannot be managed through reasonable and relevant conditions of approval, and the site is considered suitable for the development. As such the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

In accordance with the provisions of S375A of the Local Government Act 1993, a Division is to be called whenever a motion for a planning decision is put to the meeting, for the purpose of recording voting on planning matters. Pursuant to clause 2(a) under the heading Matters to be Included in Minutes of Council Meetings of Council's adopted Code of Meeting Practice (as amended) a Division will be deemed to have been called by the mover and seconder of all motions relating to this report.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, development application no. 10.2017.360.1 for Tourist and Visitor Accommodation Comprising Four (4) Cabins, be granted consent subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 2 #2017/103454.

Attachments:

1 Proposed Plans 10.2017.360.1Rifle Range Rd Bangalow, E2017/102018 ⇨

2 proposed conditions of consent 10.2017.360.1 Rifle Range Rd Bangalow, E2017/103454 ⇨

3 SEPP 44 Report prepared by Peter Parker , E2017/102023 ⇨

4 Confidential - submissions received, E2017/102286

Assessment:

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. History/Background

The subject allotment was registered 08 July 1982. The existing dwelling on the site was approved 26 November 1981 under Development Consent BA81/2722.

A planning proposal for Seniors Housing under State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 did not proceed as a Site Suitability Certificate was refused by the New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment in June 2016.

No further development application history applies to the site.

1.2. Description of the proposed development

This application seeks approval for Tourist and Visitor Accommodation Comprising Four (4) Cabins as detailed within plans enclosed at Attachment 1

Cabin 1 has been identified as being suitable for persons with a disability with access via a 1:14 ramp and contains a single bedroom, bathroom and combined kitchenette, dining and living room and deck area.

Cabins 2, 3 and 4 are identical to each other and contains two (2) bedrooms each bathroom and combined kitchenette, dining and living room and deck area.

Vehicular access for the proposed cabins will utilise a proposed extension of the existing driveway access road located off Rifle Range Road.

Environmental works are also proposed i.e. clearing of some camphor laurel and planting of 3600 koala food source trees.

1.3. Description of the site

2. SUMMARY OF EXTERNAL REFERRALS

NSW Rural Fire Service

Under section 79BA of the Act, Council must be satisfied prior to making a determination for development on bush fire prone land, that the development complies with the document ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’. The site is bush fire prone land. The development application was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service for approval under Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1993. The RFS have issued general terms of approval which have been incorporated into the conditions of consent. .

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

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

3.1 State Environmental Planning Instruments

	Satisfactory	Unsatisfactory
State Environmental Planning Policy No 44—Koala Habitat Protection	☒	☐
Consideration: No native vegetation removal proposed. The applicant undertook an extensive site survey of the site that identified less than 15% of the site as containing koala food trees. As such, a Koala Plan of Management cannot be requested. Notwithstanding, the applicant proposes the planting of 900 koala food trees per cabin which will likely create koala habitat for those specimens recorded on adjoining allotments. It is considered the proposal complies with this Policy.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land	☒	☐
Consideration: The Decommissioned Rifle Range Cattle Dip Site is located on the subject site approximately between 200 and 250m south west of the proposed cabins. The dip site is downslope of the proposed cabins. The dip site lease lapsed on 30/06/2001 and has been capped and decommissioned. A Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) was undertaken by Balanced Systems Planning Consultants (June 2017). The PSI included an assessment of site history and soil sampling and analyses for metals, organochlorins and organophoshates. The PSI found no evidence of contamination and conduced that the site for the proposed cabins is suitable for the proposed use. No further investigation is warranted. Note: Decommissioned means all the standing structures, shed, fencing and roof have been dismantled. The bath itself, if present, is emptied of all chemical fluid and may have contaminated timbers from the roof and draining pen put into it and then is capped with concrete lids. The bath may have already been demolished prior to decommissioning in which case it is usually smashed and buried. An information plaque is attached to one of the concrete lids to indicate its Departmental file number, dip name and direction of the dipping. Clean soil may be spread around the bath to run flush with the bath edge and then grassed. The draining pen concrete floor is usually left intact so as not to disturb the possibly contaminated soil.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008	☒	☐
Consideration: The subject site is a large rural block (39.15ha), currently used for a residence pin addition to cattle grazing. Surrounding land uses include, residential development to the south and rural activities to the west, north and east. Of some significance in terms of potential land use conflicts is the intensive horticulture i.e. macadamia plantation located on lower land to the east. The proposed cabins are to be the located on a ridge some 264m from the macadamia plantation and therefore outside the nominal 200m buffer in Byron Shire Council Development Control Plan (BSDCP) 2014. It is not envisaged that the proposed development will result in significant land use conflicts with surrounding land uses and is considered to achieve the Principles as stipulate in Section 7 of this Policy.

4.2A Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP 2014)

LEP 2014 is an applicable matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP&A Act 1979 because it applies to the subject land and the proposed development. The LEP 2014 clauses that are checked below are of relevance to the proposed development:

Note: The proposed structures are wholly located within the portion of land mapped as RU1 Primary Production. As such, an assessment against BLEP 1988 or BSDCP 2010 is not applicable.

In accordance with BLEP 2014 clauses 1.4 and 2.1 – 2.3:

(a) The proposed development is defined in the LEP 2014 Dictionary as ‘tourist and visitor accommodation which means a building or place that provides temporary or short-term accommodation on a commercial basis, and includes any of the following:

(a) backpackers’ accommodation,

(b) bed and breakfast accommodation,

(c) farm stay accommodation,

(d) hotel or motel accommodation,

(e) serviced apartments,

but does not include:

(f) camping grounds, or

(g) caravan parks, or

(h) eco-tourist facilities’.

(b) The land is within the RU1 Primary Production according to the Land Zoning Map;

(d) Regard is had for the Zone Objectives as follows:

RU1 Primary Production

The objectives of the RU1 Primary Production zone are:

· ‘To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base;

· To encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises and systems appropriate for the area;

· To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands;

· To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones;

· To encourage consolidation of lots for the purposes of primary industry production;

· To enable the provision of tourist accommodation, facilities and other small-scale rural tourism uses associated with primary production and environmental conservation consistent with the rural character of the locality; and

· To protect significant scenic landscapes and to minimise impacts on the scenic quality of the locality’.

The proposal provides small scale tourist accommodation that is consistent with the rural use and character of the allotment. The proposed cabins being located within an existing cleared portion of the site and ensures that the rural and environmental qualities of the site are preserved and do not conflict with the primary use of the subject site i.e. agriculture or adjacent and adjoining rural land uses. The proposal can be conditioned to ensure that the scenic landscape of the site is enhanced.

4.3 Height of buildings

Council’s Height of buildings map stipulates a maximum height of 9m from natural ground level. The proposed maximum height for the cabins is 4.5 metres.

5.9 Preservation of Trees or Vegetation

Whilst this development standard has since been repealed, the provision still applies as the development application was lodged prior to its being repealed. Notwithstanding, the applicant does not propose the clearing of any native vegetation. As such, it is considered to comply with the standard and associated development control chapter i.e. B2 Preservation of Trees and Other Vegetation.

6.2 Earthworks

The proposal requires minimal earthworks that with conditions of approval relating to soil and erosion measures, should not have an adverse impact on the environment.

6.3 Flood planning

The proposed cabins are located on a portion of the site that is not flood prone. In addition Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the proposal and has deemed the proposal as having suitable access.

6.5 Drinking water catchments

Whilst being located within a drinking water catchment area, the proposed on site wastewater system is of a sufficient distance away from any watercourse, with the system being compliant with Council’s requirements.

6.6 Essential services

Each cabin will be provided with harvested rainwater, electricity and telecommunications. An onsite wastewater management system solution will be utilised and has been considered acceptable by Council’s Environmental Health Officer.

6.8 Rural and nature-based tourism development

‘Small scale’ means a scale that is small enough to be generally managed and operated by the principal owner living on the property. As such, conditions of approval will be imposed pertaining to the management of the cabins by the principal owner living on the property. It is noted that the present development controls permit additional cabins given the size of the size allotment and the proposal of four (4) cabins is considered to be small. In this regard the applicant could have sought approval for up to 6 cabins with 2 bedrooms each.

The proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on agricultural production, amenity or significant features of the natural environment of the site and is considered complementary to the rural or environmental attributes of the land and its surrounds.

4.3 Any proposed Instrument that has been the subject of public consultation and has been notified to the consent authority

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2016 (CM SEPP). The proposal is unlikely to conflict with this Policy as the site is not within the coastal zone.

4.4A Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2014 (DCP 2014)

DCP 2014 is an applicable matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP&A Act 1979 because it applies to the land to which LEP 2014 applies. The DCP 2014 Parts/Chapters that are checked below are of relevance to the proposed development:

B2 Preservation of trees and other vegetation

The proposal does not include the removal of native vegetation. Some camphor laurels will be removed and their removal is considered as exempt from requiring development consent.

Note: The applicant proposes to plant 3600 koala food trees wholly within the site as per the Byron Rural Settlement Strategy 1988. As such, it is considered

B3 Services

The proposal provides for essential services in the form of harvest water and an onsite sewerage management system that was deemed acceptable by Council’s Environmental Health Officer.

B6 Buffers and Land Use Conflict

Given the distance between the proposed cabins and adjoining rural land uses in excess of 200 metres as well as more than 140 metres to adjacent residential activities, it is considered that the proposal will not result in land use conflicts.

B8 Waste Minimisation and Management

A Site Waste Minimisation and Management Plan was submitted by the applicant and considered to be satisfactory. Conditions of approval will be imposed with regards to the implementation of this plan.

C3 Visually Prominent Sites, Visually Prominent Development and View Sharing

The proposal is of small-scale that and unlikely to generate adverse impacts on visual quality and scenic quality of the Shire. The tourist and visitor accommodation is single storey and will not obstruct views from another property or disrupt the skyline.

C4 Development in a Drinking Water Catchment

The site is considered suitable for an onsite wastewater management system that has been assessed and considered satisfactory with Council requirements.

The proposal includes principles of water sensitive urban design with regards to the harvesting of rainwater whilst the proposed accessway/driveway extension minimises the amount of cut and fill required to provide suitable access and stormwater management that will not have an adverse impact on the drinking water catchment.

D2 Residential Accommodation and Ancillary Development in Rural Zones

Chapter D3 Tourist Accommodation requires the development to be consistent with the character and design of the rural zone with boundary setbacks being observed. The proposal provides in excess of 100 metres to Rifle Range Road with 141 metres to the southern adjoining boundary and 262 metres to the eastern closest side boundaries.

D3 Tourist Accommodation

The proposed facility is considered ‘small-scale’ and will not conflict with the high ecological value vegetation located along the northern boundary of the site. The applicant proposes the planting of 3600 koala food trees and the proposed operational regime has been considered so as to ensure it does not adversely affect agricultural productivity or create land use conflict issues. As such, it is considered that the proposal achieves the objectives of the Byron Rural Settlement Strategy 1988.

The proposed structures are single storey and are compatible with the character and amenity of the locality.

The proposed cabins have a gross floor area of 58.91m² each and a combined bedroom number of seven (7) bedrooms with development controls permitting a maximum of twelve (12) bedrooms for allotments that in in excess of 20 hectares.

The cabins are clustered approximately 30 metres apart with the first cabin being 37.35 metres from the existing primary dwelling. This cabin also caters for persons with a disability with disabled access being provided.

All weather access and car parking arrangements have also been provided.

4.5 Any Planning Agreement or Draft Planning Agreement?

	Yes	No
Is there any applicable planning agreement or draft planning agreement?	☐	☒

4.6 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 Considerations

Clause	This control is applicable to the proposal:	I have considered this control as it relates to the proposal:	If this control is applicable, does the proposal comply?
92	No	N/A	N/A
93	Yes	Yes	Yes
94	No	N/A	N/A
94A	No	N/A	N/A

4.7 Any coastal zone management plan?

	Satisfactory	Unsatisfactory	N/A
Is there any applicable coastal zone management plan?	☐	☐	☒

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

Impact on:	Likely significant impact/s?
Natural environment	No. The proposal will not have a significantly adverse impact on the natural environment of the locality. Should the application be approved 3600 native trees will be planted and a number of camphor laurel will be removed providing an environmental benefit for native flora and fauna.
Built environment	No. The proposal will not have a significantly adverse impact on the built environment of the locality.
Social Environment	No. The proposal will not have a significant social impact on the locality.
Economic impact	No. The proposal will not have a significant economic impact on the locality.

4.9 The suitability of the site for the development

The site is considered suitable for the proposed tourist accommodation as it is located within a relatively isolated area of the site with sufficient separation from adjoining residential zoned allotments with the nearest being approximately 200m away and further away than the existing dwelling contained within the site.

4.10 Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

The proposal was publicly notified from 27 July 2017 to 9 August 2017. A total of nineteen (19) submissions were received during and after this period. An outline of planning concerns raised and often repeated amongst the authors is addressed below. Matters that do not relate to section 79c of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been excluded from this Report.

Land owner is not proposed to be on site

Conditions of approval will be imposed relating to the site owner/leasee/caretaker being on site at such times the property is being utilised by visitors and residing in the main dwelling house

Increased traffic will result in increased noise and dust

The proposal is not considered to create any greater noise or dust levels than would be imposed by exempt agricultural development on the site. The proposal was assessed by Council’s Development Engineer who has considered the proposal is acceptable.

Tourist development close to residences adversely impacts on amenity and privacy and increases noise

The proposal is not considered to be close to residential development. Notwithstanding, conditions of approval pertaining to neighbourhood amenity must be complied with at all times.

Access to the site is in an unsafe location for the number of vehicles

Access to the site is considered suitable for this small scale development. Appropriate conditions to apply.

Does not comply with the North Coast Regional Plan

The North Coast Regional Environmental Plan was repealed. The North Coast Regional Plan 2036 also does not apply to the development as it relates solely to the strategic planning of a locality and applies only to planning proposals to which the application is not.

Inappropriate location

Tourist and visitor accommodation is a permissible use within the RU1 Primary Production zone. The proposed cabins are more than 140 metres from the adjoining boundaries with even further setbacks provided to dwellings within adjacent residential zoned allotments.

Lack of qualifications of person who addressed SEPP 44

The individual who addressed SEPP 44 in the first instance is a qualified Ecologist. Given the submissions raised the applicant was requested to provide further address. It is considered the Consultant who has provided advice on the matter is suitably qualified.

Koala Plan of Management (KPOM) required for site

It is considered that the site does not contain potential or core koala habitat and as such a Koala Plan of Management is not required. Notwithstanding the applicant is proposing remove camphor laurel and plant some 3600 native trees which will provide improved habitat for koalas and other native species of flora.

Site forms a koala corridor with no consideration given to koalas

The applicants in depth survey and willingness to provide 3600 koala food trees within the site, demonstrates the applicants consideration to koalas within the immediate locality. Notwithstanding, conditions of approval have been imposed in relation to koala safety long term i.e. vehicle speeds and the keeping of dogs and cats within the site. The proposal provides a suitable response to the Koala issue

Undesirable precedence to be set

The proposal complies with all relevant SEPP’s, BLEP 2014 and BSDCP 2014. As such, the proposal does not set an undesirable precedent.

4.11 Public interest

The proposed development is unlikely to prejudice or compromise the public interest or create an undesirable precedent.

4.12 Section 5A of the EP&A Act 1979 – Significant effect on threatened species

Having regard to sections 5A, 5C and 5D of the EP&A Act 1979, there is unlikely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats as a result of the proposed development as the cabins will be located wholly within a cleared portion of the site, with the nearest vegetation being identified as camphor laurel. Whilst koalas have been regularly spotted within the camphor laurel located along Rifle Range Road, koalas have not been recorded within the site. Notwithstanding, the applicant has agreed to plant a total of 3600 koala food trees within the subject site. In addition, conditions of approval will also be imposed relating to the keeping of dogs and cats and vehicle speeds within the site.

As such, it is unlikely that the proposal will have a significant adverse affect on threatened species.

4.13 Section 5B of the EP&A Act 1979 – Have regard to register of critical habitat

The NSW Critical Habitat Register does not identify any critical habitat on or adjacent to the site.

5. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

5.1 Water & Sewer Levies

No Section 64 levies will be required.

5.2 Section 94 Contributions

Section 94 Contributions will be payable.

6. CONCLUSION

The proposed development is consistent with the relevant environmental planning instruments and planning controls applicable to the site. The proposal raises no significant issues in terms of environmental impacts which cannot be managed through reasonable and relevant conditions of approval. As such, the site is considered suitable for the development.

7. RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, development application no. 10.2017.360.1 for Tourist and Visitor Accommodation Comprising Four (4) Cabins, be granted consent subject to conditions of approval.

DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL DONATIONS AND GIFTS

Has a Disclosure Statement been received in relation to this application	No
Have staff received a ‘gift’ from anyone involved in this application that needs to be disclosed. Where the answer is yes, the application is to be determined by the Director or Manager of the Planning, Development and Environment Division.	No

Provide Disclosure Statement register details here: Nil.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 7.7

Report No. 7.7 PLANNING - 10.2017.270.1 Multi dwelling housing comprising eight (8) dwellings, Strata Title subdivision to create eight (8) Strata Lots and Common Property and Tree Removal (17 trees) at 6 and 6A Canowindra Court South Golden Beach

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Greg Smith, Team Leader Planning Services

File No: I2017/1672

Theme: Ecology

Development and Approvals

Summary:

Proposal description:	Multi dwelling housing comprising eight (8) dwellings, Strata Title subdivision to create eight (8) Strata Lots and Common Property and Tree Removal (17 trees)
Property description:	LOT: 11 DP: 1225527, LOT: 12 DP: 1225527
Property description:	6 & 6A Canowindra Court SOUTH GOLDEN BEACH
Parcel No/s:	268380, 268381
Applicant:	Ardill Payne & Partners
Owner:	JBPB Holdings Pty Ltd & L & K Burke Holdings Pty Ltd
Zoning:	R2 Low Density Residential
Date received:	29 May 2017
Integrated Development:	Yes
Public notification or exhibition:	- Level 2 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications - Exhibition period: 15/6/17 to 28/6/17 - Submissions received: 11
Planning Review Committee	28 September 2017
Delegation to determination:	Council
Issues:	· Minimum lot size, with clause 4.6 request for variation · Bush fire prone land, · Acid Sulfate Soils and Flood Prone Land · Building height plane, privacy · Tree removal, compensatory planting
Summary: The DA proposes multi dwelling housing comprising eight (8) dwellings in a two storey configuration with ground level garages and upper level residential areas on land at 6 and 6A Canowindra Court, South Golden Beach. The property has an area of 1835.8m² and is zoned R2 Low Density Residential pursuant to Byron LEP 2014. The dwellings are modest in area with seven units comprising 3 bedrooms and 1 unit being a two bedroom unit. Upper level decks and open space are orientated to the north. The proposed development is permissible with consent in the R2 zone and satisfies the minimum lot area on 1000m² for multi dwelling housing development as prescribed under Clause 4.1E. The proposal also includes a Strata Title subdivision to create eight (8) lots, with the lots ranging in areas from approximately 111.9m² to 185.5m² and do not comply with the minimum lot size development standard of 600m². The DA is supported by a written request for a variation pursuant to clause 4.6 of the LEP. The circumstances of the case warrant a more flexible approach to the application of the minimum lot size development standard having regards to the permissibility of the primary use, and the Applicant’s variation request is supported in this instance. The development includes the removal of 17 trees however these are to be compensated by additional plantings and landscaping of the site. Conditions of consent are recommended in this regard. Eleven public submissions have been received in relation to this proposal raising a range of issues including flooding, sewer capacity, traffic impacts, parking, density and privacy. The site is alos constrained by acid sulphate soils and bushfire. Having regard to the size of the site and the design of the development these matters have been adequately dealt with. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

RECOMMENDATION:

That pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Development Application 10.2017.270.1 for multi dwelling housing comprising eight (8) dwellings, Strata Title subdivision to create eight (8) Strata Lots and Common Property and Tree Removal (17 trees), be granted consent subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 2 #E2017/101883.

Attachments:

1 Proposed Plans prepared by Ardill Payne , E2017/101880 ⇨

2 conditions of consent , E2017/104959 ⇨

3 Confidential - submisisons received, E2017/102270

Report

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. History/Background

DA 10.2013.575.1 for Three lot Torrens Title subdivision of one existing lot, construction of a six car carport, Strata Title subdivision of existing units and tree removal (6 trees) was approved on 15/4/2014, and modified by way of section 96 Application No. 10.2013.575.2 on 17/10/2014. The approved subdivision was registered by way of DP 1225527 on 25/10/2016, creating Lots 11 and 12 upon which the development under DA 10.2017.270.1 is proposed to be carried out.

1.2. Description of the proposed development

This application seeks approval for multi dwelling housing comprising 8 dwellings, Strata Title subdivision to create 8 Strata Lots and Common Property and tree removal (17 trees). There are 4 proposed two storey buildings with each accommodating 2 attached dwellings. Each proposed dwelling has 3 bedrooms except for proposed Unit 1 which has 2 bedrooms. Each dwelling is provided with a double garage and laundry space at ground floor level, and habitable rooms at the first floor level. Each dwelling is provided with ground floor open space, and other than Unit 1, a first floor level north facing deck. The dwellings are accessed via a common driveway adjacent to the southern boundary of the site.

The application also proposes Strata Title subdivision of the development, comprising 8 Lots accommodating one of the proposed units, and Common Property. The area of each proposed lot is as follows:

Lot	Size
1	111.9m²
2	155.3m²
3	155.3m²
4	155.3m²
5	155.3m²
6	155.3m²
7	155.3m²
8	185.5m²
Common Property	606.6m² (by deduction from the total site area)

The application also includes the removal of garden and native vegetation including four lilly pillys, three paperbarks, two swamp oaks and a pandanus palm.

1.3. Description of the site

Land is legally described as	LOT: 11 DP: 1225527, LOT: 12 DP: 1225527
Property address is	6 and 6A Canowindra Court, South Golden Beach
Land is zoned:	R2 Low Density Residential
Land area is:	1835.8m²
Other constraints include:	Flood liable Land, Bush fire prone land, Acid sulfate soils

20170622_103659 20170622_103559

2. SUMMARY OF REFERRALS

Referral	Issue
Rural Fire Service (100B)	No objections subject to conditions. Refer to Doc #E2017/72020 and see below.

3. SECTION 79BA – BUSH FIRE PRONE LAND

The DA proposes subdivision of bush fire prone land and was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service as integrated development. The RFS provided its general terms of approval and bush fire safety authority which are included in the recommendation of this Report to be imposed on the development consent.

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

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

4.1 State Environmental Planning Instruments

	Satisfactory	Unsatisfactory
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land	ý	☐
Consideration: Council’s Environmental Health Officer confirmed that SEPP 55 was considered for the above mentioned DA 10.2013.575.1.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 71—Coastal Protection	ý	☐
Consideration: The proposed development is satisfactory having regard to the relevant considerations under SEPP 71.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007	ý	☐
Consideration: The proposed development is satisfactory having regard to the provisions of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007.

4.2A Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP 2014)

LEP 2014 is an applicable matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP&A Act because it applies to the subject land and the proposed development. The LEP 2014 clauses that are checked below are of relevance to the proposed development:

Part 1	ý1.1\| ý1.1AA\| ý1.2\| ý1.3\| ý1.4\| ýDictionary\| ý1.5\| ý1.6\| ý1.7\| ý1.8\| ☐1.8A\| ý1.9\| ☐1.9A
Part 2	ý2.1\| ý2.2 \| ý2.3 \|ýLand Use Table \| ☐2.4 \| ☐2.5 \| ý2.6 \| ☐2.7 \| ☐2.8
Part 3	☐3.1\| ☐3.2\| ☐3.3
Part 4	ý4.1\| ☐4.1A\| ☐4.1AA\| ☐4.1B \|☐4.1C\| ☐4.1D\| ý4.1E\| ☐4.2\| ☐4.2A\| ☐4.2B\| ☐4.2C\| ☐4.2\|ý4.3\|ý4.4 \|☐4.5 \|ý4.6
Part 5	☐5.1\| ☐5.2\| ☐5.3\| ☐5.4\| ý5.5\| ☐5.6\| ☐5.7\| ☐5.8\| ☐5.9\| ☐5.9AA\| ý5.10\| ☐5.11\| ☐5.12\| ☐5.13
Part 6	ý6.1\| ☐6.2\| ý6.3\| ☐6.4\| ☐6.5\| ý6.6\| ý6.7\| ☐6.8\| ☐6.9

In accordance with LEP 2014 clauses 1.4 and 2.1 – 2.3:

(a) The proposed development is defined in the LEP 2014 Dictionary as multi dwelling housing with ancillary demolition and tree removal, and subdivision of land;

(b) The land is within the R2 Low Density Residential according to the Land Zoning Map;

(d) Regard is had for the Zone Objectives as follows:

Zone Objective	Consideration
To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.	The proposed development provides for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.
To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.	The proposal is not a land use other than housing, and would not hinder but would instead support any other land use that provides facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

The remaining checked clauses have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP&A Act.

LEP Summary of Requirement

Proposed

Clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to ensure that lot sizes are compatible with local environmental values and constraints,

(b) to facilitate efficient use of land resources for residential and other human purposes.

(2) This clause applies to a subdivision of any land shown on the Lot Size Map that requires development consent and that is carried out after the commencement of this Plan.

(3) The size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

The proposed Strata Title lots do not comply with the Lot Size Map, and this is addressed below.

4.1E Minimum lot sizes for dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings

(1) The objective of this clause is to achieve planned residential density in certain zones.

(2) Development consent may be granted to development on a lot in a zone shown in Column 2 of the table to this clause for a purpose shown in Column 1 of the table opposite that zone, if the area of the lot is equal to or greater than the area specified for that purpose and shown in Column 3 of the table.

Column 1	Column 2	Column 3
Multi dwelling housing	Zone R2 Low Density Residential	1,000 square metres

The site area of 1835.8m² complies with the 1000m² minimum requirement for multi-dwelling housing

4.3 Height of buildings

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to achieve building design that does not exceed a specified maximum height from its existing ground level to finished roof or parapet,

(b) to ensure the height of buildings complements the streetscape and character of the area in which the buildings are located,

(2) The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map.

The proposed height of approximately 7.2m complies with the 9m maximum height requirement.

4.4 Floor space ratio

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to ensure that new buildings are appropriate in relation to the character, amenity and environment of the locality,

(b) to enable a diversity of housing types by encouraging low scale medium density housing in suitable locations,

(d) to regulate density of development and generation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic,

(e) to set out maximum floor space ratios for dual occupancy in certain areas.

(2) The maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map.

(2A) Despite subclause (2), the maximum floor space ratio for dual occupancies on land in Zone R2 Low Density Residential is 0.5:1.

The proposed floor space ratio of approximately 0.40:1 complies with the 0.5:1 maximum floor space ratio requirement.

5.5 Development within the coastal zone

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to provide for the protection of the coastal environment of the State for the benefit of both present and future generations through promoting the principles of ecologically sustainable development,

(b) to implement the principles in the NSW Coastal Policy,

Whilst within the coastal zone, the development raises no issues regarding foreshore access; effluent disposal and stormwater are to be connected to existing infrastructure. The property is also landward of the defined coastal erosion zones.

5.10 Heritage conservation

…

(2) Requirement for consent Development consent is required for any of the following:

(a) demolishing or moving any of the following or altering the exterior of any of the following (including, in the case of a building, making changes to its detail, fabric, finish or appearance):

(i) a heritage item,

(ii) an Aboriginal object,

(iii) a building, work, relic or tree within a heritage conservation area,

(b) altering a heritage item that is a building by making structural changes to its interior or by making changes to anything inside the item that is specified in Schedule 5 in relation to the item,

(c) disturbing or excavating an archaeological site while knowing, or having reasonable cause to suspect, that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed,

(d) disturbing or excavating an Aboriginal place of heritage significance,

(e) erecting a building on land:

(i) on which a heritage item is located or that is within a heritage conservation area, or

(ii) on which an Aboriginal object is located or that is within an Aboriginal place of heritage significance,

(f) subdividing land:

(i) on which a heritage item is located or that is within a heritage conservation area, or

(ii) on which an Aboriginal object is located or that is within an Aboriginal place of heritage significance.

…

(7) Archaeological sites The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause to the carrying out of development on an archaeological site (other than land listed on the State Heritage Register or to which an interim heritage order under the Heritage Act 1977 applies):

(a) notify the Heritage Council of its intention to grant consent, and

(b) take into consideration any response received from the Heritage Council within 28 days after the notice is sent.

(8) Aboriginal places of heritage significance The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause to the carrying out of development in an Aboriginal place of heritage significance:

(a) consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the place and any Aboriginal object known or reasonably likely to be located at the place by means of an adequate investigation and assessment (which may involve consideration of a heritage impact statement), and

(b) notify the local Aboriginal communities, in writing or in such other manner as may be appropriate, about the application and take into consideration any response received within 28 days after the notice is sent.

The site does not contain a heritage item. There is no indication of the site containing an archaeological site or Aboriginal place of heritage significance.

6.1 Acid sulfate soils

Development consent must not be granted under this clause for the carrying out of works unless an acid sulfate soils management plan has been prepared for the proposed works in accordance with the Acid Sulfate Soils Manual and has been provided to the consent authority.

The site is class 2 for potential acid sulfate soils. The DA was accompanied by an acid sulphate soils management plan which was considered by Council’s Environmental Health Officer who recommended conditions accordingly.

6.2 Earthworks

(3) In deciding whether to grant development consent for earthworks (or for development involving ancillary earthworks), the consent authority must consider the following matters:

(a) the likely disruption of, or any detrimental effect on, drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality of the development,

(b) the effect of the development on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land,

(d) the effect of the development on the existing and likely amenity of adjoining properties,

(e) the source of any fill material and the destination of any excavated material,

(f) the likelihood of disturbing relics,

(g) the proximity to, and potential for adverse impacts on, any waterway, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area,

(h) any appropriate measures proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate the impacts of the development.

Development consent is sought for the proposed earthworks as required by this clause.

Minor works are proposed for footings and services.

6.3 Flood planning

Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development:

(a) is compatible with the flood hazard of the land, and

(b) will not significantly adversely affect flood behaviour resulting in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties, and

(d) will not significantly adversely affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of river banks or watercourses, and

(e) is not likely to result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community as a consequence of flooding.

The site is flood liable land.

The applicant has proposed to locate all habitable areas at the first floor level above the minimum floor level for this area of South Golden Beach/ North Ocean Shores.

Conditions of Consent recommended in term of the minimum floor level and services located below this level.

6.6 Essential services

Development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is satisfied that any of the following services that are essential for the development are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required:

(a) the supply of water,

(b) the supply of electricity,

(d) stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,

(e) suitable vehicular access.

The subject allotments are capable of being provided with the essential services including water, electricity, sewage disposal, stormwater drainage and suitable vehicular access, to the satisfaction of relevant Council Engineers, and subject to conditions.

4.1 Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

The Lot Size Map shows a minimum lot size of 600m² for this site. Proposed Strata Lots 11 to 14 comply with the minimum lot size planning control. Proposed Strata Lots 1 to 10 do not comply, with lot sizes as follows:

Lot	Size	Variation
1	111.9m²	81.4%
2	155.3m²	74.1%
3	155.3m²	74.1%
4	155.3m²	74.1%
5	155.3m²	74.1%
6	155.3m²	74.1%
7	155.3m²	74.1%
8	185.5m²	69.1%

The Applicant has submitted a written clause 4.6 variation request as follows:

1. Introduction – Summary of proposed development

The development application proposes multi dwelling housing comprising eight (8) dwellings, Strata Title subdivision to create eight (8) Strata Lots and Common Property and Tree Removal (17 trees).

2. Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards

LEP 2014 clause 4.6 allows the granting of a development consent, even though the development would contravene a development standard. However Council must first consider a written request from the Applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

Council must be satisfied that the Applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated and that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (noting that the concurrence of the Secretary is not required to be obtained in this instance).

3. The Development Standard to be varied

The development standard to be varied is the minimum lot size planning control of 600m² applicable to this site under LEP 2014 clause 4.1 as described above.

The minimum lot size planning control is a development standard in accordance with the applicable definition in section 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 because it is a provision of an environmental planning instrument in relation to the carrying out of development, being a provision by or under which requirements are specified or standards are fixed in respect of any aspect of that development, being the area of land.

4. Extent of Variation to the Development Standard

The extent of the variation ranges from 69.1% to 81.4% as indicated in the table above.

5. Objective of the Development Standard

The objectives of the development standard, as outlined in subclause 4.1(1) are:

(a) to ensure that lot sizes are compatible with local environmental values and constraints; and

(b) to facilitate efficient use of land resources for residential and other human purposes.

6. Objectives of the Zone

The objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone are stated and have been addressed in this section above.

7. Assessment – the specific questions to be addressed:

(a) Clause 4.6(3)(a) – Is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

The clause 4.6 written request submitted in support of the DA advises as follows in this regard:

“· compliance with the minimum lot size standard for the proposed Strata Title subdivision of the proposed multi dwelling housing development is unreasonable and unnecessary due to the fact that the wording of Clause 4.1(4) was clearly not intended to restrict the minimum lot sizes for Strata Title lots

· prior to the court case, Councils were routinely approving Strata Title subdivisions of multi dwelling housing developments on the basis that the mapped minimum lot size map did not apply to such – in fact, if it were not for the court case, Councils would be continuing to grant consent to such”.

Requiring compliance with the development standard would result in the proposed Strata Lots being inconsistent with the proposed built form and site layout. The proposed subdivision does not have any visible component and has no impact upon the environment of the locality. Requiring compliance with the development standard would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

(b) Clause 4.6(3)(b) – Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

The clause 4.6 written request submitted in support of the DA advises as follows in this regard:

“· as detailed below, if not for the fact that the subject land is mapped as being bushfire prone, the proposed Strata Title subdivision of the multi dwelling housing development would comprise “exempt development” pursuant to Clause 3.1 and Schedule 2 of the BLEP 2014 – there is no rational planning reason as to how or why Strata subdivision can be prohibited if it does not comply with the mapped minimum lot size on land that is mapped as being bushfire prone, but is then permitted as exempt development if the land is not mapped as being bushfire prone”.

The environmental planning grounds are particular to the site and sufficient to justify contravening the development standard. These include that the buildings to be Strata subdivided are the subject of the same development assessment which is the component of the development that would cause environmental impacts if any, there are no required site works or landscape disturbance associated with the subdivision, and the proposed variation does not create any significantly adverse social, environmental or economic impacts in the locality.

(c) Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) – Is the proposed development in the public interest? Is it consistent with the objectives of the standard and the zone as set out above?

The clause 4.6 written request submitted in support of the DA advises as follows in this regard:

“· there will not be any adverse impacts on the public interest and no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance – it is actually submitted that it is an ideal mechanism to allow the continued Strata Title subdivision of multi dwelling housing developments on residential zoned land in accordance with the original intent of Clause 4.1(4)”.

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the zone for site specific reasons as follows:

(a) Objectives of the Standard

· The proposed lot sizes are compatible with local environmental values and constraints. The proposed lot sizes will not cause any adverse environmental impacts and are in keeping with the proposed built form and site layout.

· The proposed lot sizes support the efficient use of land resources for residential purposes.

(b) Objectives of the R2 Zone

· The proposed Strata Title subdivision supports the development to provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

· The proposal is not a land use other than housing, and would not hinder but would instead support any other land use that provides facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

The proposal produces a better planning outcome than one that strictly complies with the development standard because requiring strict compliance would result in lot sizes that are not in keeping with the proposed built form and site layout. The proposed Strata Title subdivision is in the public interest. The circumstances of the case warrant a more flexible approach to application of the lot size development standard, and the Applicant’s variation request is supported in this instance.

4.3 Any proposed Instrument that has been the subject of public consultation and has been notified to the consent authority

	Yes	No
Is there any applicable planning agreement or draft planning agreement?	ý	☐
Consideration: Draft SEPP (Coastal Management) 2016 applies to the site, which is within the proposed Coastal Environment Area and Coastal Use Area. In relation to the proposed Coastal Environment Area, the proposal is satisfactory having regard to clause 14 of the draft SEPP because the proposal: (a) is not likely to cause significant adverse impacts on the biophysical, hydrological (surface and groundwater) and ecological environment; (b) is not likely to significantly impact on geological and geomorphological coastal processes and features or be significantly impacted by those processes and features; (c) is not likely to have an adverse impact on the water quality of the marine estate (within the meaning of the Marine Estate Management Act 2014), in particular, having regard to the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the marine estate including sensitive coastal lakes; (d) is not likely to have an adverse impact on native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms; (e) will not adversely impact Aboriginal cultural heritage and places; (f) incorporates water sensitive design, including consideration of effluent and stormwater management; and (g) will not adversely impact on the use of the surf zone. In relation to the proposed Coastal Use Area, the proposal is satisfactory having regard to clause 15 of the draft SEPP because: (a) the proposed development: (i) maintains existing, safe public access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform; (ii) minimises overshadowing, wind funnelling and the loss of views from public places to foreshores; (iii) will not adversely impact on the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands; (iv) will not adversely impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage and places; and (v) will not adversely impact on use of the surf zone, and (b) Council has taken into account the type and location of the proposed development, and the bulk, scale and size of the proposed development.

Yes

Is there any applicable planning agreement or draft planning agreement?

☐

Consideration: Draft SEPP (Coastal Management) 2016 applies to the site, which is within the proposed Coastal Environment Area and Coastal Use Area.

In relation to the proposed Coastal Environment Area, the proposal is satisfactory having regard to clause 14 of the draft SEPP because the proposal:

(a) is not likely to cause significant adverse impacts on the biophysical, hydrological (surface and groundwater) and ecological environment;

(b) is not likely to significantly impact on geological and geomorphological coastal processes and features or be significantly impacted by those processes and features;

(c) is not likely to have an adverse impact on the water quality of the marine estate (within the meaning of the Marine Estate Management Act 2014), in particular, having regard to the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the marine estate including sensitive coastal lakes;

(d) is not likely to have an adverse impact on native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms;

(e) will not adversely impact Aboriginal cultural heritage and places;

(f) incorporates water sensitive design, including consideration of effluent and stormwater management; and

(g) will not adversely impact on the use of the surf zone.

In relation to the proposed Coastal Use Area, the proposal is satisfactory having regard to clause 15 of the draft SEPP because:

(a) the proposed development:

(i) maintains existing, safe public access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform;

(ii) minimises overshadowing, wind funnelling and the loss of views from public places to foreshores;

(iii) will not adversely impact on the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands;

(iv) will not adversely impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage and places; and

(v) will not adversely impact on use of the surf zone, and

(b) Council has taken into account the type and location of the proposed development, and the bulk, scale and size of the proposed development.

4.4A Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2014 (DCP 2014)

DCP 2014 is an applicable matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP& A Act because it applies to the land to which LEP 2014 applies. The DCP 2014 Parts/Chapters that are checked below are of relevance to the proposed development:

Part A	ý
Part B Chapters:	ýB2\| ýB3\| ýB4\| ýB5\| ýB6\| ýB7\| ýB8\| ýB9\| ☐B10\| ýB11\| ýB12\| ýB13\| ýB14
Part C Chapters:	☐C1\| ýC2\| ýC3\| ☐C4
Part D Chapters	ýD1\| ☐D2\| ☐D3\| ☐D4\| ☐D5\| ýD6\| ☐D7\| ☐D8
Part E Chapters	☐ E1\| ☐E2\| ☐E3\| ☐E4\| ☐E5\| ☐E6\| ☐ E7

Chapter B2 – Preservation of Trees and Other Vegetation

The application proposes tree removal as follows:

Tree ID No.	Common Name	Scientific Name	DBH (cm)	~Canopy Spread (m²)	~Height (m)
1.	Pandanus	Pandanus tectorius	19	12.6	10
4.	Golden Penda	Xanthostemon chrysanthus	29	19.6	11
5.	Lilly Pilly	Acmena smithii	17	12.6	10
6.	Swamp Oak	Casuarina glauca	35	28.3	15
8.	Swamp Oak	Casuarina glauca	6	4.9	3
9.	Red Apple	Acmena ingens	17	12.6	12
10.	Paperbark	Melaleuca quinquenervia	35	19.6	12
11.	Riberry	Syzygium luehmannii	14	12.6	8
12.	Paperbark	Melaleuca quinquenervia	30	15.7	12
13.	Paperbark	Melaleuca quinquenervia	27	12.6	12
14.	Lilly Pilly	Acmena smithii	20	12.6	7
15.	Water Gum	Tristaniopsis laurina	30	19.6	11
16.	Lilly Pilly	Acmena smithii	16	12.6	7
17.	Lilly Pilly	Acmena smithii	18	12.6	7
25.	Creek Sandpaper Fig	Ficus coronata	9	9.6	7
26.	Red Apple	Acmena ingens	19	9.6	6
30.	Brush Cherry	Syzygium australe	9	9.6	6

No species of conservation significance were recorded. The >10m high Swamp Oak, Paperbarks and Water Gum (5 trees in total) are considered to be of medium ecological/aesthetic value requiring the provision of 5 compensatory plants per removed tree. The other 12 trees are considered to be of low ecological/aesthetic value requiring the provision of 1 compensatory plant per removed tree. This requires a minimum of 5 x 5 + 12 x 1 = 37 compensatory plants and a condition requiring a landscaping plan is included in the Recommendation of this Report below accordingly. The DA is accompanied by an indicative landscape plan which indicates the provision of more than 37 plants.

Chapter B3 – Services

Chapter B4 – Traffic Planning, Vehicle Parking, Circulation and Access

Each dwelling is required to be provided with 2 car parking spaces. Each dwelling is provided with a double garage. 2 visitor parking spaces are also required, and these are provided at the western end of the site, visible from the road frontage. The proposal complies in relation to provision of parking facilities and Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection n the basis of circulation and access.

Chapter B9 – Landscaping

Prescriptive measure 2 of B9.4.1 Landscape Principles requires the provision of 90m² of landscaped area per large dwelling (ie. 8 large dwellings x 90m² per dwelling = 720m²) less the totals of the approved private courtyards. That is, the area of the landscaped area for the development is able to include the approved private courtyards as long as the total of approved private courtyards and common landscaped area is 720m². The development provides for approximately 710m² which is only slightly less than the requirement. The application demonstrates that the proposal will provide for a reasonable level of landscaped area through plantings with each property containing small but functional courtyards area for residents needs. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory having regards to the applicable objectives and performance criteria under B9.4.1. Conditions to apply for landscaping to be completed.

Chapter C2 – Areas Affected by Flood

A flood planning level for this development is 3.4m AHD applies to the site. The residential areas of each dwelling are set at a minimum of 4.94m AHD which complies with Councils flood requirements. The plans indicate that only garage / storage and laundry internal uses are to occur at the ground floor level which is below the flood planning level.

Chapter D1 – Residential Accommodation in urban, Village & Special Purpose Zones

The proposal does not comply with D1.2.2 Setbacks from Boundaries, Prescriptive Measure 3 – minimum setbacks for multi dwelling house, requiring 3m between buildings on a site. The proposed setback between buildings is 2m.

However the proposed development complies with the Objectives and Performance Criteria underpinning this design element for the following reasons:

1. The proposal minimises impacts upon the existing streetscapes and development in the locality due to the properties location.

2. The proposal achieves good orientation and spacing of residential developments to achieve high quality living environments relative to sunlight, shade, wind and weather protection, residential amenity and proximity of neighbouring development.

3. The proposal achieves effective use of the site to create useable and liveable private open space and courtyards.

4. The proposal represents appropriate siting and design in the surrounding urban residential area.

5. Private open space and common landscaped areas of the site are useable as part of the living environment available for the occupants of the development. Landscaped areas are

provided in the visually prominent part of the site to the west of the building to visually soften the built form from the public perspective.

6. The proposed front setback complies with the minimum of 4.5m/5.5m. The proposed development is appropriately designed for vehicular safety and visibility. The dwellings are oriented to take advantage of the open northerly aspect, including open space and decking. The proposed 2m setback areas are not readily visible in the streetscape. Car parking is either incorporated into each dwelling or visitor parking that is visually softened by landscaping.

7. The variation will not have a significant impact in terms of streetscape, amenity, privacy, views and access of surrounding properties, road status, traffic impacts, sight lines or BCA compliance.

In relation to D1.2.1 Building Height Plane, the development encroaches into the building height plane as projected from the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. The northern boundary adjoins land in the same ownership as the site, however the encroachment still needs to be considered with reference to the applicable DCP 2014 provisions. In accordance with Prescriptive Measure 2, given that the site is flood liable land, Council is able to consider an exemption to the building height plane in relation to one or more boundaries because the floor level is required to be above ground level to comply with Council’s requirement’s for flood protection. This exemption is applicable to a point, however the development could have been designed to comply with both flood protection and building height plane requirements. However, having regard to the Dual Path Assessment, the non-compliance meets the D1.2.1 Objectives and Performance criteria for the following reasons:

Performance Criteria

1. The proposed development has been design to minimise overshadowing, privacy and view impacts;

2. The development is designed to promote energy efficiency and to optimise use of winter sunlight and summer shade; and

3. The development is designed to ensure that the windows of living areas (decks, living rooms, bedrooms, kitchens, etc.) of development on adjoining properties will retain full solar access between the hours of 9.00am to 3.00pm on any day;

and hence:

Objectives

1. The proposal will not have a significant impact in terms of solar access on adjoining properties to the north and east, or on the views from adjacent existing buildings. The proposal incorporates privacy screens to the upper floor level balconies, and the east facing windows are highlight windows, to ensure that the development does not have significant privacy impacts on neighbouring properties; and

2. The occupants of the development will enjoy the optimum use of winter sunlight and summer shade. The privacy screens are to be designed so as to allow sunlight penetration and minimise privacy impacts to northern and eastern neighbouring properties.

In relation to D1.2.4 Character & Visual Impact:

Performance Criteria

1. Site, building and landscaping design appropriately addresses the climate;

2. The street face of the eastern most building, together with the space between it and the street, contribute to the general attractiveness of the streetscape by means of good design, appropriate materials and landscaping, noting that the view of the site north along Canowindra Court is not of buildings but rather of driveway, visitor parking and landscaping;

3. The development has been designed to minimise loss of privacy for the reasons indicated above;

4. There is a reasonable degree of integration with the existing built and natural environment, balanced with the desirability of providing for variety in the streetscape;

5. Long, straight wall areas have been avoided by visually breaking up the development into separate buildings and wall plane changes, varied setbacks and building material combinations;

6. Decks are provided for visual, climatic and energy efficiency reasons;

7. Well-designed overhanging eaves are provided to protect against heavy rainfall and summer sun, while allowing winter sun penetration; and

8. Building materials are compatible in character with the surrounding environment. The proposed roofs are of a “medium” non-highly reflective colour (ie. not white or light-coloured) and “Colorbond” finish. Details of building materials and surface colours have been submitted for assessment with a DA;

and hence:

Objectives

1. The development appropriately retains and enhances the unique character of this part of the Byron Shire and its distinctive (as applicable) landscapes, ecology, towns, villages and natural areas; and

2. The development appropriately respects and complements those aspects of the area’s natural and built environment that are important to its existing character.

The proposed development is demonstrated to meet the relevant Objectives of DCP 2014.

In relation to D1.6.1, each dwelling has access to an individual courtyard at ground level having a minimum area of 30m² and a minimum length and width each of 4 metres, not including any area used exclusively for the circulation or parking of vehicles. The courtyards include access to winter sunshine and landscaped areas. Upper level decks are provided for solar access, to enable sea breexzes to be captured and for general outdoor living purposes.

4.5 Any Planning Agreement or Draft Planning Agreement?

	Yes	No
Is there any applicable planning agreement or draft planning agreement?	☐	ý
Consideration: Not applicable.

Yes

Is there any applicable planning agreement or draft planning agreement?

☐

Consideration: Not applicable.

4.6 Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 Considerations

Clause	This control is applicable to the proposal:	I have considered this control as it relates to the proposal:	If this control is applicable, does the proposal comply?
92	Yes	Yes	Yes
93	N/A	N/A	N/A
94	N/A	N/A	N/A
94A	N/A	N/A	N/A

4.7 Any coastal zone management plan?

	Satisfactory	Unsatisfactory	Not applicable
Is there any applicable coastal zone management plan?		☐	x
Consideration: Not applicable.

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Not applicable

Is there any applicable coastal zone management plan?

☐

Consideration: Not applicable.

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

Impact on:	Likely significant impact/s?
Natural environment	No. The proposal will not have a significantly adverse impact on the natural environment of the locality.
Built environment	No. The proposal will not have a significantly adverse impact on the built environment of the locality.
Social Environment	No. The proposal will not have a significant social impact on the locality.
Economic impact	No. The proposal will not have a significant economic impact on the locality.

Are there any Council Policies that are applicable to the proposed development?

Council’s ET Engineer has raised no objection to the proposal on the basis of Council’s Policy 4.20: Building over Pipelines and other Underground Structures.

4.9 The suitability of the site for the development

The site is serviced and is suitable for the proposed development.

4.10 Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

The development application was publicly exhibited. There were 11 submissions made on the development application which raised the following matters:

High risk flooding, flood water contamination, emergency service and other inaccessibility due to flooding, stormwater drainage, flood water displacement due to the proposed development

Council’s Development Engineer raised no objections to the proposal on the basis of flood planning, confirming that the development conforms to the requirements of LEP 2014 clauses 6.3 and 6.4, and DCP 2014 Chapter C2 in relation to flood planning, floodplain risk management, flood study requirements, minimum floor levels, flood planning matrix, flood proofing and special provisions. Conditions are recommended in this regard.

The Development Engineer also raised no objections to the proposal on the basis of stormwater management, confirming that the development conforms to the requirements of LEP 2014 clause 6.6, and DCP 2014 Chapter B3 Services in relation to stormwater drainage, development application requirements, properties adjacent to or containing waterways and site drainage. Conditions are recommended in this regard, including provision of on-site stormwater detention.

It is considered stormwater and flooding can be appropriately managed

Sewer impact / overflow

Council’s Water and Sewer Engineers have raised no objection to the proposal on the basis of the capacity of the existing sewerage system, and there is no “moratorium” in place in terms of development in the Ocean Shores area. .

Traffic and road safety impacts, road damage, lack of footpath, garbage collection in Redgate Road, Garbage bin storage in Redgate Road amenity impacts, On-site bin storage

The proposal has access to the local road networks which is considered capable of handling the additional traffic generated by this development. The parent allotment which was subdivided to create the subject allotments and Lot 10 to the north had frontage to both Helen Street and Canowindra Court. The subdivision resulted in Lot 10 gaining access off Helen Street and the subject Lots 11 and 12 gaining access off Canowindra Court. The proposed development complies with that approved access arrangement. Conditions to apply in terms of constructing driveways and internal access roads and parking areas. In terms of bin storage, adequate area is provided onsite for land owners to store garbage bins within the confines of each property.

Access and visitor parking inadequacy, Overflow parking to be in Canowindra Court

The proposal complies with the number of parking spaces as required under DCP 2014 Chapter B4.2.5 including visitor spaces.

Traffic and occupant noise impacts

The use of the site for normal domestic purposes is not expected to cause significant noise impacts, including vehicle movement noise, in the locality. No objections were raised by Council’s Environmental Health Officer in relation to noise impacts.

Loss of privacy, visual and amenity impacts, no screening trees, vehicle headlight impacts to neighbouring properties

The development complies with the building height plane as projected from the southern boundary and appropriately addresses privacy impacts to the southern neighbouring property. Proposed Unit 1 is set well back from the western side boundary. Unit 8 encroaches into the building height plane as projected from the eastern boundary however the dwelling incorporates appropriate privacy measures such as screening the eastern side of the proposed rear verandah and highlight (1.5m high sill) east facing windows.

The proposed development is provided with landscaping for visual softening, and a 1.8m high fence is required to all neighbouring property boundaries for general privacy, security purposes and to block out headlights.

Removal of vegetation screening loss of privacy and a visual eyesore, loss of wildlife corridor, compensatory planting, inadequate proposed landscaping

The development complies with the building height plane as projected from the southern property boundary to ensure that privacy impacts are minimised. Compensatory planting is provided for the proposed tree removal, as described by this Report above. Landscaping, including compensatory planting of the site, is the subject of a recommended condition of consent. The driveway along the southern boundary will be below standard fence level and is not required to be landscaped.

Reduction of the separation between the unit blocks from 3m to 2m

This Report addresses the separation between buildings prescriptive measure non-compliance in section 4.4A above.

High density proposal, possible transient population during festivals, overcrowding, undesirable precedent and change in character of the area

The proposed development is in a low density residential zone, but meets the requirements for multi dwelling housing as specified under Byron LEP 2014. The property is of a reasonable size (over 1800m2), whilst the eight dwellings are modest in area and amenity as opposed to more high end accommodation proposed in other parts of the shire. Conditions of consent are recommended to prohibit the use of the dwellings as tourist and visitor accommodation and holiday letting.

Bush fire prone area, asset protection zone not contained within site

The NSW Rural Fire Service has assessed the proposal with respect to bush fire hazard characteristics of the site and surrounds, and recommends conditions relating to for example, maintaining the entire site as an asset protection (thereby not relying on neighbouring properties).

No construction certificate means plans can be changed

A certifying authority must not issue a construction certificate for building work unless the design and construction of the building (as depicted in the plans and specifications and as described in any other information furnished to the certifying authority) are not inconsistent with the development consent.

Minimum lot size of 600m²

This Report considers a clause 4.6 written request for variation in section 4.2A above.

Impact upon property values

This is not a matter for consideration of such significance as to warrant refusal of the development application.

4.11 Public interest

The proposed development is unlikely to prejudice or compromise the public interest or create an undesirable precedent.

4.12 Section 5A of the EP&A Act – Significant effect on threatened species

Having regard to sections 5A, 5C and 5D of the EP&A Act, there is unlikely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats as a result of the proposed development because the site is not mapped as containing any threatened fauna habitat and no species of conservation significance are proposed to be removed.

4.13 Section 5B of the EP&A Act – Have regard to register of critical habitat

The NSW Critical Habitat Register does not identify any critical habitat on or adjacent to the site.

5. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

Water and Sewer and Section 94 Contributions are payable. Conditions to apply.

6. CONCLUSION

The application is considered to have sufficient merit to warrant approval subject to conditions of consent.

7. DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL DONATIONS AND GIFTS

Has a Disclosure Statement been received in relation to this application	No
Have staff received a ‘gift’ from anyone involved in this application that needs to be disclosed. Where the answer is yes, the application is to be determined by the Director or Manager of the Planning, Development and Environment Division.	No

Provide Disclosure Statement register details here: Not applicable

Criteria	74 Charltons Road, Federal	Englishes Road, Upper Coopers Creek
i) situated west of the Pacific Highway (undeveloped sites only) AND within a 5 km radius of a town with a high school; and	Ï Outside 5km service catchments of Mullumbimby & Byron Bay	Ï Outside 5km service catchments of Mullumbimby & Byron Bay
ii) not identified in a draft or adopted strategy for future urban purposes, or for future village / urban development in this strategy; and	P	P
iii) contains at least 10ha of unconstrained land AND does not require access through constrained land, as identified in Table 1 of the Site Suitability Criteria and Mapping Methodology; and	Ï No unconstrained land due to the following: - regionally significant farmland (entire site) - slope > 25% (part of site)	Ï No unconstrained land due to the following: - regionally significant farmland (entire site) - within 100m buffer to river in a drinking water catchment (part of site) - extreme bushfire risk (part of site) - slope > 25% (part of site) - HEV vegetation (part of site)
iv) can be adequately serviced by existing or committed road infrastructure at a standard suitable for the predicted level and type of traffic resulting from development, at no cost to the wider community	Ï Located outside 5km major service catchment and in an area that cannot be serviced adequately by existing or committed road infrastructure.	Ï Located outside 5km major service catchment and in an area that cannot be serviced adequately by existing or committed road infrastructure.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 7.12

Report No. 7.12 Tree Removals Railway Park Byron Bay

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Michael Matthews, Manager Open Space and Resource Recovery

File No: I2017/1687

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Open Space and Recreation

Summary:

This report outlines the decision making process and background to the undertaking of recent works within Railway Park and process used in obtaining all relevant approvals and requirements prior to works (including tree removal). These works included the removal of the garden beds fronting Jonson street within Railway Park, whilst retaining all vegetation over 2m within these beds and the removal of three (3) trees described by staff as:-

1. Eucalyptus Dunnii approximately 12m tall estimated 30 years old

2. Archontophoenix cunninghamiana approximately 12m tall estimated 30 years old and

3. Sterculia quadrifida estimated 6m and estimated as 8 years old.

This report also provides background information in relation to the relocation notification issued to Byron Environment Centre (BEC).

This report also provides information specific to the Tourism Demand Driver Infrastructure (TDDI) funded redevelopment of Railway Park and its program interrelationship with Operational Actions performed.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:-

1. Note the report.

2. Finalise concept plans of Railway Square Beatification Plan and report to Council in accordance with resolution 17-555.

Attachments:

1 Tree / Vegetation Removal - Approval Pathways, E2017/104389 ⇨

2 BBTCM Leadership Team Meeting August 2017, E2017/104726 ⇨

3 Letter to BEC in accordance with resolution 17-555, E2017/105004 ⇨

Report

Council at is Extra- Ordinary Meeting of 2 November 2017 resolved an urgency motion in relation to Works in Railway Park, Byron Bay:-

17-555 Resolved that Council:

1. Withdraw the relocation notice to the BEC from the rotunda inside Railway Park.

2. Receive a report at the next Ordinary meeting, outlining the decision making process to

undertake the works and the process in obtaining all relevant approvals and requirements prior to works (including tree removal), and this review be completed and reported back to Council, with any forthcoming recommendations.

3. Do not undertake any further infrastructure or landscaping works in Railway Park until formal adoption of a railway square beautification plan at an Ordinary Council Meeting.

Background

The Better Byron Crew (BBC) is tasked with maintenance, refurbishment, renewal, minor capital works and litter collection within the Byron Town Centre. The BBC delineated service area has recently been reduced to increase levels of service across assets within the town.

The reduced BBC service area was in response to concerns raised with BBC service levels on particular assets such as the town’s garden beds and litter removal performance along foreshore assets.

Detailed review of service levels across assets was undertaken.

This review identified that the level of resourcing for the town centre was insufficient to meet the expected standards. It was identified that the area serviced by the BBC had undergone significant creep since the establishment of the Town dedicated crew without a realistic increased in resource allocation.

From this review, perceived performance matters that directly relate to expected levels of service of highly visual assets were addressed by the General Manager via direction to staff to:-

· Reduce the BBC delineated area;

· Increase litter collection servicing during weekends on the foreshore assets; and

· Divert saved resource into garden bed maintenance.

One area identified as receiving a poor level of service was the garden beds of Railway Park fronting Jonson Street.

Fig 1 - Railway Park, Jonson Street garden Beds (facing north from Exeloos)

Fig 2 - Railway Park, Jonson Street garden Beds (Facing North West)

The review identified a number of reasons why performance of this asset was poor.

These reasons included poor initial design, high adjacent pedestrian traffic, pedestrians short circuiting existing pathways causing damage to garden bed amenity, high number of assets assigned to the BBC relative to team size and change in work practices.

One significant change in work practices was the ceasing of herbicide use within the town and high public use parks.

Traditional maintenance practice within garden was the use of selective herbicide to manage weed growth in garden beds. This practice involved the use of a wick application to control weeds (method consists of a wick soaked in herbicide which the wetted wick is used to wipe or brush selectively onto the weed). This method was ceased in 2015 and replaced with a labour intensive hand weed program of the 151 individual garden beds within the Byron Township.

Throughout the Byron town centre, the BBC has been progressively improving garden bed function and amenity through edging and heavy hardwood chip mulching. This work suppresses weed growth, reducing labour intensive hand weeding and changes pedestrian behaviour through making it more difficult/ less favourable for pedestrians to ‘short cut’ across garden assets.

Fig 3a - Before photo of SW corner of Bay and Jonson Street – simple turf solution

Fig 3b -After photo of SW corner of Bay and Jonson Street – simple turf solution

Fig 4 - Works in progress prior to Mulch being applied, South East corner Jonson and Bay Street

Fig 5 - Completed works, garden bed in front of Fish Heads

In discussions with a Landscape architect in relation to Railway Park, it was agreed that due to pedestrian volumes within this precinct, removal of these beds in there current form was operationally preferred.

On Thursday the 12^th October, direction was given to-

Have BBC remove the garden bed along Jonson Street between the Café and the Exeloos:-

· Remove the designated tree adjacent to the café (with TPO Cert) as agreed at a site meeting with Councils engaged landscape architect and Director of SEE;

· Remove the playground;

· Remove the two large metal barriers in the car park near the Countrylink building; and

· Under the supervision of the arborist and landscape architect have a tree doctor/men with chain saws sculpt the trees in the park to create a play feature.

These directions were given on the basis of routine renewal maintenance activities that aligned with the scope of works that the BBC regularly performed.

Prior to this work, Railway Park was identified, through the development and adoption of the Town Centre Master Plan (BTCMP), as a primary Open Space that is best developed as a common gathering point for leisure and recreation.

With the adoption of the BTCMP, funding was sort under the Tourism Demand Driver Infrastructure (TDDI) Program for redevelopment of Railway Park to that of which meets the vision and spirit of the Master plan. Council was successful in the receipt of $260,000 on a 50/50 basis for the redevelopment of this park on the basis that works are to be complete within the current financial year.

Program management of the TDDI integrated projects was assigned to the Major Projects and Major Projects staff developed the delivery plan and the associated communication and engagement plan.

The communication and engagement plan was reported to the Executive Team on 7 June 2017 and the minutes state: Executive Team endorsed the draft Communication and Engagement Plan for the Railway Precinct TDDI Grant Program.

In conjunction with the grant and more broadly in the context of implementation of the Byron Bay Town Centre Master Plan, a landscape architect was engaged to prepare a concept design for the upgrade of Railway Park.

Railway Park (Railway Square) had been identified as a key catalyst site within the adopted Byron Bay Town Centre Master Plan and had been discussed with the Byron Bay Town Centre Master Plan Leadership Group including a design charrette undertaken in July 2017 by the group.

The concept design for the upgrade of Railway Park envisaged the relocation of the BEC rotunda to another location. It is understood that this was also discussed by the Byron Bay Town Centre Master Plan Leadership Group (Refer Attachment 2)

In association with the implementation of the communication and engagement plan, correspondence was prepared and sent to stakeholders including neighbouring landowners and businesses, community organisations with an interest in the park and internal BSC staff. The correspondence included an initial introductory letter regarding the project, meetings as required and a later letter introducing the concept design.

The email to the Convenor of the Byron Environment Centre Inc records that several attempts were made to contact the Byron Environment Centre. A request was made to work (16 October 2017) together to relocate the rotunda with a target for completion being 13 December 2017.

An extract from Council email (16 October 2017) is as follows:-

As an introduction to the draft concept design, Council has received community feedback via the Byron Bay Town Centre Master Plan Leadership Team that the BEC kiosk in Railway Square would best be located elsewhere. Relocating the kiosk would improve community and visitor use of the park by increasing access and egress through the park and increasing visibility and community safety in line with CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) principles.

I have searched and consulted within Council for a license, lease or other agreement for the kiosk being placed in its current position and cannot find any such document. If you have one on file, could you please provide it so that we can consider the agreement in context of the project.

Council would like to have the kiosk relocated by 13 December 2017.

If you could please advise an alternate site for the kiosk at your earliest convenience that would be much appreciated.

Council is willing to assist BEC with the physical relocation of the kiosk structure to your new location and we're happy to discuss the details of this with you.

The 13 December 2017 date was proposed by staff to incorporate it in the preliminary works program but to allow time to effectively plan for careful relocation with an aim to preserve of the Arakwal Art.

Upon receiving the email of 19 October 2017, the Convenor of the Byron Environment Centre Inc wrote to Councillors on 23 October 2017 claiming an ‘eviction’ notice had been served.

A key part of the consultation for the proposed upgrade of Railway Park was liaison with the Arakwal. A site meeting occurred on 17 October at which Operational staff requested to be in attendance to confirm early works scope.

Council staff was advised by the Arakwal representative that there was support for the park upgrade and a request was made that the cultural artwork on the rotunda be considered for preservation and, at minimum, provision made for incorporating local indigenous art in the new designs.

The concept plan for the Railway Park upgrade was presented by Councils engaged Landscape architect to the BBTCMPLG on 25 October 2017.

It is understood that there was no further contact with Mr Lazarus (Convenor Byron Environment Centre Inc) regarding relocation of the rotunda prior to the Council meeting on 2 November.

At the 2 November 2017 meeting Council resolved 17-555.

In accordance with part 1 of the resolution a letter (#E2017/103282 – Attachment 3) has been sent to the BEC on 6 November 2017.

Tree Removal and Landscape works (works as was performed)

At the August meeting of the Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan (BBTCM) Guidance Group it was agreed that an arborist would be engaged to review trees in Railway Park to inform the planning work being undertaken by the landscape architect in Railway Park.

A botanist was engaged to assess trees in Railway Park in consultation with the landscape Architect and advice on 9 September 2017.

Staff met with the landscape architect to discuss the draft plans being prepared for the park and as a result it was agreed that it would be desirable for trees to be removed as part of the redevelopment and that an arborists report had indicated that at least one tree was potentially dangerous. Both the botanist and landscape architect agreed that the forest gum was a limb shedding species

On the Friday the 13th October 2017, Manager of Open Space and Resource Recovery relayed direction to staff to review and action necessary approvals for removal of the designated tree adjacent to the northern boundary of the reserve.

A Tree Removal for Public Infrastructure Permit Form, Issued under Chapter B2 – Preservation of Trees and other vegetation of the Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2014 was provided to the Manager Open Space and Resource Recovery Manager on the 16th October specifying the removal of three (3) trees, theses tress being:-

1. Eucalyptus Dunnii approximately 12m tall (estimated 30 years old)

2. Archontophoenix cunninghamiana approximately 12m tall (estimated 30 years old); and

3. Sterculia quadrifida estimated 6m (estimated 8 years old).

Additional trees that were sort for removal were identified as trees to be removed as part of the early works program for the parks redevelopment.

The Eucalyptus Dunni, was considered by staff as presenting risk to users of the park through exposed roots and as a future risk of limb shredding as known limb shredding species.

Management staff provided permit form for directorate signature.

This completed permit was provided to operational staff for engagement of a level 5 qualified arborist contractor to undertake the works.

Considerations and steps used by staff in reviewing and actioning the approval included:-

· 14th October - Review of the Infrastructure SEPP guidelines

· Inspection and documenting trees to be removed as above-mentioned.

· Consultation with SEE Directorate on the 16^th October 2017.

· Actioned advice received from SEE that the Infrastructure Services Approval Pathway and Permit form could be used as IS were the approving agency (Refer Attachment 1)

Operational staff installed site fencing on Tuesday 24^th around the garden beds including the Rotunda in preparation to separate the public from the works to ensure public safety. It should be noted that staff provided access to the Rotunda at all times outside of physical works.

On the Wednesday 25^th October 2017 Staff met with Byron Community Centre to relay imminent works and address any possible impacts to the Artesian markets licenced each Saturday night within the park.

Tree Removals Wednesday 25^th October

Due to the vegetation removal scope, operational staff identified the need to engage a qualified arborist to remove the trees, as this type of work falls outside the BBC scope of services.

At the time of the works, operational staff had a contracted service undertaking tree works on a number of Norfolk Pines, including one complete removal for reasons of Dead Dying or Dangerous provisions.

The specifications for these works required the Contractor to hold, as a minimum an AQF 3 in arboriculture with supervision from an arborist qualified to a minimum of AQF 5 in Arboriculture. This contracted engagement was expanded to include these tree removal works in the park.

All works were completed by Friday 27^th October enabling uninterrupted use by the Artisan Markets held on the night of Saturday the 28^th October 2017.

Fig 6 - Completed works, Railway Park garden beds adjacent to Jonson Street

Financial Implications

Works performed funded from town centre upgrades budget.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Trees removed under Removal for Public Infrastructure Permit Form.

No other approvals were identified as being required for the scope of works as performed.

Requested funds from funding bodies	14,794,817
Council cash contribution	9,053,932
Council in-kind Contribution	190,748
Other contributions	10,575,562
Funding applications submitted and awaiting notification (total project value)	34,615,059

Milestone	Complete By
Revitalise the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy working group	End Nov 2017
Identify & engage a consultant e.g. environmental economist	End Nov 2017
Review alignments and relevance new Council strategies, master plans and initiatives e.g. Zero Emissions Byron	End Feb 2018
Review and identify cross-sectoral integration of biodiversity conservation in the public and private sector	End Mar 2018
Draft Biodiversity Conservation Strategy in consultation with stakeholders	End Apr 2018
Draft Biodiversity Conservation Strategy placed on public exhibition for a period of six weeks	End Jun 2018
Review submissions	Mid Aug 2018
Biodiversity Conservation Strategy reported to the next available council meeting	Post Aug 2018