Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Ordinary Meeting

BUSINESS OF Ordinary Meeting

1. Public Access

2. Apologies

3. Requests for Leave of Absence

4. Declarations of Interest – Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary

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

6. Adoption of Minutes from Previous Meetings

6.1 Ordinary Meeting held on 22 February 2018

6.2 Byron Shire Reserve Trust Committee held on 22 February 2018

7. Reservation of Items for Debate and Order of Business

8. Mayoral Minute

8.1 Mercato ............................................................................................................................ 6

9. Notices of Motion

9.1 Independent review of Byron Shire Council’s organisation and governance................... 7

9.2 Funding for the Implementation of Town Masterplan Projects....................................... 13

9.3 Future of Local Government - 21st Century Community Governance.......................... 17

9.4 Public Access - Budget Estimates.................................................................................. 20

9.5 Water Sensitive Urban Design........................................................................................ 24

9.6 Protection and Public Access - Scarabelottis Lookout and Keyes Bridge Reserve....... 28

9.7 Poker Machines in the Byron Shire................................................................................ 30

10. Petitions

11. Submissions and Grants

11.1 Byron Shire Council Submissions and Grants as at 28 February 2018......................... 33

12. Delegates' Reports

13. Staff Reports

General Manager

13.1 Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan Leadership Team 2018........................................ 35

13.2 Report of the Communications Panel Meeting held on 14 September 2017................. 39

13.3 Report of the Communications Panel Meeting held on 13 February 2018.................... 42

Corporate and Community Services

13.4 Draft Policy: Community Iniaitives Policy (Section 356) following period of public exhibition 45

13.5 Proposed Amendments to Council's Code of Meeting Practice.................................... 48

13.6 A new strategic approach to Public Art - revised Public Art Policy and new Draft Public Art Strategy......................................................................................................................................... 58

13.7 Joint Organisation of Councils ....................................................................................... 62

13.8 Council Investments February 2018............................................................................... 69

13.9 Stronger Country Communities Fund Round 2.............................................................. 76

13.10 Audit of tree removals in Railway Park Byron Bay........................................................ 81

13.11 National General Assembly of Local Government 2018................................................ 85

13.12 Councillor Nomination to Cape Byron Marine Park Advisory Committee..................... 88

Sustainable Environment and Economy

13.13 Report of the Planning Review Committee Meeting held on 22 February 2018............ 90

13.14 PLANNING - Development Application 10.2017.619.1 Staged Development - Stage 1 Strata Subdivision to Create Two (2) Lots , Stage 2 Alterations and Additions to Existing Shed to Create a Detached Dual Occupancy 19 Aloota Crescent Ocean Shores.................................... 93

13.15 PLANNING - Update on Environmental Zone review and Planning Proposal implementation process....................................................................................................................................... 106

13.16 Easy to do Business Program ...................................................................................... 117

13.17 Byron Shire Bush Fire Prone Land Mapping................................................................ 120

13.18 PLANNING - Development Application 10.2017.163.1 for Alterations and Additions to Existing Dwelling House including a Garage, Studio, Roofed Deck and Temporary Storage Shed with Attached Carport to be Decommissioned at the Completion of Construction at 126 Coolamon Scenic Drive Ewingsdale .......................................................................................................... 126

13.19 PLANNING - Development Application 10.2017.450.1 Dual Occupancy (Detached) and Strata Subdivision at 40 Charlotte Street Bangalow................................................................ 140

13.20 PLANNING - Development Application 10.2017.715.1 Farm Stay Accommodation 252 Middle Pocket Road Middle Pocket......................................................................................... 153

13.21 PLANNING - Development Application 10.2017.600.1 - Strata Subdivision to create two (2) Strata Lots at 10 Rangal Road, Ocean Shores ...................................................................... 172

13.22 PLANNING - 24.2017.82.1 'Housekeeping' Amendment - Byron DCP 2014 (Various Chapters)....................................................................................................................................... 184

13.23 Expressions of Interest for the Multi Use of Byron Shire Rail Corridor........................ 192

13.24 Update - Barrio Eatery and Bar, 1 Porter Street, Byron Bay - Enforcement proceedings 194

Infrastructure Services

13.25 Loan Funding - Eureka Bridge Embankment Repairs and Replacement of Five Bridges 197

13.26 Tyagarah Clothes Optional Declaration - results of the enhanced stakeholder safety initiatives of Res 17-499 and Res 17-715................................................................................................. 203

13.27 Interim Parking Permits - fees and charges................................................................. 208

13.28 Tyagarah Airfield Plan Management .......................................................................... 213

13.29 Water and Sewer Equivalent Tenements Policy.......................................................... 217

13.30 Review of Council's Smoke Free Outdoor Areas Policy.............................................. 219

13.31 Ewingsdale Road and Sunrise Boulevard Roundabout ............................................... 222

14. Reports of Committees

Corporate and Community Services

14.1 Report of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 30 November 2017 231

14.2 Report of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 15 February 2018 234

Infrastructure Services

14.3 Report of the Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting held on 13 February 2018....................................................................................................................................... 237

14.4 Report of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 12 February 2018................. 240

15. Questions With Notice

15.1 Agglomerated Data on Dwelling Supply in Byron Shire............................................... 244

15.2 Byron Bay Bypass......................................................................................................... 245

16. Confidential Reports

Corporate and Community Services

16.1 Confidential - Development Application 10.2017.474.1 multidwelling housing consisting of twenty five (25) 1 bedrooms 70-90 Station Street Mullumbimby................................. 246

Infrastructure Services

16.2 Confidential - Tender 2017-0053 Replace 5 Bridges Evaluation Recommendation 248

16.3 Confidential - Tender 2017-0011 Suffolk Park Community Hall Upgrade........... 250

16.4 Confidential - Tender 2017-0014 Construction of Concrete Roundabout and Road Reconstruction at the Intersection of Bayshore Drive and Ewingsdale Road, Byron Bay 252

16.5 Confidential - Tender 2017-0064 Blindmouth Creek Crossing Tender Evaluation 254

16.6 Confidential - Tender 2017-0027 Suffolk Beachfront Holiday Park Alterations and Additions to Existing Amenities Building........................................................................................... 256

16.7 Confidential - Aquisition of land for 5 Bridges Replacement Program................. 258

16.8 Confidential - Tender 2017-0066 Landslip Remediation....................................... 259

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

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion 9.1

Notices of Motion

Notice of Motion No. 9.1 Independent review of Byron Shire Council’s organisation and governance

File No: I2018/217

I move that Council engage an independent consultant to undertake an organisation and governance review of the council to provide information for the incoming General Manager and the community in relation to the current state of Byron Shire Council, and that the review should consider:

1. Council’s compliance with: current legislation and BSC policy and strategic frameworks

2. A review of current policies, procedures and practices in relation to:

a) community consultation and community engagement processes including committees

b) compliance management

c) tendering procedures

d) public land management including leases and licences

e) human resources management

f) internal audit processes

g) infrastructure management

h) financial and investment management

i) planning and development application processes

3. A review of best practice policies, including information to improve current systems in relation to all areas identified in part 2

Attachments:

1 Confidential - Internal Audit Review Report - Corporate Compliance & Policy Management OCM, E2017/108208

2 Confidential - Internal Audit Review Report - Buildings and Property Management OCM, E2018/10497

3 Confidential - Quote to perform Compliance and Governance Review 020318, E2018/17273

4 Confidential - Internal audit activity status report, E2018/9927

Signed: Cr Simon Richardson

Councillor’s supporting information:

With the process underway to replace out going General Manager, we have a good window of opportunity to ensure that Council’s house is in order when we appoint a new General Manager and any needs for the organisation’s improved efficiency are made clear. I believe this review would be a great benefit for the organisation and the new General Manager.

Source of Funds (if applicable):

To be determined by staff

Staff comments by Anna Vinfield, Manager Corporate Services, Corporate and Community Services:

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

Officers have sought a proposal from Council’s appointed audit, risk and improvement service provider O’Connor Marsden and Associates (OCM) to address the above mentioned review. OCM’s proposal is included as per attachment 3 and outlined in this response.

In addition to the proposal from OCM, it should also be noted that Council has an Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee, an adopted four-year audit program, and a significant body of previous audits which address some of the requested review components.

The below table outlines the review components and whether these have been addressed previously or are included on the forward audit plan.

Review components	Comments
1. Current legislation and BSC policy and strategic frameworks	OCM completed a review of Council’s corporate compliance and policy management in November 2017, finding that no matters of significance (high or extreme risk) were identified. Previously Grant Thornton completed a review of Council’s governance and complaints handling in 2015-16, with an overall rating of acceptable. Grant Thornton also conducted a review of Council’s Business Continuity Plan (BCP) and Disaster Recover Plan (DRP) in 2016-2017. OCM will complete a further review of Council’s BCP and DRP in 2019-20, as well as reviews of risk management (2019-20), project management (2019-20) and grants management (2018-19).
2. a) Community consultation and community engagement processes including committees	OCM will conduct a review of Council’s customer service in 2018-19. Community consultation and engagement has not specifically been included on the four-year audit plan.
b) Compliance management	Grant Thornton conducted a Regulatory Enforcement review in 2014-15.
c) Tendering procedures	A contract management review was completed by Grant Thornton in 2013-14. Grant Thornton also completed an inventory control review in 2015-16 and a procurement review was undertaken in 2015-16. OCM will conduct a review of Council’s procurement and tendering processes in 2020-21.
d) Public land management including leases and licences	Leases were addressed as part of the January 2018 Buildings and Property Audit conducted by OCM. Public land management has not been undertaken with either Grant Thornton or OCM.
e) Human resources management	A work, health and safety review was conducted by Grant Thornton in 2014-15. Grant Thornton also completed a further review of training, recruitment and succession planning in 2016-17. OCM will complete a review of Council’s succession planning and talent management in 2019-20.
f) Internal audit processes	An independent review of Council’s internal audit processes has not been or scheduled to be undertaken.
g) Infrastructure management	OCM conducted a review of Council’s building and property management in February 2018. As part of this review, OCM concluded that opportunities to increase effectiveness in building and property management were identified. OCM will conduct a further review of Council’s asset management in 2020-21, and pay parking systems and processes. Water supply and sewer infrastructure were reviewed by Grant Thornton in 2013-14. Grant Thornton also reviewed Council’s asset management (key asset infrastructure) in 2016-17.
h) Financial and investment management	OCM will complete reviews of Council’s payroll and cash management in 2018-19. Grant Thornton completed a financial controls including investments review in 2013-2014 and billings and collections review at Council in 2014-15.
i) Planning and development application processes	Section 603 and 149 Certificates were reviewed by Grant Thornton in 2013-14. Grant Thornton also completed a development assessments review in 2015-16 and developer contributions review in 2016-17. OCM are scheduled to conduct a review of Council’s development assessment and developer contributions in 2020-21.

Role of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee

Council’s Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee reports to Council independently of management and provides appropriate advice and recommendations on matters concerning the good corporate governance of Council including performance improvement and risk management.

The objective of the Committee is to provide professional, independent advice and assistance to Council in assessing the organisation’s audit, compliance, risk and improvement performance. The Committee is assisted by appointed auditors.

At Council’s Ordinary meeting on 22 June 2017, Council resolved (17-252) to appoint O’Connor Marsden and Associates (OCM) as the audit, risk and improvement service provider for the four year contract period 2017 – 2021. OCM offers extensive experience in the fields of internal audit, probity audit, procurement, risk management, governance and workplace conduct.

Audit program

OCM conducted an internal audit review of Council’s Corporate Compliance and Policy Management in November 2017, which reviewed Council’s framework for complying with legislation and its policy objectives (addressing points 1 and 2b of the motion). OCM’s report (Confidential Attachment 1) includes their findings and management response from staff.

During the internal audit, evidence of better practice of corporate compliance and policy management was noted, which included:

· Council representatives interviewed indicated that they had a strong corporate compliance culture;

· Council has documented many of its corporate compliance obligations into its Policies and Procedures;

· For many of its policies and procedures Council provides training to Councillors and its workforce to ensure that they understand the importance of those specific corporate compliance obligations. Key examples include the induction process, changes to payroll awards, and code of conduct; and

· Council staff members work with specialised local government networks to stay abreast of changes to corporate compliance requirements.

During this review, no matters of significance (high or extreme risk) were identified. A number of improvements were recommended which are being progressed by officers. These include:

· Corporate Compliance Framework

· Prioritising compliance obligations

· Improvements to integrity controls

In January 2018, OCM completed an internal audit review of buildings and property management (addressing point 2g of the motion). The audit was comprehensive and reviewed a number of business units. OCM’s report has been attached to this report (Confidential Attachment 2).

During this review, no matters of significance (high or extreme risk) were identified. A number of improvements were recommended and officers are progressing to develop a more detailed work program of how to implement the recommendations. These include:

· Asset Management Framework – Asset Management Working Group

· Asset Management Framework – Allocation of Asset Management Responsibilities

· Corporate Knowledge

· Lease, Licence and Management Contracts

· Section 355 Managed Community Facilities

OCM will conduct further internal audit reviews of Council practices and processes as part of their four-year audit program. A schedule of these reviews, which cover a number of points raised in the motion, is contained in Council’s Internal Audit Plan (endorsed by Council at its 26 October 2017 Ordinary Meeting) and is listed below:

· Fraud and Corruption Control

· IT User Access

· Cash Management

· Payroll

· Customer Service

· Pay Parking Systems and Processes

· Grants Management

· Project Management

· Risk Management

· BC/DR Planning

· Succession Planning and Talent Management

· Asset Management

· Child Care Services

· Development Assessment and Developer Contributions

· Procurement and Tendering

Previous audit program

Prior to OCM’s appointment, Grant Thornton was Council’s internal auditor. Their audit program included:

· Financial Controls including investments (2013-2014)

· Contract Management and Project Management Review (2013-2014)

· Water Supply and Sewer Infrastructure (2013-2014)

· Dealing with Emergencies Review 2014 (2013-2014)

· Section 603 & 149 Certificates Review (2013-2014)

· Regulatory Enforcement Review (2014-2015)

· Billings and Collections (2014-2015)

· Work Health & Safety Review (2014-2015)

· Inventory Control Review (2015-2016)

· Governance and Complaints Handling (2015-2016)

· Development Assessments Review (2015-2016)

· Procurement Review (2015-2016)

· Developer Contributions Review (2016-2017)

· Training, Recruitment and Succession Review (2016-2017)

· Business Continuity Plan/Disaster Recover Plan (2016-2017)

· Asset Management – Key Asset Infrastructure (2016-2017)

A status update on these audits and their recommendations is included at Attachment 4.

Organisation and governance review proposal

Council staff have liaised with OCM regarding the motion and received a quotation for the proposed audits to be undertaken (Confidential Attachment 3), which proposes a four stage approach for the engagement which would be conducted as follows:

1. Consider Council’s Legislative Compliance Approach;

2. Perform a detailed review of the current policies, procedures and practices;

3. Compare Council’s policies, processes and practices to better practice; and

4. Collate the results.

The engagement is expected to take 82 days, with a proposed fee of $110,700 (excluding GST). The breakdown of the proposed fee per phase, as well as a draft schedule for the audit, is contained in Confidential Attachment 3.

There is an opportunity to reduce the scope of the audit by conducting desktop reviews or limiting the business areas to be tested.

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

The proposed fee is $110,700. This is not included in the 2017/18 budget and to proceed would require Council to allocate a budget to do so to comply with resolution 18-111 part 5.

That Council reaffirm that no expenditure is to occur without an approved budget backed by resolution of Council.

To fund the quoted expenditure, Council would need to reduce current budget allocations or assign funds from an internal reserve away from the purpose of the reserve to undertake this task.

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

Yes

CORPORATE MANAGEMENT: Effective leadership and ethical and accountable decision making

Objective CM1 Effective governance, business, project and financial management

Strategy CM1.1 Council will be efficient, transparent and accountable to all its stakeholders

Strategy CM1.3 Improve organisational sustainability (economic, social, environmental and governance)

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion 9.2

Notice of Motion No. 9.2 Funding for the Implementation of Town Masterplan Projects

File No: I2018/389

I move that Council:

1. Acknowledge the important work completed by those involved in the Byron Bay Masterplan and the subsequent work by the Byron Bay Town Centre Master Plan Leadership Group

2. Acknowledge the importance of ensuring the recommendations and projects identified within the development of masterplans are enacted and implemented

3. Acknowledge the importance of ensuring recurrent funding is identified and reserved to implement works and recommendations within these masterplans.

4. Ensure that, at least 50% of paid parking revenue allocations to Byron Bay are reserved for implementing masterplan projects.

Signed: Cr Simon Richardson

Councillor’s supporting information:

A Masterplan needs to live and breathe and not simply sit on shelf and all too often, this has been the case.

Very early on, Council understood the need for ensuring that projects and recommendations emanating from the masterplan could be funded and implemented. Whilst Council does have section 94 funds that can be used for masterplan projects, they would obviously need to be decided by Council and prioritised against other projects, in other areas.

This is how most things receive funding and this is an appropriate funding process that could be applied to masterplan projects also.

However, I believe the Masterplan requires a more explicit, transparent and recurrent funding process to ensure that projects are funded and can come to life.

The Byron Bay Town Centre Master Plan Leadership Group (BBTCMP-LG) have spent many months and in some cases years working to deliver both a wonderful and much needed masterplan and to deliver projects identified within it.

With a recurrent funding source they can begin to prioritise projects more accurately, begin to work on philanthropic partnerships, and begin to seek external grants to compliment or match these clearly identified funding levels.

The Masterplan process was one of the most widely engaged with council endeavours in our history, certainly by far within my 10 years on council, and the final presentations shared to two full Community Centre local audiences illustrated the broad consensus that works were needed and that this was a robust, exciting, relevant and supported guidebook for future town planning.

Staff comments by James Brickley, Manager Finance, Corporate and Community Services:

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

Parts 1 to 3 of this Notice of Motion is requesting Council to acknowledge the following:

· The important work completed by those involved in the Byron Bay Masterplan and the subsequent work by the Byron Bay Town Centre Master Plan Leadership Group

· The importance of ensuring the recommendations and projects identified within the development of masterplans are enacted and implemented

· The importance of ensuring recurrent funding is identified and reserved to implement works and recommendations within these masterplans.

Part 4 of this Notice of Motion is requiring Council to reallocate 50% of paid parking revenue for Byron Bay to implementation of Masterplan projects. The financial implications of Part 4 are as follows:

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

From the outset, it is a matter for Council to determine the allocation of pay parking revenue. The only restriction to this is that the pay parking revenue generated on the Main Beach Crown Reserve less an apportionment of cost to manage the pay parking scheme must be allocated to and expended on the Main Beach Crown Reserve.

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 1 February 2018 most recently confirmed by resolution how pay parking revenue is to be allocated as follows:

18-023 Resolved:

1. That Council note:

i) the commitment to ensure ‘at least 50%’ of paid parking revenue from Byron Bay is committed to projects in Byron Bay has been met;

ii) Shire-wide community support for paid parking is based on an equitable distribution of revenue throughout the Shire to address impacts on infrastructure from tourism.

2. That Council affirm that 50% of all non-Crown paid parking revenue from Byron Bay continue to be used to fund projects in Byron Bay.

3. That the distribution of all paid parking revenue be reviewed should additional paid parking schemes be implemented.

4. That in order to provide information on the projects funded by revenue obtained from paid parking, Council produce a paid parking information table on its website that clearly displays: estimated revenue, particular projects, estimated cost of project, actual cost of project, and completion status of project. (Cameron/Richardson)

If part 4 of this Notice of Motion is linked to resolution 18-023 and utilising the actual pay parking revenues generated for the 2016/2017 financial year, the table below presents an indicative amount of pay parking revenue that would be directed to Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan projects. This represents 50% of the 50% of non-Crown pay parking revenue allocated to Byron Bay or in other words 25% of all non-Crown pay parking revenue.

Item	Value $
Gross parking meter and permit revenue	3,518,336
Less: Parking scheme operational costs	(1,061,881)
Net revenue available	2,456,455
Less: Apportionment of net revenue to Crown Pay Parking Reserve	(484,578)
Remaining revenue available	1,971,877
50% remaining revenue allocated to Byron Bay	985,939
50% remaining revenue from Byron Bay reallocated to Town Centre Masterplan projects	492,969

Based on the table above, Council as a guide would be reallocating in the vicinity of $500,000 per annum of pay parking revenue to Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan projects.

Council through the budget process and subsequent quarterly budget reviews has fully allocated all non-Crown pay parking revenue expected to be derived in the 2017/2018 financial year including any unexpended non-Crown pay parking revenue brought forward from the 2016/2017 financial year assuming all funded projects are completed. It is recommended that should Council adopt this Notice of Motion, the structural change to the allocation of pay parking revenue not commence until the 2018/2019 financial year.

Council Improvement Plan (CIP)

Council in June 2015 submitted it’s adopted CIP to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) for assessment on behalf of the NSW Government. Following that assessment, Council was declared ‘Fit for the Future’. In the CIP Council made a number of commitments to meet pre-determined benchmarks by 2019/2020. These commitments included the following:

· Introduction of pay parking with revenue allocated to asset renewal.

· Introduction of a Special Rate Variation of 10% per annum for four years with Council subsequently implementing a 7.5% Special Rate Variation for four years.

· Rationalisation and sale of surplus land assets including Lot 12 Bayshore Drive to fund asset renewal with Council subsequently determining not to sell this property and consider other uses.

If part 4 of this Notice of Motion is adopted by Council, this will also change Council’s CIP position given the reallocation of pay parking funds to what could be considered in the main new assets in lieu of asset renewal. New assets will also create future maintenance obligations to be funded once constructed. It is not clear what will be required after 2019/2020 in respect of the projections Council indicated it would achieve in its CIP and it would seem the emphasis on ‘Fit for the Future’ has gone off the local government agenda in NSW. However, the Office of Local Government are requiring Council annually to report against the CIP benchmarks so this is something Council should consider and whether other decisions need to be made in relation to CIP outcomes considering decisions already made and the decision presented in part 4 of this Notice of Motion.

Summary

It is a matter for Council to determine where and how pay parking revenue derived is allocated. Council has made commitments to the CIP in June 2015 by resolution that focused on addressing asset maintenance and renewal. Pay parking revenue was a significant contributor to the CIP outcomes and Council’s declaration as ‘Fit for the Future’. Council has subsequently made commitments to the Town Masterplan process and implementation of those outcomes which will in many instances create new assets and not address asset renewal. Should Council adopt part 4 of this Notice of Motion, it will provide a recurrent funding source for the implementation of Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan projects but reduce funding to asset renewal and the ability to reduce infrastructure backlog. However, the determination of what is the priority for the use of pay parking revenue is a decision for Council but it is important whatever decision Council determines it is aware of the potential implications of the decision may create.

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

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

Action: Develop town and village Masterplans that promote place-making, access and inclusion

Operational Plan 2017-2018 (YEAR 1): Continue to implement Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan

Definition of the project/task:

Acknowledging the importance of the Masterplan projects and nominating a recurrent funding stream to implement Masterplan projects. Council consideration of reallocating part of pay parking revenue to this purpose.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion 9.4

Notice of Motion No. 9.4 Public Access - Budget Estimates

File No: I2018/402

I move:

1. That the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) conduct a Public Access (Budget Estimates) meeting during the exhibition of the 2018/19 draft budget to allow for questions from members of the public on the draft budget to be addressed by the General Manager and Directors.

2. That the objectives of the Public Access (Budget Estimates) meeting are

a) Promote understanding of the structure and content of Council finances and budget process

b) Provide opportunity for residents to seek and receive detailed responses to questions on items in the draft budget.

c) Provide opportunity for staff and Councillors to engage with residents in an informative and open manner.

d) Encourage submissions on the draft budget during the exhibition period.

3. That Council adopt the timing and procedure of the meeting in the ‘Proposal’ in the attached Councillor notes as the model for a Public Access (Budget Estimates) meeting.

4. That a media release, website notice and social media engagement announce the concept of the Public Access (Budget Estimates) and similar measures are utilised with details of the arrangements for the key dates during the budget prior to the meeting at which Council adopts the draft budget for exhibition in the ’Proposal’ as set out in the attached Councillor notes.

Signed: Cr Basil Cameron

Councillor’s supporting information:

Council has established a Community Solutions Panel (CSP) to inform Council and the 2018/19 budget of priorities for infrastructure spending. A key aspect of the CSP is for panelists to be provided with and to seek detailed information on Council finances and process in forming recommendations.

The same principle can be applied to informing the community on finances, administration and the choices and challenges confronting Council and the community.

Staff have recently proposed an improved budget process for Councillors that incorporates an additional all Councillor workshop solely on the budget.

This is also consistent with the recent commitment by the Executive team to the Future of Local Government Declaration Key Principles as referred to and set out in another Notice of Motion to this meeting.

The Proposal is that the meeting be timed in line with the following budget timeframes

Week 1 - Council exhibits adopted draft budget and invites submissions.

Week 2 - Registration of questions

Week 3 - CSP meets

Week 4 - Submissions close

A meeting in week three provides residents with the opportunity of looking at the documents prior to the meeting and still have time to finalise a submission.

The public access meeting occur in week three of the exhibition with GM, SEE, CIS, CCS directorates rotating throughout the day.

9.30 - 10.45

11.15 - 1.00

1.00- 2.00 Lunch

2.00 - 3.15

3.45 - 5.00

The meeting to be held in the chambers and be open to the pubic. A live social media engagement be included for publication of questions and answers.

Residents can register questions during week two so that staff have time to provide a response to the resident prior to the meeting, which is published. A satisfied resident may choose not to ask a question at the meeting. Those seeking clarification or to ask a supplementary question can choose to ask the question at the meeting. This should maximise the number of questions considered and provide for higher quality responses.

The queue for questions be determined at the end of week two by order of registrations or by ballot if the number of registrations for each directorate exceeds 10. No more than 10 responses for each directorate to be provided at any time with the queue moving as satisfied residents opt not to progress to asking a question at the meeting. Time may prevent responses from being received by residents prior to the meeting when the queue moves beyond the first 10

Where more than one question is received from a resident, it may be considered once all first questions have progressed in the queue. Only one question from a resident will be included in any ballot to determine the queue.

Procedure at meeting with a realistic expectation of eight or more questions being answered for each directorate.

• Question displayed on screens.

• Resident has one to two minutes to put question.

• Staff response three minutes.

• Councillors may ask followup questions of staff.

• Finance Advisory Committee may make recommendations to Council regarding improvements, procedure, presentation of information and any other matter that improves access to and understanding of information.

All questions with responses generated through the meeting procedure be published.

Recommended priority relative to other Delivery Plan tasks:

High priority in budget development and exhibition process. Improving community engagement should be a high priority.

Definition of the project/task:

Organise and deliver a Public Access (Budget Estimates) meeting of the Finance Advisory Committee as set out in the Councillor notes.

Source of Funds (if applicable):

Staff time within existing budgets

Staff comments by Anna Vinfield, Manager Corporate Services and James Brickley, Manager Finance, Corporate and Community Services:

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

Council has committed to hold a Community Solutions Panel to inform the next Delivery Program. The panel is meeting during March (7, 10, 24, 25 March) and will provide their recommendations to Councillors on 5 2018 April at their Strategic Planning Workshop.

The draft Delivery Program and Budget will be presented to Council at either the 19 April 2017 Ordinary Meeting or an Extraordinary Meeting in May 2018 for endorsement for public exhibition. These documents will then be placed on public exhibition for 28 days with any submissions considered by management prior to the final Delivery Program, Operational Plan and Budget being adopted before 30 June 2018.

As part of public exhibition, it was proposed that an extensive communications and engagement program will be implemented to seek stakeholder and community feedback. This would include media release, e-news, advertising, social media and your say online survey. As part of this process a two hour community workshop after office hours could be held.

The workshop would provide an overview of the budget process, funding sources, key projects and provide an opportunity for questions from the community.

Officers consider that a 2 hour workshop would be more productive.

There is a Finance Advisory Committee proposed for 17 May 2018 that will have agenda items to consider in addition to the Draft 2018/2019 Budget Estimates.

It is also important that any process around the budget estimates is also linked to the draft Delivery and Operational Plans to ensure that the integration between these documents remain intact.

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

Should Council endorse a two hour workshop, limited additional staff time would be required. Advertising expenditure could be included within existing budget allocation.

The proposal outlined in this Notice of Motion will require extensive staff attendance and preparation time.

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

Yes – CM2.1.2 action is to “Incorporate inclusive community consultation and stakeholder engagement in Council decision making”.

In addition Council’s new draft Community Strategic Plan which is currently on public exhibition includes an overarching objective that “we have community-led decision making which is open and inclusive”.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion 9.5

Notice of Motion No. 9.5 Water Sensitive Urban Design

File No: I2018/403

I move:

1. That Council develop a strategy to embed and mainstream Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) into Council's planning instruments and policies.

2. That formulation of the Strategy consider fundamental changes in various development area ratios to retain pervious areas instead of increasing catchment runoff.

3. That the changes made under this strategy on WSUD aim to:

· reduce flood risk in urban areas

· improve water quality in streams, waterbodies and groundwater

· consume less of our water resources

· reduce the cost of providing and maintaining water and sewer infrastructure

· protect and restore aquatic and riparian ecosystems and habitats; and

· protect the scenic, landscape and recreational values of streams and other waterbodies.

4. That the WSUD Strategy generates changes that:

· promote and encourage WSUD in urban areas

· provide guidance and support for businesses and residents to implement WSUD

· give incentives for the implementation of WSUD in new and existing development

5. That progress on the WSUD Strategy be reported to each Water, Waste and Sewerage Advisory Committee and the Coastal Estuary Catchment Panel quarterly meeting, starting with their next meetings in June 2018.

Attachments:

1 South East QLD Healthy Waterways Partnership, 'Concept Design Guidelines for Water Sensitive Urban Design', E2018/18696 ⇨

2 Raingarden Factsheet, E2018/18697 ⇨

3 Ballina Shire Council Urban Stormwater Management Plan, E2018/17837 ⇨

4 Water Sensitive Designs - waterbydesign, E2018/17838 ⇨

Signed: Cr Cate Coorey

Councillor’s supporting information:

The National Water Initiative defines water sensitive urban design as:

The integration of urban planning with the management, protection and conservation of the urban water cycle that ensures urban water management is sensitive to natural hydrological and ecological cycles.

Whilst some of Byron Shire Council’s policies and planning instruments refer to WSUD, there is no overall strategy that places WSUD as a priority principle in planning and development. This NoM seeks to implement WSUD as a cross-cutting issue in all aspects of planning, design and implementation in Council’s activities and in private development. WSUD policies are already in place in many Local Government Areas.

Byron suffers many of the negative impacts of urban development on the natural water cycle such as increased flooding, accelerated sedimentation, poor water quality in urban watercourses, degraded aquatic systems and the high cost of providing urban water infrastructure. Water sensitive design - both in new developments and retrofitted to existing developments can help to counteract many of these impacts.

Often these problems have been compounded by traditional stormwater drainage practices. Traditional water supply, stormwater and wastewater practices have been largely based on centralised collection, conveyance and treatment of water flows. Whilst highly effective, these methods can also have major drawbacks, such as inefficient use of water resources, environmental degradation and rising infrastructure and maintenance costs.

Water Sensitive Urban Design emphasises a decentralised approach that is more attuned to natural environmental processes. It focuses on on-site collection, treatment and utilisation of water flows as part of an integrated treatment path.

Elements in this path may include:

§ using roof water for toilets, washing machines, garden watering or even hot water systems

§ using runoff or wastewater for irrigation

§ infiltrating stormwater to underground aquifers (in areas not affected by urban salinity hazard)

§ using specially designed landscaping to cleanse runoff and conserve water – e.g. swales, raingardens and infiltration ponds.

Implementing a WSUD framework will require internal Council management responsibilities that foster consideration of the whole water cycle for the full asset lifecycle. A multidisciplinary skillset will be required to consider all natural waterways and stormwater assets – across engineering, catchment management, hydrology and drainage design, geomorphology, soils, ecology and vegetation – as well as operational know-how in construction, on-ground works and bush regeneration.

There is a wealth of knowledge already in existence among particular areas of Council. Additionally, many many local governments already have WSUD strategies and policies in place so the ground work is there; we just need to adapt the principles to our specific locations.

Staff comments by James Flockton, Flood and Drainage Engineer, Infrastructure Services:

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

The notice of motion as moved is supported by staff. However, the following comments and information is provided to help guide the Council in their decision making.

Generally WSUD design principles can be implemented through two ways. Council can use WSUD principles as part of Infrastructure renewal and upgrades projects or developers can be required to use WSUD principles as part of the development process.

Infrastructure Works

Previously staff have implemented WSUD practices into drainage design when a simple cost effective WSUD solution has been available. However, more involved expensive solutions have been avoided for three reasons.

i) Council’s capital works budget historically has involved minimal drainage funding which has resulted in an aging and failing system. Council’s current maintenance budget cannot afford to maintain the existing drainage system, let alone fund expensive WSUD improvements.

ii) WSUD solutions can reduce the scope of important road reconstruction projects because a WSUD system would typically be more expensive compared to a traditional system. Unless a simple cheap solution will work into the design.

iii) Council’s maintenance budget has historically had minimal drainage funding making it very difficult to maintain the existing system. WSUD systems would place further pressure on this constrained budget. WSUD systems should not be built if Council cannot afford to maintain them.

Infiltration and / or rain gardens are being developed where feasible. For example the proposed upgrade to Byron Street involves a rain garden along the middle of the upgraded section of Byron Street. This project has been delayed until 2019.

Infrastructure Planning always consider impervious pavements as a design solution when planning projects, however, impervious pavements has not been found to be a practical solution in a project to date.

Previous works that involved WSUD design principles include:

· The car park upgrade to Clarkes Beach car park sends water into a central garden prior to entering a traditional drainage system.

· The Bangalow Wetland system treats stormwater leaving the Bangalow village centre.

· The new sunrise roundabout has a bio-retention basin.

· The recent South Golden Beach drainage upgrades have involved the use of soakage pits in line with WSUD practices.

· The Cavanbah Centre car park uses WSUD principles.

· A recent drainage system upgrade between Jarrah Crescent and Inderwong Avenue removed a pipe system and replaced it with an open drain which allows more infiltration than the previous pipe system.

· Two large bio-retention basins are planned for the Bayshore roundabout.

Developments

Over development of lots with little or no impervious areas is a major cause of Byron Bay’s drainage issues. The original drainage system was not designed to have little pervious areas in the town centre. The town centre is now 95% impervious which results in all run off being directed to an old drainage system that would have been designed with 40-50% impervious areas.

All new development is required either at sub-division or building development stage to install on-site detention which results in the site maintaining pre-development flows. However, in larger events these detention systems will likely be overwhelmed because they cannot feasibly be built to handle larger and prolonged events.

Council’s DCP 2014 includes stormwater quality and treatment outcomes, but it avoided extensive requirements for WSUD principles. The above pre-development flow, quality and treatment requirements do, however, force developers to use some WSUD practices. The reason the DCP does not require WSUD practices is because staff felt that Council do not have the funding to maintain the WSUD systems, therefore, developers should not be forced to install them.

The Northern Rivers Local Government Handbook of Stormwater Drainage Design, found at https://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/Services/Building-development/Plans-maps-and-guidelines/Development-design-manuals includes discussion on WSUD in sections 1.4-1.06

WSUD systems are more costly to maintain for two reasons. Firstly annual maintenance costs to keep the systems running correctly and secondly replacement of vegetation, filtration media or sub-soil drainage at 15-30 year intervals. Typically a traditional drainage system that has been built well will require minimal maintenance annually and replacement at 80-100 year intervals.

The Tallowood sub-division drainage system includes some WSUD principles and more recent sub-divisions in Bangalow also use these principles.

It is expected that the West Byron development will include WSUD design principles.

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

Staff do not currently have the resources to prepare the proposed documents in house, therefore, it would need to be developed through a consultant process. The approximate costs would be as follows:

Policy Development: $3,000-5,000

Shire wide WSUD Plan / Strategy: $10 - 15,000

Update DCP: Nil cost if completed as part of annual update

Should Council adopt as moved it is recommended that a budget of $25,000 be created as part of the resolution to fund the works.

Additionally Council’s drainage capital works and maintenance budgets do not increase as new developments come online. The maintenance budget typically increases marginally each year and the capital works budget typically relies upon the stormwater levy to fund drainage works. The stormwater levy can only be used to provide improved stormwater services, not maintenance or renewals.

The stormwater levy expenditure is currently planned for the next 10 years, resolving stormwater capacity issues. WSUD principles will be used on projects where feasible.

Should a WSUD strategy be developed it is recommended that triggers be developed to increase drainage maintenance budgets in line with the new WSUD assets coming on line each year. i.e more assets, more maintenance funding. A drainage reserve should also be created to fund the more costly repairs to WSUD infrastructure in the longer term. This will help ensure the systems are maintained and operate as per the original design expectations.

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - General Manager 13.1

Staff Reports - General Manager

Report No. 13.1 Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan Leadership Team 2018

Directorate: General Manager

Report Author: Claire McGarry, Place Manager - Byron Bay

File No: I2018/6

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary:

In December 2016, Council established a Leadership Team to provide advice and direction on the delivery of the Byron Bay Town Centre Master Plan (BBTCMP). This group have been working with the Mayor, Councillors and Council staff for 12 months on the implementation of the BBTCMP. In February 2018, Council resolved to review the role and composition of the Team. This report details the background of the Team, reviews its role and composition and proposes a framework for the Team’s operations for its next term.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council adopt the Draft Charter for the Byron Master Plan Guidance Group.

2. That all BBTCMP Leadership Team members be thanked for their input over the past 12 months and invited remain on the Byron Master Plan Guidance Group for its next term.

3. That additional members be appointed as per the group charter to replace any vacating members.

4. That up to three Councillors are nominated as members of the Guidance Group in addition to community members.

Attachments:

1 Charter - Byron Masterplan Guidance Group, E2018/19664 ⇨

Report

Background

At 27 October 2016 Council meeting, Council resolved:

16-555 Resolved:

1. That Council establish a Leadership Team in the form of a Project Reference Group for a period of 12 months:

· To provide advice and direction on the delivery of the BBTCMP actions;

· To identify and actively facilitate, where appropriate, opportunities for partnerships and community collaboration;

· To provide oversight on the timely delivery of actions that are responsive to community needs, acknowledging that the actions of the BBTCMP are flexible and adaptable.

2. Endorse the ‘Terms of Reference’ for the Leadership Team as provided for in the report.

3. That the Leadership Team be comprised of the Mayor, up to 3 Councillors, General Manager or delegate and up to 15 community members to be selected by a direct appointment and or EOI process.

4. Staff progress the Leadership Team membership selection process as per 3 above, and report back the outcome to Council on this at the December Ordinary meeting.

At 19 December 2016 meeting, Council resolved:

16-682 Resolved: That the following community members be nominated to the Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan Leadership Team selected from the respondents at Confidential Attachment 1 (#E2016/103435).

Helen Buckley

Gary Chigwidden

Anne Leitch

Gail Fuller

Byron Rogers

Fleur Verschure

Meredith Wray

Vicki Henricks

Mono Stewart

David Michie

Peggy O'Neill

Troy Eady

Greg Meek

Chris Hanley

Kirra Pendergast

Dan Schreiber

Donald Maughan

Graham Dunn

Mary Gardner

Geoff Bensley

Tony Gembeck

Charlie Wilson

2. That all Councillors are invited to attend meetings of the Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan Leadership Team.

3. That the unsuccessful applicants be notified and requested to apply for working groups within the Masterplan process.

At 1 February 2018 meeting, Council resolved (in part) :

Res 18-027 Review the role and composition of established Town Centre Master Plan Leadership/Guidance Groups so as to ensure that the deliberative principles inherent in guiding the role and participants of the Citizen Jury concept are consistently applied and adopted in Council’s community engagement.

Feedback on the initial 12 months

As per Resolution 18-027, the Leadership Team met on 3 January and 21 February 2018 to review the role and composition of the group. The discussion informed this report and the attached Draft Charter. The below information reflects the feedback provided during these meetings.

While Council initially resolved to establish the team as a Project Reference Group (PRG), it did not function within the normal parameters of a Council PRG. In the second half of 2017 there was evident confusion regarding the function of the Team, and a breakdown in communication channels between Council and the Team. It is recommended that in 2018 the group is re-established as a Guidance Group with an adopted Charter which articulates the group’s role and sets clear parameters on its operations to ensure clarity and transparency.

Additional feedback from the Team has been incorporated into the Draft Charter, and includes:

· A roll-over clause is needed to ensure existing members can remain on the group if they want to and historical knowledge is retained

· The frequency and timing of meetings should align with Council’s meeting schedule to ensure the group’s recommendations inform Council decision-making

· An executive should be appointed and minutes officially taken and published

· A clear communication channel is needed between Council staff, Councillors and the Team

· The Place Manager role is critical to the functioning of this group and coordination across Council project teams

· The Team should be notified of any projects happening within the town centre

· A minimum quorum (half + 1) is required for meetings – the group can actively recruit additional members if a quorum is not being met regularly

· A 2 year term for the group (and reviewed with the appointment of a new Councnil), with an understanding that the group can recruit and appoint up to 4 members to replace vacating members at any stage. Any additional members (over and above 4) to be recruited will be done by Council through an Expression of Interest process.

Group feedback highlights that while some Citizen Jury principles (such as ensuring a diversity of interests and a mix of representatives of the community) are applicable and will be incorporated into this group, the Citizen Jury model is not the best model for this Guidance Group who have been intentionally selected because of the skills and knowledge they bring to the Masterplan implementation and their ability to represent key stakeholders within the community. Additionally, the Citizen Jury model is best suited to a single question or problem for a group to address within a set timeframe. The complexity and diversity of projects within the Masterplan require a dedicated group working collaboratively over a long period with Council to ensure consistency across all elements of the implementation.

The Guidance Group members were previously and will be selected based on their skills-base, and the knowledge and expertise they can bring to the project. Specifically, representatives of the following groups will be actively sought:

· Residents / progress association member

· Indigenous community representative

· Community service provider / centre

· Chamber of commerce member / town centre business owner

· Local developer / developer’s representative

· Tourism industry

· Artist / creative

· Local architect, landscape architect or urban planner

· Sustainability / landcare / environmental group member

· Seniors 65+ representative

· Youth representative / youth worker / student union representative

· Historical society member

· School and preschool principal / representative

· Parents of school aged children

· Sporting group

· Local community club (eg RSL, bowling club)

It is envisaged that Guidance Group Charters for the future implementation phase of other Place Plans (including the Bangalow Village Plan and Mullumbimby Masterplan) will be tailored to fit the uniqueness of each town and Guidance Group, using the fundamental framework of the BBTCMP Charter as a guide for preparation.

Recommendation

Staff recommend:

1. That Council adopt the Draft Charter for the Byron Master Plan Guidance Group.

2. That all BBTCMP Leadership Team members be thanked for their input over the past 12 months and invited remain on the Byron Master Plan Guidance Group for the next term.

3. That additional members are appointed as per the group charter to replace any vacating members.

4. That up to three Councillors are nominated as members of the Guidance Group in addition to community members.

Financial Implications

A small budget will be required to cater for 12 meetings, room hire and other associated costs for operating the Guidance Group. A small budget allocation for future community engagement activities would also be required.

It is recommended that a budget of $10,000 be allocated to the activities of this group in the next quarterly review process.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Guide to Operations – Advisory Committees and Panels

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.5

Report No. 13.5 Proposed Amendments to Council's Code of Meeting Practice

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Ralph James, Legal Counsel

David Royston-Jennings, Corporate Governance Officer

File No: I2018/237

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary:

The Office of Local Government (OLG) is consulting with Councils and other stakeholders on the new Model Code of Meeting Practice for Local Councils in NSW (draft Code). Once this is finalised, it will replace the meeting rules currently prescribed in the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 . Finalisation and implementation are not expected for some time.

On 8 February 2018 a workshop was held with Councillors in relation to the draft Code.

Part of the workshop focused on that part of the draft Code which dealt with public forums. The draft Code provides that a public forum would be an entity separate to a meeting of Council and that the public forum would not form part of the agenda of a meeting of Council.

Councillors were not in favour of that part of the draft Code and instructed staff to make a submission accordingly. However, Councillors indicated that staff should consider, and submit to Council, proposed amendments to the provisions of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice dealing with Public Access.

Councillors also requested staff to consider, and to submit to Council, proposed amendments to the provisions of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice dealing with Public Questions and submissions.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the draft amendments to Clause 22 and Schedule A of the Code of Meeting Practice be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.

2. That in the event:

a) that any submissions are received on the draft amendments to Clause 22 and Schedule A of the Code of Meeting Practice those submissions be reported back to Council prior to the adoption of the amended Code;

b) that no submissions are received on the draft amendments to Clause 22 and Schedule A of the Code of Meeting Practice the amendments be adopted and incorporated into the Code and that the amended Code be incorporated into Council’s Policy Register.

Attachments:

1 Clause 22 in the form it would appear if all proposed amendments were accepted , E2018/16039 ⇨

Report

Preamble

The Australasian LG Performance Excellence Program FY17 report found that South Australian councils tend to have longer meetings, spending a median of 146 minutes (2.4 hours). In comparison, New South Wales councils spend a median of 120 minutes, (down from 139 minutes in the prior year). Western Australian councils show an increase in meeting duration - 105 minutes (1.9 hours), up from 82 minutes in the previous year.

The report went on to state that:

For Councillors to make effective and informed decisions on policy settings, as well as council strategy, they require timely and succinct information prior to the meeting, clear agendas, and adequate time devoted to each element of the agenda to enable proper consideration of the issues.

The recommended amendments to Public Access will not bring the length of Council meetings to the median times referred to above. That is not the intention.

The amendments recommended are intended to create time to enable Council to devote the requisite attention to the items on the agenda (as it presently does), whilst at the same time preserving the ability of the community to have input into those items and to other issues before Council, and to achieve both within the framework of a more time efficient meeting.

Background

Amendments made to the Local Government Act 1993 in August 2017 by the Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning) Act 2016 provide for a model code of meeting practice to be prescribed by regulation.

The Office of Local Government is consulting with councils and other stakeholders on the new Model Code of Meeting Practice for Local Councils in NSW (draft Code). Once this is finalised, it will replace the meeting rules currently prescribed in the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (the Regulation).

The draft Code has been designed to achieve a range of outcomes, namely:

· promoting, as the principal object of meetings, the making of decisions by the governing bodies of Councils that are in the best interests of the Council and the community as a whole

· promoting more accessible, orderly, effective and efficient meetings and to provide Councils with the tools to achieve these outcomes

· prescribing principles to inform the way in which meetings are conducted and to prescribe meeting rules that are consistent with these principles

· codifying areas of common practice across Councils in a way that is clear, efficient, leads to better informed and more effective decision making and that is consistent with the requirements of the Act

· promoting greater consistency between Councils across the state in key areas of meetings practice without losing the ability to allow some variation in practice to meet local needs or expectations

· allowing greater flexibility in the conduct of meetings to accommodate a range of potential scenarios that are not addressed by the current meeting rules

· simplifying the language currently used to make the prescribed meeting rules more accessible and easier to understand

· modernising the rules to accommodate current and emerging technologies (e.g. electronic notice, electronic voting systems and webcasting).

On 8 February 2018 a workshop was held with Councillors in relation to the draft Code. Part of that workshop focused on that part of the draft Code which dealt with public forums. The draft Code provides that a public forum would be an entity separate to a meeting of Council and that the public forum would not form part of the agenda of a meeting of Council.

Councillors also requested staff to consider, and to submit to Council, proposed amendments to the provisions of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice dealing with Public Questions and submissions.

Public Access

The purpose of Public Access is to raise issues with the Council and present ideas and is not a method of community consultation.

Public Access is presently addressed in clause 22 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice and in Schedule A thereof.

22. PUBLIC ACCESS

22.1 The first hour of each meeting will be allocated to Public Access to allow people to make submissions on matters listed on the Agenda for that meeting.

22.2 If, after all scheduled submissions on items on the Agenda, time remains within the first hour of the meeting, at the discretion of the Chairperson the meeting can commence or the Public Access session can continue for submissions on items that are not on the Agenda.

22.3 It is possible that not all requests to make submissions on items on the Agenda will always be able to be accommodated within the Public Access part of the meeting. Members of the public are encouraged to make their submissions in writing before the Council meeting in case there is insufficient time on the day of the meeting to accommodate all requests for Public Access.

22.4 A motion to extend the Public Access part of the meeting for an extra 30mins for scheduled submissions on items on the Agenda for that meeting may be considered by Council.

22.5 Only one Procedural Motion for extension to the Public Access part of the meeting for submissions on items on that Agenda may be considered at a meeting. In circumstances deemed by the Chairperson to be exceptional, additional extensions may be considered.

22.6 A motion to extend the Public Access part of the meeting is a Procedural Motion. It must be proposed and need not be seconded.

22.7 The Chairperson shall give precedence to the Procedural Motion.

22.8 No debate or amendments shall be permitted on the Procedural Motion.

22.9 If a Procedural Motion to extend the Public Access part of the meeting is not supported by the majority of Councillors entitled to vote on it then it may not be re-introduced.

SCHEDULE A

*Public Access relating to items on this Agenda, general submissions or questions to Councillors can be made between 9.00am and 10:00am on the day of the meeting, an extension of 15 minutes may be permitted if resolved by Council.

1. Public Access on an item on the Agenda: People wanting to speak to items on the Agenda will be listed for public access in the same order the items appear on the Agenda. People can request up to three speeches each with additional speeches by the same organisation/speaker being accommodated if time permits. Requests must make clear whether the speaker is speaking generally in favour of, or against the recommended action(s). Time allowed is five minutes for and five minutes against each item. If there is more than one speaker the time allocated is to be shared.

2. Representations by members of the public under Section 10A(4) of the Local Government Act, regarding a recommendation for the closure of a part of meeting for the consideration of a confidential item/s, will be included as a Public Access matter on the related item listed in the Agenda. Members of the public may address the meeting on the closure. Time allowed is five minutes per item.

3. Submissions from members of the public: Time allowed is two minutes per submission. A person is only permitted one submission per meeting.

4. Questions from members of the public to Councillors. Time allowed is one minute per question and one question per meeting.

Note: Questions are to be on current agenda items or current issues before Council.

5. Councillors may ask questions of people speaking to items on the Agenda, making a submission or asking a question.

6. Responses to questions not provide at the meeting but taken on notice will be tabled in the next agenda papers.

What both clause 22.1 and the preamble to Annexure A make clear is that Public Access is intended to occupy the first hour only of Council’s Ordinary Meeting.

The following table sets out the duration of Public Access during the present Council term. It also includes the breakdown of items included in Public Access.

The column “Public Access duration” shows that of the 18 hours which the Code of Meeting Practice allocates to Public Access it has, in fact, occupied 25.7 hours. An overrun of almost 8 hours is akin to one extra meeting attended by Councillors in its term to date.

The column “Agenda items f/a” reflects the number of agenda items on which presentations were made. The figure in brackets next to that number represents the number of speakers who registered to speak.

The figures in the column “multiple speakers and number of items” represents the number of speakers who registered to speak on multiple items in for or against agenda items e.g. on 23/11/2017 one person registered to speak on two items, another on three items and another on three items.

The figures in the columns “Questions” and “Submissions” represent the number of questions and submissions included in Public Access.

A consistent pattern has been emerging for almost 12 months where individuals register to speak on multiple items in Agenda f/a and also register to ask a question/s and also to make a submission/s.

The figure in brackets in the columns “Questions” and “Submissions” indicates the number of questions or submissions asked by a person who was a multiple speaker on agenda items.

Meeting Date	Starting Time	Public Access duration	Agenda items f/a	Multiple speakers and number of items	Questions	Submissions
6/10/2016	9.00am	58 mins	5 (7)	0	0	0
27/10/2016	9.00am	40 mins	3 (4)	0	1	1
17/11/2016	9.00am	1 hr 11 mins	5 (9)	0	0	0
15/12/2016	9.00am	1 hr 47 mins	10 (21)	0	0	0
02/02/2017	9.00am	38 mins	4 (6)	1x2	1	2
23/02/2017	4.00pm	40 mins	4 (7)	1x2	2	2
23/03/2017	9.00am	1 hr 47 mins	7 (13)	0	0	0
20/04/2017	9.00am	1 hr 30 mins	8 (12)	1x5	2 (1)	1
25/05/2017	9.00am	1 hr 37 mins	7 (12)	1x2	3 (1)	3
22/06/2017	9.00am	1 hr 37 mins	10 (13)	1x2;1x3	2 (1)	3 (1)
03/08/2017	9.00am	1 hr 9 mins	7 (8)	1x2;1x3	6 (2)	5 (2)
24/08/2017	4.00pm	46 mins	9 (10)	1x3;1x5	3 (2)	4 (2)
21/09/2017	9.00am	1 hr 47 mins	15 (20)	1x4;1x7	6 (2)	2 (2)
26/10/2017	9.00am	1 hr 54 mins	13 (29)	1x3;1x4	4 (2)	3 (1)
23/11/2017	9.00am	3 hr 3 mins	22 (35)	1x2;1x3;1x3	7 (2)	1(1)
14/12/2017	9.00am	2 hr 1 mins	16 (13)	1x3;1x3	4 (2)	5 (2)
1/02/2018	9.00am	1 hr	15 (16)	1x3;1x7	5 (2)	4 (1)
22/02/2018	4.00pm	1 hr 37 mins	11 (16)	1x2;1x2	4	3 (1)

Clauses 22.2 and 22.3 and clauses 3 and 4 of Annexure A deal with submissions and public questions.

A strict application of the Code of Meeting Practice would see submissions and public questions not dealt with if speeches for/against items in the agenda were to occupy the first hour of a Council meeting.

Assuming that Council wishes to retain submissions and public questions as part of Public Access and also wishes to have Public Access consume about the one hour provided in the Code of Meeting Practice, the time consumed by speeches for/against items in the agenda needs to be addressed.

Clause 1 of Annexure A provides that people can request up to 3 speeches each with additional speakers by the same organisation/speaker being accommodated if time permits.

The effect of that is that one person can occupy 15 minutes (one quarter) of Public Access time on speeches for/against items on the agenda. This assumes that the person is not sharing 5 minutes with another speaker on the topic. It also assumes that the person speaks for the full 5 minutes.

If two people request their maximum three speeches those two people would occupy 30 minutes (one half) of available Public Access time.

If those same people make a request for one or more submissions and one or more questions the bulk of available Public Access time could be consumed by those people alone.

One way of remedying this issue and thereby making Public Access time more readily available across the board would be to limit speeches for/against items on the agenda to one speech per person and to similarly limit each of submissions and questions to one per person.

The effect of such limitation would cap any individual’s occupation of Public Access time to 8 minutes (speech 5 minutes, submission 2 minutes and question 1 minute).

The recommended amendment to clause 22 provides for this.

Registering to speak in public access

Cause 1 of Annexure A provides that a person requesting Public Access time “must” make clear whether the speaker is speaking generally in favour of or against the recommended action/s.

The draft Code is in similar terms.

For both clarity and consistency persons requesting to make a submission or ask a question should be required to be equally particular were nominating.

In order to enforce this aspect of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice staff need to have the “framework” to refuse Public Access requests that do not meet this requirement.

The following table sets out the frequency of requests for questions/submissions where the subject matter is not disclosed at the time of the request. It also sets out the ratio between those questions/submissions and the total number of questions/submissions.

The table shows the developing of a consistent pattern since May 2017.

Meeting date	Number of questions	Number where subject of question not specified	Number of submissions	Number where subject of submission not specified
25/05/2017	3	2
22/06/2017	2	1	3	1
03/08/2017	6	1	5	1
24/08/2017	3	1	4	1
21/09/2017	5	2	2	1
26/10/2017
23/11/2017	7	1
14/12/2017	4	1	5	1
1/02/2018	5	1
22/02/2018	4	1	3	1

Responses to Public questions

At present responses to public questions, whether or not they are answered during the meeting or taken on notice, are published in the agenda for the next Ordinary Meeting. This is provided for in clause 6 of Annexure A.

A pattern has emerged where a question is asked at a Ordinary Meeting. The answer to the question is included in the next Ordinary Meeting agenda. That answer then becomes the subject of a submission for or against the agenda item. The same subject matter is often included as a fresh question to that Ordinary Meeting whereby the process is repeated.

It is felt that it is more efficient if where a question is asked and is responded to by the General Manager or staff at the meeting that response will be included in the Ordinary Meeting minutes and published on Councils website.

If the question is taken on notice the response can be provided to the person who asked the question and can be posted within the Council Meeting tab on Council’s website.

In both cases the person asking the question would receive a response and that response would be public.

The following is an extract from an email received at Council.

Just as a follow up to show just how productive asking Questions on Notice can be I am attaching a list of the 17 Questions on Notice from 2017 and the staff responses.

It really is a great tool as all of the questions and answers are tabled in the Council Agenda so it is on the Public record.

I just want to encourage all of our member groups to ask as many questions of Council as you can. Once again, you do not even have to attend the meeting. You can just submit your question on notice online through the Council website. It is very easy.

The email promotes the asking of questions on the basis that the answers are on the public record.

The proposed amendment would achieve that purpose.

Recommended amendments

A copy of Clause 22 in the form it would appear if all proposed amendments were accepted is provided at Attachment 1.

It is proposed to incorporate the provisions of Schedule A into Clause 22. The following is the recommended amendments to clause 22 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice with Council able to identify the proposed recommended amendments below in red text.

22. PUBLIC ACCESS

22.1 The first hour of each meeting will be allocated to Public Access to allow people to ~~make submissions on~~ speak in favour of or against the recommendation of matters listed on the Agenda for that meeting.

22.2 If, after all scheduled ~~submissions~~ speeches in favour of or against the recommendation of matters listed ~~on items~~ on the Agenda, time remains within the first hour of the meeting, at the discretion of the Chairperson the meeting can commence or the Public Access session can continue for registered submissions on items that are not on the Agenda or registered questions from members of the public on current agenda items or current issues before Council.

22.3 Requests to address Council during Public Access must be made to the General Manager or the Mayor no later than 12.00pm midday one day prior to the Meeting using the online form available on Councils website, over the phone or in person at Council’s Administration Centre in Mullumbimby. Requests must make clear:

a) whether the speaker is speaking generally in favour of, or against the recommended actions.

b) the subject of any submission.

c) the text of any question

Requests that do not meet the above requirements will not be included in Public Access

22.4 Requests to Address Council during Public Access which are received after the 12.00pm midday deadline the day prior to the Meeting are to be considered at the discretion of the Chairperson.

22.5 People/Organisations wanting to speak in favour of or against items on the Agenda will be listed for Public Access in the same order the items appear on the Agenda.

22.6 A person/organisation is permitted one speech in favour of or against items on the Agenda.

22.7 Five minutes is allocated for speeches in favour of and against items on the Agenda (total ten minutes per agenda item). Should there be more than one speaker addressing Council in favour of or against the recommendation of the same Agenda item, speakers will share the allocated five minutes.

22.8 The Mayor will invite Councillors to ask questions of speakers at the conclusion of their speech in favour of or against an item on the Agenda.

22.9 A person/organisation is permitted to register one submission per meeting on matters that are not on the Agenda.

22.10 Two minutes is allocated for submissions to Councils on matters that are not on the Agenda.

22.11 A person/organisation is permitted to register to ask one question of Council per meeting.

22.12 One minute is allocated per question of Council.

22.13 The Mayor, Councillors or General Manager will provide a response to questions asked of Council at the meeting if possible. That response will be included in the meeting minutes. If a response is unable to be provided the question will be taken on notice, with an answer to be provided to the person/organisation prior to the next Ordinary Meeting and placed on Councils website under the Council Meetings tab.

22.14 In order to be taken on notice, a question must be asked in person by the registered speaker at the meeting. Other enquiries of Council can be made by contacting the General Manager.

22.15 The only exeption to point 22.13 is if the Chairperson determines that there is insufficient time on the day of the meeting to accommodate all requests for Public Access and thereby all registered questions will be taken on notice and responded to as per 22.13.

22.316 It is possible that not all requests to ~~make submissions on~~ speak in favour of or against items on the Agenda, make a submission or ask a question of Council will ~~always~~ be able to be accommodated within the Public Access part of the meeting. Members of the public are encouraged to ~~make their submissions in writing~~ contact their Councillors and/or Council regarding their concerns, questions or opinion before the Council meeting in case there is insufficient time on the day of the meeting to accommodate all requests for Public Access.

22.17 Additional speeches in favour of or against items on the Agenda, submissions on matters not including on the Agenda or questions to be put to Council may be accommodated at the discretion of the Chairperson.

22.418 ~~A motion~~ Motions to extend the Public Access part of the meeting ~~for an extra 30mins for scheduled submissions on items on the Agenda for that meeting~~ may be considered by Council.

22.619 A motion to extend the Public Access part of the meeting is a Procedural Motion. It must be proposed and need not be seconded.

22.520 Only one Procedural Motion for extension to the Public Access part of the meeting ~~for submissions on items on that Agenda~~ may be considered at a meeting. In circumstances deemed by the Chairperson to be exceptional, additional extensions may be considered.

~~22.6 A motion to extend the Public Access part of the meeting is a Procedural Motion. It must be proposed and need not be seconded.~~

22.721 The Chairperson shall give precedence to the Procedural Motion.

22.822 No debate or amendments shall be permitted on the Procedural Motion.

22.923 If a Procedural Motion to extend the Public Access part of the meeting is not supported by the majority of Councillors entitled to vote on it then it may not be re-introduced.

SCHEDULE A

~~3. Submissions from members of the public: Time allowed is two minutes per submission. A person is only permitted one submission per meeting.~~

~~4. Questions from members of the public to Councillors. Time allowed is one minute per question and one question per meeting.~~

~~Note: Questions are to be on current agenda items or current issues before Council.~~

~~5. Councillors may ask questions of people speaking to items on the Agenda, making a submission or asking a question.~~

~~6. Responses to questions not provide at the meeting but taken on notice will be tabled in the next agenda papers.~~

Financial Implications

The conduct of Council Meetings is a function of Council and that function is budgeted for. Any financial implications associated with the proposal concerning Public Access contained in this report would be difficult to ascertain except to allow more time for consideration of the Ordinary Meeting Agenda..

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

As per body of report.

The Australasian LG Performance Excellence Program FY17 report stated that:

For councillors to make effective and informed decisions on policy settings, as well as council strategy, they require timely and succinct information prior to the meeting, clear

agendas, and adequate time devoted to each element of the agenda to enable proper consideration of the issues.

The amendments recommended to Public Access are intended to create time to enable Councillors to devote to the items on the agenda whilst the same time preserving the ability of the community to have input into those items and to other issues before Council.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.6

Report No. 13.6 A new strategic approach to Public Art - revised Public Art Policy and new Draft Public Art Strategy

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Joanne McMurtry, Community Project Officer

File No: I2018/240

Theme: Society and Culture

Community Development

Summary:

This report outlines the opportunity for the approach to public art be more strategic and streamlined, rather than predominantly small, ad-hoc art projects. The Public Art Policy has been revised and a new draft Public Art Strategy has been developed. Council is requested to consider these documents as recommended by the Public Art Panel.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1. Note the new strategic direction for Public Art in Byron Shire

2. Endorse the draft Public Art Strategy and revised Public Art Policy and place them on public exhibition for 28 days, with any submissions to be reported back to the Public Art Panel.

Attachments:

1 E2018 12472 Draft Public Art Policy - revision considering new draft Public Art Strategy, E2018/19697 ⇨

2 Draft Public Art Strategy March 2018, E2018/12693 ⇨

Report

Background

Byron Shire Council developed a Public Art Policy in 2010, followed by development of Public Art Guidelines and Criteria which provide a framework for managing public art.

The first Public Art Assessment Panel (PAAP) was established in 2013 and operated until Council elections in September 2016, using the Public Art Guidelines and Assessment Criteria to assess various public art applications and undertake occasional commissions.

Typically the PAAP dealt with small scale projects. Many of the projects were instigated by artists approaching Council on an ad hoc basis and the process had limited successful in strategic attraction of high quality public art.

Feedback from the previous Public Art Assessment Panel prior to their disbanding supports this view:

· Rather than ad hoc submissions, it would be better to call for expressions of interest once or twice a year;

· Need to link in with Masterplan work that is underway;

· There are areas in the Shire with no public art;

· Small budget frustrates the process;

· Need to think about how to manage Council’s visual art collection;

· There are lessons to be learned from the Placemaking Seed Fund project conducted in 2016.

In May 2016 Arts Northern Rivers invited representatives from each local government area in the Northern Rivers to a forum with the aim of understanding how public art is managed across the region and look for collaboration opportunities. It was identified that no one process was the same.

A recommendation from the forum was that Councils should be more strategic in the commissioning of high quality public art. The Current PAAP has worked to identify opportunities for the approach to be more strategic and streamlined, rather than encouraging small, ad-hoc art projects.

The process for establishing a more strategic approach for public art in Byron Shire includes the following steps:

1. Review how other local government areas manage public art and obtain advice from the new Public Art Panel;

2. Review the Public Art Policy;

3. Develop a Public Art Strategy to identify the strategic direction for public art in the Shire;

4. Review the Public Art Guidelines and Criteria;

5. Review the process and materials for artists in applying for public art projects.

This report provides the results from steps 1, 2 and 3 above, with the work guided by the Public Art Panel throughout 2017.

Several public art documents from various other local government areas were reviewed including: Tweed Shire Council, City of Sydney, Brisbane City Council, Gold Coast City Council, Melbourne City Council, Tasmanian Government and other regional and metropolitan areas.

In reviewing other Council plans and documents and talking with staff from other Councils, the learnings were considered in revising Public Art Policy and the new draft Public Art Strategy:

Questions considered by the Public Art Panel in reviewing the Policy and developing the Strategy include:

· What is public art vs community art? Is this defined in terms of project cost, scale or scope?

· How does public art fit with place-making?

· What might be included in a strategic program for public art?

· What other considerations should be included in a strategic framework, for example, a four year program based on specific locations or based on a curated public art program?

· How does a proposed public art strategy work with the Masterplan work that is underway across the Shire? Are there place-making/ public art projects or are there public art projects outside the Masterplan areas?

Revised Public Art Policy

The Public Art Policy has been reviewed incorporating the considerations above. The new policy has the following features:

· The scope of the policy is on art works in public spaces or on private sites which impact on the public domain;

· Provides definitions of ‘public art’, ‘community art’ and ‘place-making’;

· Includes some guiding principles;

· Focuses on art on public owned or managed lands; art in private development and Council’s visual art collection.

Draft Public Art Strategy

Public Artworks Pty Ltd was contracted to develop the Public Art Strategy and following initial information gathering, a workshop was held with the Public Art Panel members on 8 September 2017. The Public Art Panel considered the final draft of the Public Art Strategy at their meeting on 15 February 2018 (see also Public Art Panel minutes reported to the 22 March 2018 Ordinary Council Meeting) and recommended:

“to endorse the draft Public Art Strategy and revised Public Art Policy and place them on public exhibition for 28 days, with any submissions to be reported back to the Public Art Panel.”

A copy of the Draft Public Art Strategy is attached to this report.

The strategy seeks to provide a framework for Council’s planning and decision making in relation to the commissioning and acquisition of public art, as well as its ongoing care and maintenance.

It articulates a draft vision, principles and objectives as noted below:

Vision

Our vision is to position Byron Shire as the arts and cultural capital of Northern NSW with vibrant, contemporary public art through an innovative program that reflects and promotes the unique character and life-style of the region.

Key Principles

· Leadership

· Quality

· Site specificity

· Meaning (ie reflect the cultural narratives of the Shire)

· Sustainability

· Value

Objectives

1. Provide a strategic framework for Byron Shire Council’s public art program and guidelines for the commissioning, management, maintenance, decommissioning\ and implementation of public art.

2. Promote the integration of public art into Council’s capital works projects.

3. Ensure a diverse, contemporary and distinctive public art program.

4. Focus on quality over quantity by funding and commissioning fewer but more substantial projects.

5. Pool and save available funds to develop better project budgets.

6. Complete several key projects over the next 3 years

7. Integrate with the town Master Plans.

8. Strengthen the process for developers and private interests to contribute to the delivery of public art

9. Develop partnerships with strong community organisations driven by professional creators.

10. Ensure the maintenance and conservation of art is an ongoing feature of the art program.

11. Support skills training for local artists to better participate in the tendering and delivery of public art projects.

Other information provided in the draft Strategy, some of which is a divergence from Council’s current practice, includes:

· Recommendation of less emphasis on paint, rather a ‘focus of resources on more permanent and sculptural works for the Shire that are well managed and require less ongoing maintenance;

· Providing ‘benchmarks’ and lessons from elsewhere such as: repetition of elements and creating the illusion of scale;

· Outlining priority sites to focus on for the next 3-5 years;

Once the new documents are finalised and fully adopted by Council, other documents need to be reviewed as recommended in the Strategy including:

· Public Art Guidelines and Criteria

· Development Control Plan Public Art Chapter

· Commissioning brief for new proposed artworks

· Partnership MOUs (to be developed)

Financial Implications

The current public art budget balance for the 2017/18 financial year is $39,700.

Once adopted, staff will identify sources of funds and recommendations around funding of key identifies public art projects and report to the PAAP.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Public Art Policy 10/011

Public Art Guidelines and Criteria 2014

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.7

Report No. 13.7 Joint Organisation of Councils

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Ralph James, Legal Counsel

File No: I2018/267

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary:

Reports were prepared and submitted to the 1 February 2018 and 22 February 2018 Ordinary Meetings on the invitation from the Office of Local Government, issued in its correspondence dated 1 December 2017, for Council to voluntarily join the Northern Rivers Joint Organisation of Councils. In addition, a workshop was held with Councillors on 8 February 2017.

The purpose of the Reports was to provide Council with sufficient information to enable it to consider the invitation and to determine its response to it.

In addition to the information provided in this report it is proposed that Council will receive a briefing from the Office of Local Government as is required by Res 18-112 adopted at 22 February 2018 Ordinary meeting..

RECOMMENDATION:

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

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

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

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

a) Richmond Valley

b) Lismore City

c) Ballina Shire

d Kyogle

e) Tweed Shire

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

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

Attachments:

1 Letter from the Acting Chief Executive, Office of Local Government - Joint Organisations, E2018/14607 ⇨

2 Office of Local Government - Joint Organisations - (Our Ref A573399) - JO Information Pack, E2018/14608 ⇨

3 Final Draft Regulation, E2018/14609 ⇨

4 OLG Joint Organisation Regulation Guide , E2018/14610 ⇨

Report

The Office of Local Government (“OLG”) has written to Councils following the assent to the Local Government Amendment (Regional Joint Organisations) Act 2017 on 30 November 2017 (refer Attachment 1).

The OLG in its correspondence of 1 December 2017 has stated that this legislation allows for Councils to voluntarily join a new Joint Organisation (JO) “to strengthen regional coordination and improve the delivery of important infrastructure and services for communities through strategic planning, collaboration and shared leadership and advocacy”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The OLG in the information provided to Councils on JOs and the next steps (Attachment 2), has indicated that a Council should consult with other Councils within their allocated Regional Planning Region, to identify the member Councils for a JO.

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

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

As at the date on which this report was completed the other Councils in the proposed JO have reached the following stages:

Richmond Valley – resolved to join JO with NOROC councils

Lismore – decision on 13 March.

Ballina – resolved to join JO with NOROC councils

Kyogle – resolved to join JO with NOROC councils

Tweed – decision on 22 March.

This format and the content of the resolution has been prescribed by the OLG. The resolution when passed by Council, along with the Council’s nomination to join a JO, needs to be submitted to the OLG prior to 23 March 2018.

Council’s consideration of the invitation has been hampered by the lack of opportunity to fully consider the proposed Local Government (General) Amendment (Regional Joint Organisations) Regulation 2018. The draft amendments were released on 19 February 2018. A copy of the draft Regulation is Attachment 3. The OLG has issued a Regulation Consultation Guide entitled “Supporting Joint Organisation success).That guide is Attachment 4.

Council has raised a number of questions as to the provisions of the Act and the draft Regulation. The OLG has assisted in providing answers to those questions. The questions and answers are set out below.

1. Formation of a JO is by ‘proclamation’ (s400O), by which constituent councils become ‘members’ following a resolution of Council (400P). s400ZC provides that the Governor, may ’dissolve or ‘amend’ a JO or its constitution. How might ‘members’ disengage from JOs voluntarily if they so wish and what are the consequences if any? The reading speech says they can’t.

Member councils of a JO can request the Minister to recommend to the Governor that they be removed from the JO by amending the proclamation that created the JO.

2. How does the legal status, powers and functions of a JO, as a ‘body corporate’ (s400Q) differ from the current NOROC? Is it the case that similar status or powers may be provided for through different legislation or processes?

NOROC is an incorporated association separate from the Local Government Act, with its own constitution that would define the governance arrangements and accountability back to member councils. The JO is established under the Local Government Act with many of the provisions that apply to a council applying to a JO. This provides a similar level of governance and transparency that applies to a council, with clear accountability mechanisms back to member councils eg the requirement to have an expenses and facilities policy that has been consulted with member councils and a requirement for the Charter to be consulted with member councils.

3. Services may be delivered by a JO with the agreement of member council’s (s400S(1)) though restricted by ‘regulations’. What do these regulations currently provide?

The regulations enable a council to delegate functions under the Act to a JO, with the consent of the JO. A JO cannot force a council to delegate a function and a council cannot force a JO to accept a function. The regulation doesn’t prescribe any further restrictions. The general restrictions in section 377 apply.

4. s400S(2) provides that ‘other functions’ may be ‘conferred’ by ’this act or any other law’. Acknowledging that ‘this act’ would provide for functions to be delegated, what other provisions are there in the LGA or other legislation?

This provision provides a mechanism for other functions to be conferred onto JOs, in a similar way to the Act having a mechanism to confer other functions onto a council. This would just capture any further law that confers a function on a JO. There are not currently any, although the Local Government Amendment (Regional Joint Organisations) Act 2017 did make consequential amendments to include reference to a JO where there was a reference to a county council in a number of pieces of legislation.

5. s400U provides for the creation of a charter by the board, but also provides that the regulations may prescribe the 'form and content’ of the charter. What do the regulations prescribe for this and if not, what if any are the indications of what the regulations will say?

The draft regulation released last Friday requires the Charter to include the mechanism by which financial contributions are made and that the Charter be consulted with member councils – please refer to the Guide that was distributed with the draft regulation.

6. s400ZF(3) provides that JOs ‘may obtain income from charges, fees, grants, borrowings and investments’. The same subsection provides that a JO is not prevented from ‘exercising the functions of a Council from obtaining income from other sources that may be used by a council’. Contrary to the advice provided to the SPW, this section can not re read as a matter for the ‘regulations’ to make provision. An explanation of the scope of this subsection needs to be provided. What is the relationship with any other provisions that might assist in identifying the scope of the provisions? If any exists, is the scope, power or any limitation that can be read with this subsection express or implied

The intent is to provide for a JO appropriate alternative to Chapter 15 which applies to councils but not JOs. The wording is the same (minus reference to rates – which JOs cannot impose). The provisions is essentially a facilitative one to ensure JOs can receive funds – either where they are explicitly empowered to (e.g. under Chapter 15 Parts 10, 12 and 13 and section 620) or where they are exercising a function delegated to them from a council (e.g. the capacity to impose certain charges in relation to certain service functions).

7. s400ZH applies the LGA to the JO’s, but with many ‘exclusions’. What is not excluded is as interesting as what is excluded, with particular relevance to the question about revenues and income etc above (S400ZF). It is very unclear as to the framework for operation of the JO. Will delegation be required to exercise any function or power? Will such provisions and those NOT relating to functions or powers be able to apply concurrently with councils?

Some council functions (by virtue of 400ZH) apply to JOs. Council functions (which are not also JO functions) need to be delegated to a JO for a JO to exercise them. Local councils service and regulatory functions are not functions that apply to JOs (absent a delegation).

8. s400ZA(2) provides that voting members (either Mayors or Councillors) do not have to make decisions ‘in their capacity as the mayor or a councillor of a council’.

Correct. They act in their capacity as a voting representative on the board of a JO.

9. Acknowledge that the reading speech provides an outline of intent on some matters, but is critically silent on the key question of revenue (s400AF).

Correct. See proposed clause 397B of the Regulation.

In addition to the information provided in this report it is proposed that Council will receive a briefing from the Office of Local Government as is required by Res 18-112.

This report has been prepared to allow Council to consider the invitation from the OLG, for Council to join the Northern Rivers Joint Organisation of Councils, by passing the required resolution. The options are to support the Northern Rivers Joint Organisation or not support that model. The member councils of NOROC, and NOROC, have previously resolved to support this model and the recommendation is to support the proposed JO.

Financial Implications

At this stage there is not anticipated to be any additional resource or financial implications to Council in the short term, although this could change over time if the JO sought to increase its level of service to the member councils and a higher staff resource was needed.

This will only occur in consultation with the member councils and it would need to be justified by a significant increase in service levels to the member councils.

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

Initial establishment funding is to be provided by the State Government, with $3.3 million to be allocated to the project.

NOROC, or the new JO, will look at opportunities to access this funding for projects that may benefit the region.

Financial contributions by member Council to the Joint Organisation are dealt with in s400ZF(3) of the Act and in Regulation 397I and are canvassed in question and answer 6 above.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Local Government Act 1993.

The legislation provides as follows for joint organisations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

so determines, be a non-voting chairperson,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.8

Report No. 13.8 Council Investments February 2018

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2018/360

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

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

This report is prepared to comply with Regulation 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the report listing Council’s investments and overall cash position as at 28 February 2018 be noted.

Report

In relation to the investment portfolio for the month of February 2018, Council has continued to maintain a diversified portfolio of investments. At 28 February 2018, the average 90 day bank bill rate (BBSW) for the month of February was 1.77%. Council’s performance to 28 February 2018 is 2.52%. Council’s performance is again higher than the benchmark. This is largely due to the active ongoing management of the investment portfolio, maximising investment returns through secure term deposits and purchasing floating rate notes with attractive interest rates.

The table below identifies the investments held by Council as at 28 February 2018:

Schedule of Investments held as at 28 February 2018

Purch Date	Principal ($)	Description	CP*	Rating	Maturity Date	No Fossil Fuel ADI	Type	Interest Rate Per Annum	Current Value
28/10/16	650,000	Teachers Mutual Bank	P	BBB+	28/10/19	Y	FRN	3.17%	653,642.89
24/03/17	1,000,000	NAB Social Bond (Gender Equality)	P	AA-	24/03/22	N	B	3.25%	1,011,100.17
31/03/17	1,000,000	CBA Climate Bond	P	AA-	31/03/22	N	FRN	3.25%	1,000,000.00
16/11/17	750,000	Bank of Queensland	P	BBB+	16/11/21	N	FRN	2.63%	750,000.00
05/09/17	1,000,000	Bananacoast Credit Union	P	NR	06/03/18	Y	TD	2.60%	1,000,000.00
06/09/17	1,000,000	Bananacoast Credit Union	N	NR	07/03/18	Y	TD	2.60%	1,000,000.00
15/09/17	1,000,000	Peoples Choice Credit Union	P	BBB	15/03/18	Y	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
27/09/17	1,000,000	Bank of Queensland	N	BBB+	27/03/18	N	TD	2.50%	1,000,000.00
04/10/17	2,000,000	Police Credit Union	P	NR	04/04/18	Y	TD	2.70%	2,000,000.00
04/10/17	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	05/03/18	N	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
05/10/17	1,000,000	Police Credit Union	N	NR	05/04/18	Y	TD	2.56%	1,000,000.00
17/10/17	1,000,000	Police Credit Union	N	NR	17/04/18	Y	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
23/10/17	1,000,000	Bank of Queensland	N	BBB+	23/04/18	N	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
02/11/17	2,000,000	Police Credit Union	N	NR	02/05/18	Y	TD	2.73%	2,000,000.00
03/11/17	1,000,000	Maitland Mutual Building Society	P	NR	02/05/18	Y	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
10/11/17	2,000,000	ME Bank	P	BBB	13/03/18	Y	TD	2.42%	2,000,000.00
15/11/17	1,000,000	The Capricornian Credit Union	P	NR	16/04/18	U	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
15/11/17	1,000,000	The Capricornian Credit Union	N	NR	15/03/18	U	TD	2.50%	1,000,000.00
17/11/17	1,000,000	Police Credit Union	N	NR	17/05/18	Y	TD	2.75%	1,000,000.00
17/11/17	1,000,000	Bank of Queensland	N	BBB+	19/03/18	N	TD	2.45%	1,000,000.00
23/11/17	1,000,000	The Capricornian Credit Union	N	NR	23/05/18	U	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
24/11/17	1,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	24/05/18	Y	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
28/11/17	1,000,000	Bananacoast Credit Union	N	NR	28/05/18	Y	TD	2.65%	1,000,000.00
30/11/17	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	30/04/18	N	TD	2.49%	2,000,000.00
30/11/17	2,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	30/04/18	Y	TD	2.49%	2,000,000.00
01/12/17	1,000,000	Defence Bank	P	BBB	20/03/18	U	TD	2.65%	1,000,000.00
01/12/17	1,000,000	Defence Bank	N	BBB	01/03/18	U	TD	2.50%	1,000,000.00
04/12/17	1,500,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	06/03/18	Y	TD	2.40%	1,500,000.00
06/12/17	1,000,000	Hunter United Employees Credit Union	P	NR	06/04/18	U	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
08/12/17	2,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	08/06/18	Y	TD	2.55%	2,000,000.00
08/12/17	2,000,000	My State Bank	P	W/D	08/06/18	Y	TD	2.65%	2,000,000.00
15/12/17	1,000,000	Auswide Bank Ltd	N	BBB-	15/03/18	Y	TD	2.40%	1,000,000.00
19/12/17	2,000,000	Credit Union Australia	P	BBB	19/06/18	Y	TD	2.60%	2,000,000.00
19/12/17	2,000,000	Gateway Credit Union	P	NR	19/04/18	Y	TD	2.50%	2,000,000.00
02/01/18	1,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	04/04/18	Y	TD	2.40%	1,000,000.00
02/01/18	2,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	04/07/18	Y	TD	2.55%	2,000,000.00
09/01/18	1,000,000	Gateway Credit Union	N	NR	11/05/18	Y	TD	2.50%	1,000,000.00
10/01/18	1,000,000	Bankwest	P	AA-	10/04/18	N	TD	2.50%	1,000,000.00
12/01/18	1,000,000	Bank of Queensland	N	BBB+	12/06/18	N	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
12/01/18	1,000,000	Bankwest	N	AA-	12/06/18	N	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
12/01/18	1,000,000	Bankwest	N	AA-	12/04/18	N	TD	2.50%	1,000,000.00
23/01/18	1,000,000	AMP Bank	P	A	23/07/18	N	TD	2.60%	1,000,000.00
24/01/18	1,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	24/07/18	Y	TD	2.60%	1,000,000.00
29/01/18	2,000,000	Rural Bank	P	BBB+	30/07/18	Y	TD	2.60%	2,000,000.00
31/01/18	2,000,000	AMP Bank	N	A	03/08/18	N	TD	2.60%	2,000,000.00
02/02/18	1,000,000	Rural Bank	N	BBB+	02/08/18	Y	TD	2.62%	1,000,000.00
05/02/18	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	07/05/18	N	TD	2.47%	1,000,000.00
06/02/18	2,000,000	Bankwest	N	AA-	15/05/18	N	TD	2.45%	2,000,000.00
06/02/18	1,000,000	Gateway Credit Union	N	NR	07/05/18	Y	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
07/02/18	2,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	08/05/18	Y	TD	2.45%	2,000,000.00
07/02/18	2,000,000	Beyond Bank	P	BBB	18/06/18	Y	TD	2.50%	2,000,000.00
08/02/18	1,000,000	AMP	N	A	08/08/18	N	TD	2.60%	2,000,000.00
15/02/18	1,000,000	Bankwest	N	AA-	15/06/18	N	TD	2.50%	1,000,000.00
15/02/18	1,000,000	Police Credit Union Limited (SA)	N	NR	15/08/18	Y	TD	2.61%	1,000,000.00
16/02/18	1,000,000	Hunter United Employees Credit Union	N	NR	17/05/18	U	TD	2.45%	1,000,000.00
16/02/18	1,000,000	Gateway Credit Union	N	NR	18/06/18	Y	TD	2.45%	1,000,000.00
26/02/18	1,000,000	B & E Ltd (Bank of Us)	P	NR	28/05/18	U	TD	2.48%	1,000,000.00
26/02/18	1,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	28/05/18	Y	TD	2.38%	1,000,000.00
28/02/18	1,500,000	Defence Bank	N	BBB	29/05/18	U	TD	2.40%	1,500,000.00
28/02/18	1,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	29/05/18	Y	TD	2.35%	1,000,000.00
N/A	573,101	CBA Business Online Saver	N	A	N/A	N	CALL	1.40%	573,100.52
12/01/18	1,002,665	NSW Treasury Corp	N	AAA	N/A	Y	CALL	1.27%	1,002,664.66
Total	77,975,766						AVG	2.52%	77,990,508.24

Note 1.	CP = Capital protection on maturity
	N = No Capital Protection
	Y = Fully covered by Government Guarantee
	P = Partial Government Guarantee of $250,000 (Financial Claims Scheme)

Note 2.	No Fossil Fuel ADI
	Y = No investment in Fossil Fuels
	N = Investment in Fossil Fuels
	U = Unknown Status

Note 3.	Type	Description
	B	Bonds	Principal can vary based on valuation, interest payable via a fixed interest, payable usually each quarter.
	FRN	Floating Rate Note	Principal can vary based on valuation, interest payable via a floating interest rate that varies each quarter.
	TD	Term Deposit	Principal does not vary during investment term. Interest payable is fixed at the rate invested for the investment term.
	CALL	Call Account	Principal varies due to cash flow demands from deposits/withdrawals, interest is payable on the daily balance.

Environmental and Socially Responsible Investing

An additional column has been added to the schedule of Investments above, to identify if the financial institution holding the Council investment, has been assessed as a ‘No Fossil Fuel’ investing institution. This information has been sourced through www.marketforces.org.au and identifies financial institutions that either invest in fossil fuel related industries or do not. The graph below highlights the percentage of each classification across Council’s total investment portfolio in respect of fossil fuels only.

The notion of Environmental and Socially Responsible Investing is much broader than whether a financial institution as rated by ‘marketforces.org.au’ invests in fossil fuels or not. Council’s current Investment Policy defines Environmental and Socially Responsible Investing at Section 4.1 of the Policy. Council’s Investment Policy can be found at the following link:

http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/files/publications/council_investments_policy_2017.pdf

In this regard Council has an additional two investments that are with financial institutions that invest in fossil fuels but the purposes of the investments are in accord with the broader definition of Environmental and Socially Responsible investments as indicated below:

1. $1,000,000 investment with the National Australia Bank maturing on 24 March 2022 known as a Social Bond that promotes Gender Equity.

2. $1,000,000 investment with Commonwealth Bank maturing on 31 March 2022 known as a Climate Bond.

For the month of February 2018, as indicated in the table below, there is a dissection of the investment portfolio by investment type:

Dissection of Council Investment Portfolio as at 28 February 2018

Principal Value ($)	Investment Linked to:-	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
73,000,000.00	Term Deposits	73,000,000.00	0.00
2,400,000.00	Floating Rate Note	2,403,642.89	3,642.89
573,100.52	Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	573,100.52	0.00
1,002,664.66	NSW Treasury Corp (T Corp)	1,002,664.66	0.00
1,000,000.00	Bonds	1,011,100.17	11,100.17
77,975,765.18		77,990,508.24	14,743.06

The current value of an investment compared to the principal value (face value or original purchase price) provides an indication of the performance of the investment without reference to the coupon (interest) rate. The current value represents the value received if an investment was sold or traded in the current market, in addition to the interest received.

The table below provides a reconciliation of investment purchases and maturities for month of February 2018 on a current market value basis.

Movement in Investment Portfolio –February 2018

Item	Current Market Value (at end of month) $
Opening Balance at 1 February 2018	75,987,317.86
Add: New Investments Purchased	19,500,000.00
Add: Call Account Additions	0.00
Add: Interest from Call Account	1,716.15
Less: Investments Matured	17,500,000.00
Add: T Corp Additions	0.00
Add: Interest from T Corp	1,474.23
Less: Call Account Redemption	0.00
Less: Fair Value Movement for period	0.00
Closing Balance at 28 February 2018	77,990,508.24

Investments Maturities and Returns – February 2018

Principal Value ($)	Description	Type	Maturity Date	Number of Days Invested	Interest Rate Per Annum	Interest Paid on Maturity $
2,000,000	NAB	TD	05/02/18	91	2.49%	12,415.90
2,000,000	Bank of Queensland	TD	05/02/18	181	2.60%	25,786.30
1,000,000	NAB	TD	05/02/18	124	2.52%	8,561.10
2,000,000	ME Bank	TD	07/02/18	91	2.42%	12,066.85
2,000,000	Beyond Australia Bank	TD	07/02/18	100	2.42%	13,260.28
1,500,000	Auswide Bank Ltd	TD	07/02/18	91	2.35%	8,788.36
1,000,000	ME Bank	TD	16/02/18	91	2.40%	5,983.56
1,000,000	Hunter United Employees Credit Union	TD	16/02/18	91	2.50%	6,232.88
1,000,000	Bank of Queensland	TD	19/02/18	186	2.55%	12,994.52
1,000,000	ME Bank	TD	23/02/18	92	2.40%	6,049.32
2,000,000	NAB	TD	23/02/18	92	2.49%	12,552.33
1,000,000	ME Bank	TD	28/02/18	92	2.40%	6,049.32
17,500,000						130,740.72

The overall ‘cash position’ of Council is not only measured by what funds Council has invested but also by what funds Council has retained in its consolidated fund or bank account as well for operational purposes. In this regard, for the month of February 2018 the table below identifies the overall cash position of Council as follows:

Dissection of Council Cash Position as at 28 February 2018

Item	Principal Value ($)	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
Investments Portfolio
Term Deposits	73,000,000.00	73,000,000.00	0.00
Floating Rate Note	2,400,000.00	2,403,642.89	3,642.89
Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	573,100.52	573,100.52	0.00
NSW Treasury Corp (T Corp)	1,002,664.66	1,002,664.66	0.00
Bonds	1,000,000.00	1,011,100.17	11,100.17
Total Investment Portfolio	77,975,765.18	77,990,508.24	14,743.06

Cash at Bank
Consolidated Fund	3,316,312.85	3,316,312.85	0.00
Total Cash at Bank	3,316,312.85	3,316,312.85	0.00

Total Cash Position	81,292,078.03	81,306,821.09	14,743.06

Financial Implications

Council uses a diversified mix of investments to achieve short, medium and long-term results.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

In accordance with Regulation 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, the Responsible Accounting Officer of Council must provide Council with a monthly report detailing all monies Council has invested under section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993.

The Report must be presented at the next Ordinary Meeting of Council after the end of the month being reported. In this regard, the current Council Meeting cycle does not always allow this to occur, especially when investment valuations required for the preparation of the report, are often received after the deadline for the submission of reports for the meeting. Endeavours will be made to ensure the required report will be provided to Council and this will for some months require reporting for one or more months.

Council’s investments are carried out in accordance with section 625(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 and Council’s Investment Policy. The Local Government Act 1993 allows Council to invest money as per the Ministers Order – Forms of Investment, last published in the Government Gazette on 11 February 2011.

Council’s Investment Policy includes the objective of maximising earnings from authorised investments and ensuring the security of Council Funds.

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held 8 October 2015 resolved through resolution 15-515 to insert a new objective into its adopted Investment Policy, which gives a third tier consideration by Council to Environmental and Socially Responsible Investments, when making investment decisions.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.9

Report No. 13.9 Stronger Country Communities Fund Round 2

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Jodi Frawley, Grants Co-ordinator

File No: I2018/369

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary:

The NSW Government opened the second round of Stronger Country Communities Fund on 12 March 2018, with applications due on 4 May 2018. After an unprecedented demand for local projects in the first round of the fund, the NSW Government has doubled the funding total for Round Two to $200 million.

This year there is a focus on sporting infrastructure and general community amenity projects. Eligible projects now include street beautification and 'place making' activities.

The funding body requires:

· more than one application preferably led by community groups

· equal number of community amenity and sports infrastructure applications

· substantial communications and engagement program to support application – including identified community priorities for each project

From the experiences of Round One and the extensive documentation required, it is beyond the organisation’s resources to complete multiple applications. It is recommended that Council progress one project and that Council supports community groups to make applications.

The community group application process will be supported by a communications and engagement program to ensure groups are aware and can make competitive applications. This will also ensure Council meets the funding body directive to include multiple community projects.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1. Endorse the strategic approach to maximise the opportunity for Council and community projects;

2. Nominate the (Beautification of Byron St Byron Bay OR Broken Head Road Cycleway) project from the Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan to progress for the Stronger Country Communities Fund Round 2 as the Council nominated project.

3. Allocate $15,000 from the Grants Management Reserve to fund required communications and engagement program to support community-led and delivered projects

Attachments:

1 Stronger Country Communities Fund Round 2 Guidelines, E2018/17832 ⇨

Report

In 2017, Council submitted four applications for the Stronger Country Communities Fund (SCCF):

Project	Funds sought	Project cost
Clarkes Beach Amenities	$500,000	$1.325M
Bangalow Heritage House	$320,154	$339,934
Waterlily Playscape	$418,608	$481,608
Sandhills Child Care Centre	$255,763	$299,763
Total	$1.494M
Nominal funding allocation	$750,000	(Council will be notified of exact round two funding allocation for the Shire)

The program managers have notified Council that the second round of the scheme will open in 12 March 2018 with applications due on 4 May 2018.

The funding body requires:

· more than one application

· equal number of community amenity and sports infrastructure applications

· substantial communications and engagement program to support application – including identified community priorities for each project

From experiences from Round One and the extensive documentation required, it is beyond the Council’s resources to complete multiple applications.

All applications will need to be submitted by Council along with a communications program with reporting that justifies prioritisation of projects.

SCCF have nominally allocated $750,000 per shire per round, noting that there is a preference to support multiple projects per shire. In Round One, some shires missed out altogether and others received a higher allocation. If Council’s successful projects from Round One total less than their allocation, the balance of funding will be added to their Round Two allocation. If Council’s successful Round One projects total above their allocation, the amount above will be subtracted from their allocation in Round Two.

Individual project applications must seek a minimum of $50,000. Applications seeking between $50,000 and $1 million can be for the entire project cost as a grant. Projects requiring grant funding of over $1 million will only be considered where there is a minimum financial co-contribution towards the project of 25 per cent of the total grant amount. The financial co-contribution to the project can be from Council or other funding sources, but must be confirmed.

Eligible Projects

For 2018, there is a focus on sporting infrastructure and general community amenity projects and they have changed the scope of eligible projects to include street beautification and 'place making' activities.

Examples of eligible infrastructure include:

General community amenity,

place making and street beautification

Local sporting infrastructure

Community halls

Community kitchens, barbecue and recreation facilities

Oval or court lighting,

sports field fencing or surfacing

Amenities for sports participants and spectators

Playgrounds and parks

Murals or community art instalments

Sports field and golf course drainage

and irrigation

Indoor sports facilities

Toilet blocks

Town and tourism signage

Sports clubhouses, change rooms

and grandstands

Court resurfacing including synthetic surfaces

Libraries

Seating, planting boxes, paving

Skate parks and mountain bike tracks

Community fitness stations (fixed)

Shade cloth and pergolas

Memorials or statues

Aquatic facilities and pools

Accessibility upgrades, walking or cycle pathways

Infrastructure projects related to the delivery of community services may be considered where the council is willing to submit the application and the project is shown to be a priority for the community.

Given resource constraints, it is recommended that Council submit one project and seek applications from community groups. Specifically:

1. Council selects one project to advance to full application from the Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan;

2. Council engages a consultant to oversee the communications and public relations for this project;

3. Council announces the scheme to the Byron Shire community and encourages independent groups to apply;

4. Council runs a workshop session for people interested in the scheme;

5. Council receives nominations by a set date and includes these in a social media campaign, including ‘yoursaybyronshire’ that will provide metrics and data for a consultation report that needs to be submitted with the applications;

6. Nominated groups receive relevant 'code' to submit their own applications with Council letters of support if requested and appropriate;

7. Council provides oversight on all non-Council applications, but does not prepare them.

Council Projects

Council staff recommends the two following projects for consideration for SCCF Round Two. Only one project is to be advanced to application:

Byron Street Beautification

The Byron Street upgrade has been scoped by Infrastructure Services and deferred to the 2018-19 financial year. Council has funding to do the road works to upgrade Byron Street, but the Masterplan identifies this street as a critical East-West connector for the town, and will be a key piece of puzzle for integrating Butler Street Reserve, the bus interchange, the rail corridor and the town centre. This project would leverage available Council funds to meet the SCCF objective to include street beautification and place making.

As such the objectives of the Byron Street project are:

· Modified design to include new elements that focus on liveability and community amenity;

· Inclusion of shared pathways to encourage multiple modes of access and movement including the use of bikes, pedestrian walking, cars and other vehicles;

· The use of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) for wayfinding and appropriate lighting;

· Retain and enhance community identity and placemaking through design and treatments such as seating;

· Enhance the street appeal to support businesses along Byron Street.

Broken Head Road Cycleway - Browning Street to Clifford Street (Res 17-403)

The Broken Head Road Cycleway is a staged project to implement new shared zones on the road between Suffolk Park and Byron Bay. This project will improve the ease of access to/from the proposed corridor and the level of connectivity to population areas, attractors and the surrounding path network. It is beyond the scope of SCCF to provide funds to complete the project, however one or two stages would be viable for the Council application.

The stages and costings are as follows:

Stage	Description	Cost Estimate
Stage 1	The Byron at Byron resort to Beech Drive (north)	$0.20M - $0.25M
Stage 2	Beech Drive (north) to Beech Drive (south)	$0.24M - $0.32M
Stage 3	Browning Street to the existing pedestrian crossing near St Finbarr’s Catholic Primary School	$1.00M - $1.20M
Stage 4	Existing pedestrian crossing near St Finbarr’s Catholic Primary School to The Byron at Byron resort	$0.40M - $0.50M
Stage 5	Beech Drive (south) to Clifford Street	$0.06M - $0.08M

Stages 1 and 2 are seen as the highest priority as there is currently no amenity for cycling along this section of Broken Head Rd.

Financial Implications

It is recommended that $15,000 is allocated from the Grants Management Reserve to fund the strategy of engaging with the community on other potential community-led and delivered projects.

Byron Street Beautification would require between $250,000 and $500,000 from SCCF to supplement an allocated amount in Infrastructure Services budget for the upgrade of the road. This allocation will be confirmed as designs are progressed.

Stages one or two of the Broken Head Road Cycleway can be used as the basis of the SCCF application to seek $500,000. This would be in addition to any Council budget that may be determined.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

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

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.10

Report No. 13.10 Audit of tree removals in Railway Park Byron Bay

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Anna Vinfield, Manager Corporate Services

File No: I2018/382

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary:

Council resolved at its 2 November 2017 meeting (RES 17-555) to receive a report outlining the decision making process to undertake the works at Railway Park and the process in obtaining all relevant approvals and requirements prior to works (including tree removal).

At its 28 November 2017 meeting (RES 17-624) Council resolved to not accept the report and engage an independent consultant to provide the report and consider omissions.

Sinc Solutions (a member of Council’s Code of Conduct review panel) was engaged to conduct an audit. A number of recommendations have been made which are detailed in this report.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1. Receive the audit report into the tree removals in Railway Park Byron Bay prepared by independent consultants Sinc Solutions (attachment 1, E2018/19397)

2. Note the recommendations contained in the report

Attachments:

1 SINC Solutions Final Report Byron Shire Council Tree Removal 9 March 2018, E2018/19397 ⇨

Report

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

At its 28 November 2017 meeting (RES 17-001) Council resolved to not accept the report and engage an independent consultant to provide the report and consider omissions:

17-624 Resolved that Council:

1. Does not accept the report provided due to:

i. a failure to provide the necessary information pertaining to the decision making process, processes in obtaining all relevant approvals and requirements.

ii. an overabundance of irrelevant and potentially distracting information not relevant to the report requirements, for example the approximately 3 pages dedicated to an overview of the work of the Better Byron Crew across the Byron CBD

iii. the lack of clarity of the reasons behind the tree removal, and contradiction between one expressed reason, “These directions were given on the basis of routine renewal maintenance activities that aligned with the scope of works that the BBC regularly performed”, and, “it would be desirable for trees to be removed as part of the redevelopment.”

iv. a failure to explain the whether the communication and engagement plan concerning the tree removal was fully applied as endorsed by the Executive Team on June 7, 2017 and a failure to provide this plan in the report

v. failure to provide any evidence that the botanist engaged supported or recommended the removal of the tree

vi. a failure to outline the reasons for no flora and fauna assessment reports being completed prior to the removal of the Eucalyptus Dunnii.

vii. a failure to explain why when the tree was considered ‘a limb shedding species’, it was not considered to be classified as dead, dying or dangerous and thus requiring a dead, dying or dangerous assessment report as required in Council’s tree removal approval pathways process.

viii. a failure to explain why as part of the required ‘consider level of community consultation required’ section of Council’s tree removal approval pathways process, none appeared to occur.

ix. a failure to explain why a flora and fauna assessment was not required as stipulated in the ChapterB2–Preservation of Trees and other vegetation of the Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2014, under B2.2.1 8(a)

2. Engages an independent consultant to provide the report, including recommendations as outlined in 17-555, and also consider the matters raised and omissions listed in 1.

Officers sought proposals from three consultants on Council’s Code of Conduct review panel. Based on their experience Sinc Solutions was engaged to conduct an audit.

More than nine people were interviewed and an extensive body of documentation as reviewed.

The review report is included at attachment 1. The report summarises that:

“…the tree in dispute was a Eucalyptus Dunnii. The correct pathway process for removal of trees as part of infrastructure works was completed with the exception of notification to members of the community. This should have occurred. There was confusion on this aspect, given the level of involvement of the Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan Leadership Team (BBTCM), also known as the Leadership Team. The governance of this group is being separately addressed by Council.

It is recommended that notification of tree removal is a mandatory process in the Tree Removal Approval Pathways. Further, the Executive team are to ensure more rigour is applied to consultant advice received and those who require the information upon which to base decisions, have the full information provided to them at that time.” (page 5)

A review provides six recommendations:

1. The contents of the investigation report into the process for Tree Removal in Railway Park be received and noted by the General Manger, with either the whole or relevant parts of the report being provided to the Elected Council.

2. Any Council works whereby tree removal is required through permit, is to be notified for a minimum of seven (7) days to the public:

a. At the site location;

b. On Council’s website; and

c. In any other way Council deems appropriate.

This will be a mandatory requirement under the Infrastructure Tree Removals Approvals Pathway

3. The changes enacted by the Technical Officer – Open Space with regard to improved community notification for vegetation and tree removal, in the Infrastructure Tree Removals Approvals Pathway, are also to be oversighted by the Director Infrastructure Services on a regular basis.

4. When Council engages external parties, for example, ecologist, botanist, arborist and the like, formal processes should be adopted for the receipt of advice from those parties. Council should ensure more rigour is adopted when receiving advice from such parties. These processes are to be regularly oversighted by the Executive for their area of responsibility.

5. Changes are made to the process to ensure that those decision makers responsible for the issuance of Permits are provided with full information prior to making any decisions. In this example, the Team Leader – Open Spaces and the Council Ecologist were not aware of the previous species identifications that had been made by Mr Plummer and Dr Kooyman in relation to the tree. Any differences should be resolved prior to any Permit being issued. This should be oversighted by the Executive for their area of responsibility.

6. Council’s Ecologist should review either photographs or the tree itself in person, and note these actions or documents reviewed in the relevant comments section prior to sign off on any Permit issued. This should be oversighted by the Director Infrastructure Services.

Management agree with these recommendations and will implement accordingly.

Financial Implications

The audit cost $21,780. This was an unexpected expenditure and the budget was adjusted accordingly as part of the 31 December 2017 quarterly budget review endorsed by Council at its 22 February 2018 meeting.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Council’s Delivery Program includes an activity (CM1.2.3) to monitor decision making to ensure alignment with corporate documents as adopted or endorsed by Council.

The Tree Removal Approval Pathways documentation exists to provide guidance on required processes.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.14

Report No. 13.14 PLANNING - Development Application 10.2017.619.1 Staged Development - Stage 1 Strata Subdivision to Create Two (2) Lots , Stage 2 Alterations and Additions to Existing Shed to Create a Detached Dual Occupancy 19 Aloota Crescent Ocean Shores

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Rochelle Barclay, Planner

File No: I2018/90

Theme: Ecology

Development and Approvals

Proposal description:	Staged Development - Stage 1 Strata Subdivision to Create Two (2) Lots, Stage 2 Alterations and Additions to Existing Shed to Create a Detached Dual Occupancy
Property description:	LOT: 708 DP: 240399
Property description:	19 Aloota Crescent OCEAN SHORES
Parcel No/s:	124990
Applicant:	Joe Davidson Town Planning
Owner:	Mr J P Martin & Ms I Schimanski
Zoning:	R2 Low Density Residential
Date received:	2 November 2017
Integrated Development:	No
Public notification or exhibition:	- Level 1 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications - Exhibition period: 16/11/17 to 29/11/17 - Submissions received: Nil
Delegation to determination:	Council
Issues:	· Private Open Space for Proposed Lot 2 · Byron LEP 2014 – Clause 4.1Minimum lot sizes. Variation sought under Clause 4.6 for the Strata Subdivision.

Summary:

Development consent is sought for a strata subdivision to create two strata lots and to carry out alterations and additions to an existing shed to create a new dwelling within one of the lots to form a Detached Dual Occupancy on the subject site. The proposed development is considered to be satisfactory having regards to Councils Planning controls under Byron LEP 2014 and Byron DCP 2014.

The development seeks a variation to the minimum lot size for the strata subdivision of the dual occupancy, which is supported in this instance having regards to the circumstances of the case. The proposed development will not have a significant impact on the existing built or natural environment and is unlikely to prejudice or compromise the public interest. 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:

Pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, development application no. 10.2017.619.1 for Staged Development - Stage 1 Strata Subdivision to Create Two (2) Lots, Stage 2 Alterations and Additions to Existing Shed to Create a Detached Dual Occupancy be granted subject to the conditions of consent listed in Attachment 2 (E2018/16498).

Attachments:

1 Proposed Plans , E2018/15939 ⇨

2 Conditions of Consent , E2018/16498 ⇨

Assessment

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. History/Background

BA 73/2047	Dwelling Approved 19/3/1973
DA 10.2013.45.1	Staged construction – alterations and additions to existing dwelling approved 21/3/13
11.2013.45.1	Double Garage approved 13/5/13

1.2. Description of the proposed development

This application seeks approval for a Staged Development:

· Stage 1: Strata Subdivision to Create Two (2) Lots; &

· Stage 2 Alterations and Additions to an existing Shed to create a Detached Dual Occupancy

Figure 1: Proposed Strata Subdivision Figure 2: Proposed Floor Plan for Shed to be converted

1.3. Description of the site

Land is legally described as	LOT: 708 DP: 240399
Property address is	19 Aloota Crescent OCEAN SHORES
Land is zoned:	R2 Low Density Residential
Land area is:	999.1 m2
Constraints	Sewer Easement

The subject site is located in the R2 Low Density Residential zone in Ocean Shores. The site slopes to the front, and is currently improved by a single storey dwelling; and a shed as shown in the images below:

Figure 1. Existing Dwelling

Figure 2: Existing shed to be converted to a dwelling house.

2. SUMMARY OF REFERRALS

Referral	Issue
Building Surveyor	No objections subject to conditions.
S64 / Systems Planning Officer	No objections subject to conditions.
S94 / Contributions Officer	No objections subject to conditions.
Development Engineer	No objections subject to conditions.

3. SECTION 79BA – BUSH FIRE PRONE LAND

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 not bush fire prone land.

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	X	☐
Consideration: The allotment was approved for residential use as a part of a subdivision. This application is for a residential use as intended by the subdivision; and one of the proposed strata lots is already improved by a dwelling house. No Council records indicate that the lot is contaminated. It considered that the proposed development does not warrant any further consideration in relation to contaminated land given that the proposed use does not significantly intensify the use of the site.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004	X	☐
Consideration: BASIX certificate 873608S was supplied with the application.
State Planning Policy 71 (Coastal Protection) X
Consideration: Council must consider the matters listed at Section 8 of SEPP 71. Matters for consideration for development within the coastal zone: · retention of existing public access to the coastal foreshore · impact of effluent disposal on water quality · development must not discharge untreated stormwater into a coastal water body. The proposed application has no detrimental effects in relation to Coastal Protection.

4.2A Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP 2014)

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

Part 1	☒1.1\| ☒1.1AA\| ☒1.2\| ☒1.3\| ☒1.4\| ☒Dictionary\| ☒1.5\| ☒1.6\| ☒1.7\| ☒1.8\| ☐1.8A\| ☒1.9\| ☐1.9A
Part 2	☒2.1\| ☒2.2 \| ☒2.3 \|☒Land Use Table \| ☐2.4 \| ☐2.5 \| ☐2.6 \| ☐2.7 \| ☐2.8
Part 3	☐3.1\| ☐3.2\| ☐3.3
Part 4	☒4.1\| ☐4.1A\| ☐4.1AA\| ☐4.1B \|☐4.1C\| ☐4.1D\| ☒4.1E\| ☐4.2\| ☐4.2A\| ☐4.2B\| ☐4.2C\| ☐4.2\|☒4.3\|☒4.4 \|☒4.5 \| ☒4.6
Part 5	☐5.1\| ☐5.2\| ☐5.3\| ☐5.4\| ☒5.5\| ☐5.6\| ☐5.7\| ☐5.8\|☐5.9\| ☐ 5.9AA\| ☐5.10\| ☐5.11\| ☐5.12\| ☐5.13
Part 6	☐6.1\| ☐6.2\| ☐6.3\| ☐6.4\| ☐6.5\| ☒6.6\| ☐ 6.7\| ☐6.8\| ☐6.9

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

(a) The proposed development is defined in the LEP 2014 Dictionary as Dual Occupancy;

(b) The land is within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone 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 comprising of a compliant dual occupancy upholds the intent of the objectives for the R2 Zone.

• To enable other land uses that provide 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. The proposed development complies with all these clauses of LEP 2014 (in some cases subject to conditions and/or to the satisfaction of other assessing officers), except in relation to Clauses 4.1, 4.1E and 6.6, which are considered further below:

4.1 Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

Subclauses 4.1(2) to (4) of LEP 2014 are as follows:

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

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

(4) This clause does not apply in relation to the subdivision of individual lots in a strata plan or community title scheme.

The Lot Size Map shows a minimum lot size of 600m² for this site. The proposed strata lots do not comply, with lot sizes as follows:

Lot	Size	Variation
1 – Existing Dwelling	654m²	0%
2	345m²	42.5%

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

1. Introduction – Summary of proposed development

The development application proposes Strata Title subdivision of a proposed detached dual occupancy on a site area of 999.1m². Resultant lots would be 654m² and 345m².

2. Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards

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.

3. The Development Standard to be varied

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

4. Extent of Variation to the Development Standard

The proposed strata subdivision would result in 2 new lots of 54m² and 345m². The extent of the variation therefore ranges from 0 to 42.5% for the new lots.

5. Objective of the Development Standard

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

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

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

6. Objectives of the Zone

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

The proposal will provide additional housing stock for the area. Dual occupancy development is generally not antipathetic to the zone objectives. The proposed built form is consistent and compliant with Council controls for dual occupancy.

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 applicant has provided a written statement in support of the DA and advises the following:

· That Byron Shire is taking steps to rectify the wording of the LEP;

· That Clause 3.1 and Schedule 2 of the LEP 2014 allow for strata subdivision as exempt development and do not reference a minimum lot size.

· That part 6 of the SEPP (Exempt & Complying development Codes) does also not reference a minimum lot size;

· That Council has issued many consents for developments that are below the minimum lot size;

· That Clause 4.1E allows Dual Occupancy on lots as small as 800m2 in some zones; and that it is unreasonable to apply the minimum lot size when the parent lot is significantly less than the area required to achieve tow or more lots.

· The statement cites numerous examples of strata subdivision with lots less than 600m2.

Having regards to the above 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 environmental planning grounds are particular to the site and sufficient to justify contravening the development standard. The development could still be approved without a strata subdivision so it is considered that the strata component does not alter or increase the density that can be supported on the site. 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 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 within the constraints of the existing built form.

· The proposed lot sizes facilitate efficient use of land resources for residential and other human purposes.

b) Objectives of the R2 Zone

· To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment; and

· To enable other land uses that provide 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 approved and long established or intended built form of the immediate locality. The circumstances of the case warrant a more flexible approach to application of the lot size development standard, the Applicant’s variation request is supported and the development application is recommended for approval despite the non-compliance. No public submissions have been received to the exhibition of the development application. The proposed development is in the public interest.

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

This clause sets a minimum lots size of 800m² for detached dual occupancy in the R2 low density residential zone. The site has an area of 999.1m², which complies with the Clause.

4.3 Height of Buildings

The proposed building height of the proposed dwelling on proposed lot 2 is 4.891 metres which remains compliant with this clause.

4.4 Floor Space Ratio

The proposed floor space ratio is compliant with the prescriptive 0.5:1. The calculations are as follows:

Dwelling 1(existing): 150.8 m²

Dwelling 2 (proposed): 84.9 m²

Total 235.7 m²/ 999.1m²

FSR:0.24:1:

Clause 6.6 Essential Services

The proposed development will have essential services available to service the development including water, sewer, stormwater, power and telecommunication infrastructure.

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

Draft SEPP (Coastal Management) 2016

The Draft Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) proposes to establish a new, strategic land use planning framework for coastal management. It is intended to support the implementation of the management objectives set out in the Coastal Management Act 2016.

Once adopted, the Coastal Management SEPP will be the single land use planning policy for coastal development and will bring together and modernise provisions from SEPP 14 (Coastal Wetlands), SEPP 26 (Littoral Rainforests) and SEPP 71 (Coastal Protection).

The aim of the Draft SEPP is to promote an integrated and co-ordinated approach to planning in the ‘Coastal Zone’, identifying four coastal management areas:

· coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests area

· coastal environment area;

· coastal use area; and

· coastal vulnerability area.

The subject site is mapped within the ‘coastal use area’. The draft provisions for consideration of development within these areas generally reflect the existing matters for consideration currently outlined in SEPP 71 and clause 5.5 of BLEP 2014.

The proposal is considered to be acceptable having regard to the provisions of the Draft SEPP particularly Divisions No. 4 .. The proposed development is not in a wetland, littoral rainforest, coastal environment area; coastal hazard area or coastal vulnerability area.

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

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

Part A
Part B Chapters:	☐B2\| ☒B3\| ☒B4\| ☐B5\| ☐B6\| ☐B7\| ☒B8\| ☒B9\| ☐B10\| ☐B11\| ☐B12\| ☐B13\| ☐B14
Part C Chapters:	☐C1\| ☐C2\|☐ C3\| ☐C4
Part D Chapters	☒D1\| ☐D2\| ☐D3\| ☐D4\| ☐D5\| ☒D6\| ☐D7\| ☐D8
Part E Chapters	☐ E1\| ☐E2\| ☐E3\| ☐E4\| ☐E5\| ☐E6\| ☐ E7

These underlined Parts/Chapters have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP&A Act. The proposed development is demonstrated to meet the relevant Objectives of all relevant Parts/Chapters (in some cases subject to conditions and/or to the satisfaction of other assessing officers).

B4 Traffic Plann

Requested funds from funding bodies	19,980,350
Council cash contribution	10,406,523
Council in-kind Contribution	394,280
Other contributions	17,329,960
Funding applications submitted and awaiting notification (total project value)	48,111,113

Donations to Community Organisations, Other Groups and Persons	$36,200
Assistance for Festivals and Community Functions	$7,000
Donations to Community Groups – Reimbursement of Council Application Fees	$2,000
Sub-Total	$45,200
Resolution 17-381*	-$3,000
TOTAL unallocated amount for 2017/18	$42,200

DA No.	Applicant	Property Address	Proposal	Exhibition Submission/s	Reason/s Outcome
10.2017.683.1	Ardill Payne & Partners	2 Tincogan Street Mullumbimby	Stage 1: Boundary Adjustment Subdivision to Create Two (2) Lots and Demolition of Existing Swimming Pool. Stage 2: Alterations and Additions to Existing Dwelling House and New Driveway on Proposed Lot 1, New Dwelling House and Studio above Existing Garage on Proposed Lot 2	Level 1 Re-notified 25/1/18 to 7/2/18 2 submissions	No Delegation Council
10.2017.280.1	Bureau SRH Architects	32-34 Byron Street Bangalow	Alterations and Additions to Existing Commercial Property - Construction of Restaurant at Ground Level and Three (3) One (1) Bedroom Motel Units on the First Floor	Level 2 22/6/17 to 19/7/17 3 submissions	The perceived public significance of the application Council
10.2017.577.1	Mr A Mitchell	99 Lismore Road Bangalow	Change of use from Pallet Factory to Industrial Retail Outlet	No submissions received	The perceived public significance of the application Council
10.2017.686.1	Dromore Properties Pty Ltd	57 Carlyle St Byron Bay	Stage 1: Alterations and Additions to Existing Dwelling and Strata Subdivision to Create Two (2) Strata Lots including Vacant Development Lot Stage 2: Two (2) Dwellings to create Multi Dwelling Housing comprising Three (3) Dwellings and Strata Subdivision	Level 2 21/12/17 to10/01/2018 5 submissions received	The perceived public significance of the application Council
10.2017.715.1	Elizabeth Tomlinson	252 Middle Pocket Rd, Billinudgel	Use of Dwelling as Farm Stay Accommodation	Level 1 28/12/17 to 10/1/18 9 submission received	The perceived public significance of the application The number of public submissions Council