Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion 9.4

Notice of Motion No. 9.4 Esplanade Laneway, New Brighton

File No: I2018/855

I move:

1. That Council prioritise works to address the 4 main issues presently at play in the Esplanade Laneway, New Brighton in particular:-

a. Reconstruct the street surface with a full width of asphalt to accommodate short term parking if possible, allowing single vehicle access for emergency and garbage collection vehicles and address the drainage issues;

b. Provide local residential traffic unimpeded access into and out of their property;

c. Provide relevant signage limiting parking hours, no parking in driveways, no camping and no dumping of rubbish and green waste in addition to those identified in Res 18-090; and

d. Repair and improve dune fencing to prevent pedestrian trespassing and unapproved access over the dunes to the beach.

2. That Council expedite the installation of regulatory signage as per Res 18-090.

Attachments:

1 Esplanade Laneway NoM Attachment, E2018/38916 ⇨

Signed: Cr Alan Hunter

Councillor’s supporting information:

Council needs to be able to provide reasonable service for all rate paying residents and this is presently not the case in The Esplanade Lane, New Brighton.

Eight of the residents that access the laneway are currently denied the services normally expected in the rest of the shire. These are outlined in a letter to council sent in October 2017 and in part attached to this Motion.

It is of concern that Council hasn’t appeared to account for the change in the adjacent companion animal off-leash area that starts from level with Strand Avenue and extends to 500 metres north of the northern break wall of the Brunswick River. Patrons of this area often can only park in the laneway causing mayhem for residents.

On behalf of these residents I ask for your support to provide a better service normally expected of council.

Staff comments by Tony Nash, Manager Works, Infrastructure Services Directorate:

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

The issue of traffic, parking and access to residential properties in this section of The Esplanade was considered by the Local Traffic Committee at their meeting on 16 January 2018 and their recommendation was considered at the Council meeting on 22 February 2018 with the following resolution:

Res 18-090

That the Local Traffic Committee recommend to Council to regulate parking in the Southern cul-de-sac end of The Esplanade, New Brighton through the installation of “No Parking” and “Parallel Parking” and other relevant and appropriate signage to improve access for residents and service vehicles.

The cost to install the new no parking and parallel parking signs is in the range of $6,000 to $8,000 and is currently unfunded in both the 2017/18 budget and that proposed for 2018/19.

The southern section of The Esplanade which is the subject of the LTC report is approximately 200m long and the road pavement and associated assets are either in very poor condition or non-existent. The road reserve has a number of beach accesses, trees, retaining walls, dune fencing, private plantings and there is no area at the end of the road for vehicles to turn around.

This NOM is requesting the repair and improvement of dune fencing for beach access and to prevent unapproved access across the dunes; and priorization of civil works to construct road pavement and associated assets to provide unhindered access to residential properties; single vehicle access for emergency vehicles and garbage trucks; provision of short-term parking, if possible, and to address stormwater drainage issues.

Additional signage for time-limited parking, no dumping of rubbish and green waste is also requested. The additional sign works would be expected to cost in the range of $1,000 to $2,000.

The requested dune fencing and civil works proposed in this NOM need to be investigated to determine what can be done in this space in the road reserve and at what cost. This would include consideration for traffic, on street parking, end of road turnaround for vehicles and driveways to the residential properties, whilst having no or minimal impact on trees, plantings and other existing structures. Preliminary estimates are that these works could be in the range of $200,000 to $300,000.

An option is to undertake initial survey, civil design and other investigations to determine the works required and provide a more detailed and known cost estimate with funding of any actual works provided in a future financial year. An initial budget of $20,000, approximately 10% of total project cost, would be sufficient to undertake the survey design and other investigations. At present there is no funding in both the 2017/18 budget and that proposed for 2018/19 for these dune and civil works in the southern section of The Esplanade.

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

Council Res 18-111 is applicable;

Res 18-111

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

Initial cost estimates for RES 18 - 090 for the new signage and also for the additional signage for no dumping and green waste are in the range of $7,000 to $9,000.

An initial budget of $20,000, approximately 10% of total project cost would be sufficient to undertake the survey design and other investigations for the civil works and dune fencing / beach access works.

Funding for these investigative works is best considered as part of the discussions on the capital works budgets for 2018/19 FY as it is likely that adjustments to proposed budgets for projects nominated in 2018/19 will be required to provide this funding, as there is no easily identifiable, unallocated funding for these new works.

Options for providing the funds in 18/19 are detailed below. As the works proposed in this NOM are new works certain sources of funds are not allowable or not applicable, such as:

· 17/18 Special rate variation

· S94 (not listed in current plans)

The allowable sources of funds are:

ü Revenue

ü Infrastructure Renewal Reserve (IRR- Non Byron Bay funding)

ü Existing SRV

Projects where all or part of the funding could be diverted to this section of The Esplanade are listed in the following table:

Project	Location	Type	Total Budget	Budget options for funding The Esplanade	Source of Funds
Footpaths, Kerb & Gutter
Access ramps and footpaths Works	Other	Upgrade	62,500	44,000	Existing SRV
Replacement of damaged Kerb and Gutter Shire Wide as per inspection Report	Other	Renewal	26,200	23,900	Existing SRV
Replacement of damaged Footpaths Shire Wide as per inspection Report	Other Other	Renewal	123,400	84,300	Existing SRV
Reseals
Goonengerry Road CH7270-13630	Other	Renewal	220,700	21,500	Existing SRV
Left Bank Road 4850-5500	Other	Renewal	28,100	28,100	Existing SRV
Main Arm Road CH9030-9400	Other	Renewal	21,500	21,500	Existing SRV
Myokum Street CH0-274	Other	Renewal	12,100	12,100	Existing SRV
Stuart Street CH980-1140	Other	Renewal	7,400	7,400	Existing SRV
The Manse Road CH20-880	Other	Renewal	51,600	51,600	Existing SRV
Repentance Creek Road CH2620-4695	Other	Renewal	81,300	81,300	Existing SRV
Other
Development of an Integrated Shire-wide Transport Strategy	Other	New	75,000	75,000	IRR
Clifford St / Broken Head Road intersection - initial safety works	Suffolk Park	Renewal	80,000	80,000	IRR
Mafeking Rd - construction & sealing	Other	Upgrade	110,000	110,000	Revenue
Cedar Rd - construction & sealing	Other	Upgrade	27,000	27,000	Revenue
CPTIGS - Bus Shelters	Other	New	60,000	60,000	Revenue
				727,700	SUBTOTAL

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

Yes

Action CI2.3.1 in the 2017/18 Delivery Plan is “Deliver the approved Capital Works Program” by “Implementation of approved and funded capital projects.”. This can be achieved for this NOM with the provision of budgets by Council.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.1

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services

Report No. 13.1 Council Resolutions Quarterly Review - 1 January 2018 to 31 March 2018

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: David Royston-Jennings, Corporate Governance Officer

File No: I2018/631

Theme: Corporate Management

Governance Services

Summary:

This report provides an update on the status of Council resolutions.

Council should note that 195 resolutions were completed during the period 1 January to 31 March 2018. This is an increase of 143 resolutions compared with the same time period in 2017.

There were 121 active resolutions as at 31 March 2018. This is a decrease of 10 resolutions compared with the previous reporting period as at 31 December 2017, on which date there were 131 active resolutions.

Resolutions could be active or overdue as a result of budget constraints, staff resourcing, extended negotiations with stakeholders, or other reasons.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1. Note the information provided in this report on active Council Resolutions in Attachment 1 (#E2018/28602).

2. Note the completed Resolutions in Attachment 2 (#E2018/36724).

3. Close Resolutions 11-646, 14-096 and 18-193, due to them being no longer relevant, superseded by subsequent resolutions, or not resourced.

4. Alter the reporting requirement determined in Resolution 17-136, regarding Council’s Online Road Register, from monthly to quarterly updates.

Attachments:

1 Active Resolutions as at 31 March 2018, E2018/28602 ⇨

2 1 January 2018 - 31 March 2018 Completed Resolutions Report , E2018/36724 ⇨

Report

This report provides a quarterly update on the status of Council Resolutions to 31 March 2018.

As at 31 March 2018:

· 195 resolutions were completed since 1 January 2018

· 121 resolutions remained active

The active Council resolutions per Council terms are provided below:

· 112 active Council Resolutions from current Council (2016-2020)

· 8 active Council Resolutions from previous Council (2012-2016)

· 1 active Council Resolution from prior Council (2008-2012)

Resolutions completed during this reporting period include the adoption of the compliance priorities program for 2018, ensuring the correct spelling of Dening on all signage, nominating Cr Richardson as delegate to the LGNSW Tourism Conference and Australian Coastal Councils Conference, adoption of the Commercial Use of Road Reserves Policy, amending time limits to paid parking in Byron Bay, nominated Councillors to the new Biodiversity Advisory Committee and Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Advisory Committee and approving the inclusion of the Council area in the Joint Organisation’s area.

Details of completed resolutions for the period are provided at Attachment 2 (E2018/36724).

Table 1 provides a summary of Council resolutions that are no longer relevant or that have been superseded either by other resolutions, legislative change or other matters.

Table 1: Council resolutions that are no longer relevant or that have been superseded by other resolutions:

Meeting Date

Resolution No.

Report Title

Staff Comments and Recommendation

20 March 2014

14-096

Noise investigation at Suffolk Park Skate Park

Final outstanding item is:-

c) modifications to the amenities building, with new change rooms and canteen, subject to plans being developed and approved by council's infrastructure services division

and quotes indicating the works can be built within budget, providing funds of $100,000

The Open Space Team are currently undertaking community consultation for the Suffolk Park Recreation Grounds master plan and subsequent Plan of Management for this precinct.

Amenities project transferred to Open Space and is to be delivered in line with the future adopted Plan of Management for this precinct.

Consultation with the Soccer Club, Suffolk Park Progress association and Staff was undertaken in May 2018 specific to these amenities for project consideration within the Draft Plan of Management for Council Consideration.

On the above basis, it is recommended that this resolution be closed as item c) is to be addressed through the development and adoption of a Plan of Management for the Suffolk Park Recreation Grounds.

25 August 2011

11-676

Commercial Bins in Lawson Street (north) Car Park, Byron Bay

The original report to Council provided the following recommendation to address the historic (over 20 years) issue associated with businesses storing commercial skip bins on the community land parcel in the Lawson Street North car park.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council proceed with an amendment to the LEP to provide for the reclassification of the Community Land at Lot 4 DP 827049 to Operational Land to permit the leasing of land for the purposes of businesses to operate commercial waste bins upon the land.

2.That subject to finalisation of the reclassification processes:

(a) Council requires all land holders / business operators and a licensed waste

disposal company, utilising the Lawson Street (north) car park for the disposal of waste, to enter into a lease arrangement with Council for the commercial use of the public land following the reclassification of the land to operational.

(b) Council include in the lease arrangements a fee to be set on an annual basis and that all costs associated with creating the leases be met by the applicants.

(c) Council require, as part of the lease arrangements, the land holders / business operators and a licensed waste disposal company to fully fund the screening of the garbage bins, with the screen to be designed and erected following approval of Council and at no cost to Council.

(d) the requirements of 2(a), (b) and (c) above be implemented in all operational public areas across the town centres of the Shire, where land holders / business operators utilise public land for the disposal of their garbage as resources permit.

3. That Council compliance officers enforce regulations as they pertain to health and the environment to ensure the areas around the commercial garbage bins in the Lawson Street north car park are maintained and kept clean as an interim measure until the lease arrangements come into effect.

Council resolved after consideration of this report:

that a further report be furnished regarding other existing commercial uses within Lot 4 DP 827049

Since this resolution a number of operational and strategic factors have emerged that have impacted on both the progression and direction of that resolution. These include:

• An organisational restructure

• Shift in staff responsibilities, priorities and resourcing levels

• Commencement of the master planning process

• Similar issues becoming evident in Lawson Street (South) car park and other areas throughout Byron Bay (and the Shire).

• Development of services and programs to enable improved commercial waste management practices (e.g. Plastic Free Alliance Byron project, commencement of a private commercial organics collection service, Bin Trim etc).

Responsibility for actioning this resolution has subsequently been transferred to the Resource Recovery Team. Staff have reviewed the original report, conducted preliminary consultation with current key stakeholders and conducted compliance action to address some of the immediate litter and illegal dumping issues.

In light of the abovementioned factors, staff plan to provide Council with an updated recommendation report for consideration which will involve a contemporary multi-faceted solution of improved waste management practices, infrastructure, potential leasing arrangements and ongoing surveillance and compliance action if required.

As such, it is recommended that resolution 11-646 be closed.

Table 2 provides a summary of Council resolutions that cannot be implemented due to resources not being available, allocated, or are allocated to other adopted projects, services, activities or works. Any resulting decisions of Council will be incorporated into the next quarterly review of resolutions.

Table 2: Council resolutions that are not resourced

Meeting Date

Resolution No.

Report Title

Staff Comments and Recommendation

22 March 2018

18-193

Item 4

Water and Sewer Equivalent Tenements Policy

The policy is written around the Water Directorate Guidelines which are based on state wide data and statistics. It is a significant resourcing issue to separately meter categories of businesses and is beyond the capacity of Council’s trade waste capacity.

Table 3 provides a summary of Council resolutions which are complete but require review:

Table 3: Council resolutions requiring review

Meeting Date	Resolution No.	Report Title	Staff Comments and Recommendation
24 April 2017	17-136	Online Road Register	It is requested that Council consider modifying the requirement from monthly updates to quarterly updates. This will allow for better management and will align with Council’s quarterly budget review processes and reporting to Council. In this way, the updates to the website will be made once Councillors have had the opportunity to receive a report and consider any necessary budget implications associated with proposed program changes.

Financial Implications

A number of resolutions note that resource constraints limit completion of action required.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

· Council requires a quarterly report be prepared to allow it to consider the six monthly Operational Plan and Quarterly Budget reviews along with a review of Council Resolutions.

· Implementation of Council Resolutions in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

· This report has been prepared in accordance with Part 3c) of Resolution 14-417.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.6

Report No. 13.6 Investments April 2018

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2018/812

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

This report includes a list of investments and identifies Council’s overall cash position for the month of April 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 30 April 2018 be noted.

Report

In relation to the investment portfolio for the month of April 2018, Council has continued to maintain a diversified portfolio of investments. At 30 April 2018, the average 90 day bank bill rate (BBSW) for the month of March was 2.05%. Council’s performance to 30 April 2018 is 2.57%. 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 30 April 2018:

Schedule of Investments held as at 30 April 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
02/11/17	2,000,000	Police Credit Union	P	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
17/11/17	1,000,000	Police Credit Union	N	NR	17/05/18	Y	TD	2.75%	1,000,000.00
23/11/17	1,000,000	The Capricornian Credit Union	P	NR	23/05/18	U	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
24/11/17	1,000,000	ME Bank	P	BBB	24/05/18	Y	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
28/11/17	1,000,000	Bananacoast Credit Union	P	NR	28/05/18	Y	TD	2.65%	1,000,000.00
30/11/17	2,000,000	NAB	P	AA-	01/05/17	N	TD	2.49%	2,000,000.00
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	BBB	08/06/18	Y	TD	2.65%	2,000,000.00
19/12/17	2,000,000	Credit Union Australia	P	BBB	19/06/18	Y	TD	2.60%	2,000,000.00
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	P	NR	11/05/18	Y	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	P	AA-	12/06/18	N	TD	2.55%	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	P	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	P	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
01/03/18	1,000,000	Defence Bank	N	BBB	01/08/18	U	TD	2.50%	1,000,000.00
05/03/18	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	05/06/18	N	TD	2.54%	1,000,000.00
06/03/18	2,000,000	My State Bank	N	BBB	06/09/18	Y	TD	2.65%	2,000,000.00
06/03/18	1,000,000	Bananacoast Credit Union	P	NR	06/09/18	Y	TD	2.60%	1,000,000.00
07/03/18	1,000,000	Beyond Bank	N	BBB	09/07/18	Y	TD	2.50%	1,000,000.00
07/03/18	1,000,000	Bananacoast Credit Union	N	NR	07/08/18	Y	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
14/03/18	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	16/07/18	N	TD	2.58%	1,000,000.00
15/03/18	1,000,000	Auswide Bank Ltd	P	BBB-	15/06/18	Y	TD	2.51%	1,000,000.00
15/03/18	1,000,000	The Capricornian Credit Union	P	NR	15/06/18	U	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
16/03/18	1,000,000	The Capricornian Credit Union	N	NR	17/09/18	U	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
28/03/18	1,000,000	Bankwest	N	AA-	26/06/18	N	TD	2.50%	1,000,000.00
04/04/18	2,000,000	Police Credit Union Limited (SA)	N	NR	03/10/18	Y	TD	2.86%	2,000,000.00
04/04/18	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	04/07/18	N	TD	2.57%	1,000,000.00
04/04/18	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	04/10//18	N	TD	2.60%	1,000,000.00
05/04/18	1,000,000	AMP	N	A	02/10/18	N	TD	2.60%	1,000,000.00
05/04/18	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	05/07/18	N	TD	2.57%	1,000,000.00
05/04/18	1,000,000	Police Credit Union Limited (SA)	N	NR	02/10/18	Y	TD	2.85%	1,000,000.00
06/04/18	1,000,000	Hunter United Employees Credit Union	N	NR	05/07/18	U	TD	2.55%	1,000,000.00
10/04/18	1,000,000	Bankwest	N	AA-	09/07/18	N	TD	2.60%	1,000,000.00
12/04/18	1,000,000	Bankwest	N	AA-	12/07/18	N	TD	2.60%	1,000,000.00
16/04/18	1,000,000	The Capricornian Credit Union	N	NR	17/09/18	U	TD	2.74%	1,000,000.00
17/04/18	1,000,000	Police Credit Union Limited (SA)	N	NR	17/10/18	Y	TD	2.94%	1,000,000.00
23/04/18	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	23/07/18	N	TD	2.57%	1,000,000.00
24/04/18	1,000,000	Bankwest	N	AA-	23/07/18	N	TD	2.65%	1,000,000.00
N/A	74,941	CBA Business Online Saver	N	A	N/A	N	CALL	1.40%	74,941.49
12/01/18	1,005,345	NSW Treasury Corp	N	AAA	N/A	Y	CALL	1.60%	1,005,345.04
Total	75,980,286						AVG	2.57%	75,995,029.59

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:

https://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/files/assets/public/hptrim/corporate-management-policies-current/council-investments-policy-2017-current_policies.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 April 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 30 April 2018

Principal Value ($)	Investment Linked to:-	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
71,500,000.00	Term Deposits	71,500,000.00	0.00
2,400,000.00	Floating Rate Note	2,403,642.89	3,642.89
74,941.49	Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	74,941.49	0.00
1,005,345.04	NSW Treasury Corp (T Corp)	1,005,345.04	0.00
1,000,000.00	Bonds	1,011,100.17	11,100.17
75,980,286.53		75,995,029.59	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 April 2018 on a current market value basis.

Movement in Investment Portfolio – April 2018

Item	Current Market Value (at end of month) $
Opening Balance at 1 April 2018	76,492,699.67
Add: New Investments Purchased	14,000,000.00
Add: Call Account Additions	0.00
Add: Interest from Call Account	584.19
Less: Investments Matured	14,000,000.00
Add: T Corp Additions	0.00
Add: Interest from T Corp	1,745.73
Less: Call Account Redemption	500,000.00
Less: Fair Value Movement for period	0.00
Closing Balance at 30 April 2018	75,995,029.89

Investments Maturities and Returns – April 2018

Principal Value ($)	Description	Type	Maturity Date	Number of Days Invested	Interest Rate Per Annum	Interest Paid on Maturity $
2,000,000	ME Bank	TD	03/04/18	124	2.42%	16,442.74
2,000,000	Police Credit Union	TD	04/04/18	182	2.70%	26,926.03
1,000,000	ME Bank	TD	04/04/18	92	2.40%	6,049.32
1,000,000	Police Credit Union	TD	05/04/18	182	2.56%	12,764.93
1,000,000	Hunter United Employees Credit Union	TD	06/04/18	121	2.55%	8,453.52
1,000,000	Bankwest	TD	10/04/18	90	2.50%	6,164.38
1,000,000	Bankwest	TD	12/04/18	90	2.50%	6,164.38
1,000,000	The Capricornian	TD	16/04/18	152	2.55%	10,619.18
1,000,000	Police Credit Union	TD	17/04/18	182	2.55%	12,715.07
2,000,000	Gateway Credit Union	TD	19/04/08	121	2.50%	16,575.34
1,000,000	Bank of Queensland	TD	23/04/18	182	2.55%	12,715.07
14,000,000						135,589.96

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 April 2018 the table below identifies the overall cash position of Council as follows:

Dissection of Council Cash Position as at 30 April 2018

Item	Principal Value ($)	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
Investments Portfolio
Term Deposits	71,500,000.00	71,500,000.00	0.00
Floating Rate Note	2,400,000.00	2,403,642.89	3,642.89
Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	74,941.49	74,941.49	0.00
NSW Treasury Corp (T Corp)	1,005,345.04	1,005,345.04	0.00
Bonds	1,000,000.00	1,011,100.17	11,100.17
Total Investment Portfolio	75,980,286.53	75,995,029.59	14,743.06

Cash at Bank
Consolidated Fund	1,842,713.04	1,842,713.04	0.00
Total Cash at Bank	1,842,713.04	1,842,713.04	0.00

Total Cash Position	77,822,999.57	77,837,742.63	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 13.7

Report No. 13.7 Budget Review 1 January 2018 to 31 March 2018

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No: I2018/829

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

This report is prepared to comply with Regulation 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and to inform Council and the Community of Council’s estimated financial position for the 2017/2018 financial year, reviewed as at 31 March 2018.

This report contains an overview of the proposed budget variations for the General Fund, Water Fund and Sewerage Fund. The specific details of these proposed variations are included in Attachment 1 and 2 for Council’s consideration and authorisation.

Attachment 3 contains the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (IP&R) Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS) as outlined by the Division of Local Government in circular 10-32.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council authorise the itemised budget variations as shown in Attachment 2 (#E2018/39650) which includes the following results in the 31 March 2018 Quarterly Review of the 2017/2018 Budget:

a) General Fund – $256,900 increase to the Estimated Unrestricted Cash Result

b) General Fund - $1,734,800 increase in reserves

c) Water Fund - $1,195,100 increase in reserves

d) Sewerage Fund - $2,930,600 increase in reserves

2. That Council adopt the revised General Fund Estimated Unrestricted Cash Result of $1,145,200 for the 2017/2018 financial year as at 31 March 2018

Attachments:

1 Budget Variations for General, Water and Sewerage Funds, E2018/39647 ⇨

2 Itemised Listing of Budget Variations for General, Water and Sewerage Funds, E2018/39650 ⇨

3 Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (IP&R) required Quarterly Review Statement, E2018/39648 ⇨

Report

Council adopted the 2017/2018 budget on 22 June 2017 via Resolution 17-268. It also considered and adopted the budget carryovers from the 2016/2017 financial year, to be incorporated into the 2017/2018 budget at its Ordinary Meeting held on 24 August 2017 via Resolution 17-322. Since that date, Council has reviewed the budget taking into consideration the 2016/2017 Financial Statement results and progress through the first three quarters of the 2017/2018 financial year. This report considers the March 2018 Quarter Budget Review.

The details of the budget review for the Consolidated, General, Water and Sewer Funds are included in Attachment 1, with an itemised listing in Attachment 2. This aims to show the consolidated budget position of Council, as well as a breakdown by Fund and Principal Activity. The document in Attachment 1 is also effectively a publication outlining a review of the budget and is intended to provide Councillors with more detailed information to assist with decision making regarding Council’s finances.

Contained in the document at Attachment 1 is the following reporting hierarchy:

Consolidated Budget Cash Result

General Fund Cash Result Water Fund Cash Result Sewer Cash Result

Principal Activity Principal Activity Principal Activity

Operating Income Operating Expenditure Capital income Capital Expenditure

The pages within Attachment 1 are presented (from left to right) by showing the original budget as adopted by Council on 22 June 2017 plus the adopted carryover budgets from 2016/2017 followed by the resolutions between July and September, the September Review, resolutions between October and December, the December review, resolutions between January and March and the revote (or adjustment for this review) and then the revised position projected for 30 June 2018 as at 31 March 2018.

On the far right of the Principal Activity, there is a column titled “Note”. If this is populated by a number, it means that there has been an adjustment in the quarterly review. This number then corresponds to the notes at the end of the Attachment 1 which provides an explanation of the variation.

There is also information detailing restricted assets (reserves) to show Council estimated balances as at 30 June 2018 for all Council’s reserves.

A summary of Capital Works is also included by Fund and Principal Activity.

Office of Local Government Budget Review Guidelines:-

The Office of Local Government on 10 December 2010 issued the new Quarterly Budget Review Guidelines via Circular 10-32, with the reporting requirements to apply from 1 July 2011. This report includes a Quarterly Budget Review Statement (refer Attachment 3) prepared by Council in accordance with the guidelines.

The Quarterly Budget Review Guidelines set a minimum standard of disclosure, with these standards being included in the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting as mandatory requirements for Council’s to address.

Since the introduction of the new planning and reporting framework for NSW Local Government, it is now a requirement for Councils to provide the following components when submitting a Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS):-

· A signed statement by the Responsible Accounting Officer on Councils financial position at the end of the year based on the information in the QBRS

· Budget review income and expenses statement in one of the following formats:

o Consolidated

o By fund (e.g General, Water, Sewer)

o By function, activity, program etc to align with the management plan/operational plan

· Budget Review Capital Budget

· Budget Review Cash and Investments Position

· Budget Review Key performance indicators

· Budget Review Contracts and Other Expenses

The above components are included in Attachment 3:-

Income and Expenditure Budget Review Statement by Type – This shows Council’s income and Expenditure by type. This has been split by Fund. Adjustments are shown, looking from left to right. These adjustments are commented on through the last 19 pages of Attachment 1.

Capital Budget Review Statement – This statement identifies in summary Council’s capital works program on a consolidated basis and then split by Fund. It also identifies how the capital works program is funded.

Cash and Investments Budget Review Statement – This statement reconciles Council’s restricted funds (reserves) against available cash and investments. Council has attempted to indicate an actual position as at 31 March 2018 of each reserve to show a total cash position of reserves with any difference between that position and total cash and investments held as available cash and investments. It should be recognised that the figure is at a point in time and may vary greatly in future quarterly reviews pending on cash flow movements.

Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) – At this stage, the KPI’s within this report are:-

o Debt Service Ratio - This assesses the impact of loan principal and interest repayments on the discretionary revenue of Council.

o Rates and Annual Charges Outstanding Ratio – This assesses the impact of uncollected rates and annual charges on Councils liquidity and the adequacy of recovery efforts

o Asset Renewals Ratio – This assesses the rate at which assets are being renewed relative to the rate at which they are depreciating.

These may be expanded in future to accommodate any additional KPIs that Council may adopt to use in the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP.)

Contracts and Other Expenses - This report highlights any contracts Council entered into during the January to March quarter that are greater then $50,000.

CONSOLIDATED RESULT

The following table provides a summary of the overall Council budget on a consolidated basis inclusive of all Funds budget movements for the 2017/2018 financial year projected to 30 June 2018 but revised as at 31 March 2018.

2017/2018 Budget Review Statement as at 31 December 2017		Original Estimate (Including Carryovers) 1/7/2017	Adjustments to 31 March 2018 including Resolutions*	Proposed 31 March 2018 Review Revotes	Revised Estimate 30/6/2018 at 31/03/2018
	Operating Revenue	76,828,000	2,721,500	2,825,400	82,374,900
	Operating Expenditure	79,542,600	3,544,300	2,911,200	85,998,100
	Operating Result – Surplus/Deficit	(2,714,600)	(822,800)	(85,800)	(3,623,200)
	Add: Capital Revenue	27,790,000	(18,400,400)	(548,900)	8,840,700
	Change in Net Assets	25,075,400	(19,223,200)	(634,700)	5,217,500
	Add: Non Cash Expenses	12,939,400	0	0	12,939,400
	Add: Non-Operating Funds Employed	2,160,000	1,239,000	0	3,399,000
	Subtract: Funds Deployed for Non-Operating Purposes	(64,587,000)	19,940,100	6,752,100	(37,894,800)
	Cash Surplus/(Deficit)	(24,412,200)	1,955,900	6,117,400	(16,338,900)
	Restricted Funds – Increase / (Decrease)	(24,419,500)	2,220,100	5,860,500	16,338,900
	Forecast Result for the Year – Surplus/(Deficit) – Unrestricted Cash Result	7,300	(264,200)	256,900	0

GENERAL FUND

In terms of the General Fund projected Unrestricted Cash Result the following table provides a reconciliation of the estimated position as at 31 March 2018:

Opening Balance – 1 July 2017	$1,145,200
Plus original budget movement and carryovers	$7,300
Council Resolutions July – September Quarter	($50,000)
September Review – increase/(decrease)	($161,900)
Council Resolutions October – December Quarter	($10.000)
December Review – increase/(decrease)	($42,300)
Council Resolutions January – March Quarter	0
Recommendations within this Review – increase/(decrease)	$256,900
Forecast Unrestricted Cash Result – Surplus/(Deficit) – 30 June 2018	$0
Estimated Unrestricted Cash Result Closing Balance – 30 June 2018	$1,145,200

The General Fund financial position overall has increased by $256,900 as a result of this budget review. The proposed budget changes are detailed in Attachment 1 and summarised further in this report below.

Council Resolutions impacting the Budget Result

There were no resolutions of Council during the January to March quarter that affected the budget result.

Budget Adjustments

The budget adjustments identified in Attachments 1 and 2 for the General Fund have been summarised by Budget Directorate in the following table:

Budget Directorate	Revenue Increase/ (Decrease) $	Expenditure Increase/ (Decrease) $	Accumulated Surplus (Working Funds) Increase/ (Decrease) $
General Manager	0	(11,300)	11,300
Corporate & Community Services	364,800	310,700	54,100
Infrastructure Services	1,561,400	1,324,800	236,600
Sustainable Environment & Economy	781,300	826,400	(45,100)
Total Budget Movements	2,707,500	2,450,600	256,900

Budget Adjustment Comments

Within each of the Budget Directorates of the General Fund, are a series of budget adjustments identified in detail at Attachment 1 and 2. More detailed notes on these are provided in Attachment 1 but in summary the major additional items included are summarised below by Directorate and are included in the overall budget adjustments table above:

General Manager

· In the General Managers program, it is proposed to remove the $30,000 allocated for the Community Satisfaction survey. This will be completed in the 2018/19 year and is included in the 2018/19 draft budget. This has no effect on the program as the support service costs reallocated will reduce.

· In the People and Culture program it is proposed to decrease the budget for the General Managers performance Review ($9,800) and the Staff recognition scheme ($1,500). These savings can be used for the Administration Office refurbishment works in the Facilities Management capital works program.

Corporate and Community Services

· In the General Purpose Revenues Program an additional $47,600 in revenue has been recognised from interest on investments. This increase adjusts the budget to reflect the estimated actual investment revenue that Council will receive before the end of the financial year.

· In the Corporate Services Program it is proposed to increase expenditure by an additional $40,000 for the Excess on insurance claims. There has been a significant increase in the number of claims that Council is paying. This can be funded from the Risk Management reserve.

Infrastructure Services

· In the Emergency Service Program it is proposed to increase operating income and expenditure by $62,000 to reflect Rural Fire Service (RFS) income from Donations ($25,000 - redistributed to brigades), Ballina RFS and Tweed RFS ($25,000 and $12,000 respectively - reimbursement of expenses incurred by Byron Shire Council).

· In the Depot Services and Fleet Management program, it is proposed to create a budget for the Gate Upgrade ($131,700) and the upgrade of the administration building ($35,000). These can be funded through the plant reserve.

· In the Local Roads and Drainage program, there are a number of adjustments outlined under Note 17 in the Budget Variations explanations section of Attachment 1. Further disclosure is included on pages 6, 7 and 8 of Attachment 2 under the budget program heading Local Roads and Drainage.

· In the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) program it is proposed to increase income by $835,000 and expenditure by $873,500 to account for the March 2017 Natural Disaster ($700,000) and an increase in the budget for Tinderbox Road Causeway as the existing budget did not cover all costs of the project ($173,500). This was Council resolution 18-021 to increase the budget, but this budget review addresses the revenue funding portion.

· In the Open Space & Recreation program, there are a number of adjustments outlined under Note 19 in the Budget Variations explanations section of Attachment 1. Further disclosure is included on pages 8 and 9 of Attachment 2 under the budget program heading Open Space & Recreation.

· In the Waste & Recycling program it is proposed to increase capital expenditure by $166,400 for the Customer Service Foyer renovation contribution ($33,400) and Public Place Bin Network Infrastructure - Projects ($130,000). This budget increase will allow for Council to expand recycling infrastructure networks in Mullumbimby and Bangalow. Asset upgrade/enclosure refurbishment will be conducted at the same time as network expansion. Other adjustments are proposed to bring the income and expenditure budgets into line with actual income and expenditure. All these movements have no impact on the budget result as they are covered through the Domestic Waste Management Reserve and the Other Waste Management Reserve.

· In the Cavanbah Centre program it is proposed to decrease operating income due to no further income expected for food and beverage sales ($34,200) as the canteen/kitchen has taken on all food and beverage sales and a reduction in expected fees received from sporting clubs for the hire of the sportsfields ($22,000). This is offset by various other adjustments outlined under Note 21 in the Budget Variations explanations section of Attachment 1 to bring the budgets into line with the actuals. Further disclosure is included on page 11 of Attachment 2 under the budget program heading Cavanbah Centre.

· In the Holiday Park programs, there are decreases in the capital budgets of $475;000 ($190,000 First Sun and $285,000 Suffolk Park). These budgets have been adjusted as it was identified that these works would not be completed this financial year. A breakdown of these works can be seen on pages 11 and 12 of attachment 2. These are all funded through the Holiday Park reserve.

· In the Facilities Management program it is proposed to decrease operating income by $10,500 due to the Clarkes Beach Café rent being reduced ($38,600 - Funded through the Crown reserve), an increase in the payment received from the insurer relating to the March 2017 flood event ($16,100) and an increase in fees received on Crown reserves ($12,000). It is proposed to decrease operating expenditure due to a decrease in electricity costs at Mullumbimby pool ($20,000) and reductions against various community building costs ($13,800)

Sustainable Environment and Economy

· In the Development and Certification program, it is proposed to increase income by $20,000 and expenditure by $20,000 to budget for the Information and Technology Service fee. It is also proposed to transfer the total Income budget less the total expenditure budget to a newly created Information & Technology Service Fee reserve. It is proposed to increase operating expenditure due to Temporary Resourcing ($50,000) to cover the costs of processing additional DA’s that Council has received and reduce the EHC Exempt and Complying Development ($30,000) as this will not be expended in 2017/18. This can be moved to the 2018/19 draft budget. It is proposed to increase Developer Contribution income by $400,000 to reflect the actual income received from developers. This will be transferred to the respective Section 94 reserves.

· In the Planning Policy and Natural Environment Program, there are a number of adjustments outlined under Note 25 in the Budget Variations explanations section of Attachment 1. Further disclosure is included on page 13 of Attachment 2 under the budget program heading Planning Policy and Natural Environment.

· In the Environment & Compliance program it is proposed to increase operating income due to income being received for the Environment Enforcement Levy ($114,700 – transferred to a new Environment Enforcement Levy reserve), Caravan park inspection fees ($71,400) and various other fees where the actual income is higher than the budget. These adjustments are outlined under note 26 in the Budget Variations explanations section of attachment 1. It is proposed to increase operating expenditure by $43,500 to cover costs associated with the Environment Enforcement Levy ($25,500), an increase against licence plate recognition ($14,200) due to the allocated budget not covering the actual cost and an $8,500 increase for investigation consultants.

· In the Economic Development program there are a number of adjustments outlined under Note 27 in the Budget Variations explanations section of Attachment 1. Further disclosure is included on page 15 of Attachment 2 under the budget program heading Economic Development.

WATER FUND

After completion of the 2016/2017 Financial Statements the Water Fund as at 30 June 2017 has a capital works reserve of $4,953,000 and held $6,692,100 in section 64 developer contributions.

The estimated Water Fund reserve balances as at 30 June 2018, and forecast in this Quarter Budget Review, are derived as follows:

Capital Works Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2017	$4,953,800
Plus original budget reserve movement	1,539,000
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2016/2017	(124,800)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(40,000)
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(56,500)
Resolutions January - March Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
March Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	11,000
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2017/2018 – Increase / (Decrease)	1,328,700
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2018	$6,282,500

Section 64 Developer Contributions

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2017	$6,692,100
Plus original budget reserve movement	(1,874,000)
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2016/2017	(2,645,300)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(70,000)
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(50,000)
Resolutions January - March Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
March Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	1,184,100
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2017/2018 – Increase / (Decrease)	(3,455,200)
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2018	$3,236,900

Movements for Water Fund can be seen in Attachment 1 with a proposed estimated increase to reserves (including S64 Contributions) overall of $1,195,100 from the 31 March 2018 Quarter Budget Review.

SEWERAGE FUND

After completion of the 2016/2017 Financial Statements the Sewer Fund as at 30 June 2017 has a capital works reserve of $7,372,800 and plant reserve of $827,800. It also held $9,583,600 in section 64 developer contributions.

Capital Works Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2017	$7,372,800
Plus original budget reserve movement	(1,008,100)
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2016/2017	(102,200)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	24,000
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	(251,000)
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(524,300)
Resolutions January - March Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
March Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	2,647,100
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2017/2018 – Increase / (Decrease)	785,500
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2018	$8,158,300

Plant Reserve

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2017	$827,800
Plus original budget reserve movement	0
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2016/2017	0
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(12,300)
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	0
Resolutions January - March Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
March Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	0
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2017/2018 – Increase / (Decrease)	(12,300)
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2018	$815,500

Section 64 Developer Contributions

Opening Reserve Balance at 1 July 2017	$9,583,600
Plus original budget reserve movement	(188,800)
Less reserve funded carryovers from 2016/2017	(1,949,600)
Resolutions July - September Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
September Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(26,700)
Resolutions October - December Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
December Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	(275,000)
Resolutions January - March Quarter – increase / (decrease)	0
March Quarterly Review Adjustments – increase / (decrease)	283,500
Forecast Reserve Movement for 2017/2018 – Increase / (Decrease)	(2,156,600)
Estimated Reserve Balance at 30 June 2018	$7,427,000

Movements for the Sewerage Fund can be seen in Attachment 1 with a proposed estimated overall increase to reserves (including S64 Contributions) of $2,930,600 from the 31 March 2018 Quarter Budget Review.

Legal Expenses

One of the major financial concerns for Council over previous years has been legal expenses. Not only does this item potentially represent a large expenditure item funded by general revenue, but can also be susceptible to large fluctuations.

The table that follows indicates the allocated budget and actual legal expenditure within Council on

a fund basis as at 31 March 2018.

Total Legal Income & Expenditure as at 31 March 2018

Program	2017/2018 Budget ($)	Actual ($)	Percentage To Revised Budget
Income
Legal Expenses Recovered	0	0	0%
Total Income	0	0	0%

Expenditure
General Legal Expenses	301,000	178,325	59.24%
Total Expenditure General Fund	301,000	178,325	59.24%

Note: Due to current legal matters, it is estimated that Council may incur costs for legal expenses of approximately $100,000 in addition to the original budget. In view of this an additional $100,000 was allocated at the December 2017 budget review to the General Legal Expenses budget, funded from the Legal Services Reserve. This will leave an estimated Legal Services Reserve balance at 30 June 2018 of $324,500.

Byron Railway Precinct Projects

For information, the adopted 2017/2018 Budget Estimates currently provides an allocation of $1,457,500 funded from the Infrastructure Renewal Reserve, TDDI Grant, Visitor Centre contribution and other sources for projects related to the Byron Bay Master Plan – Railway Precinct.

A summary of the current projects with funded budgets associated with the Byron Railway Precinct are outlined in the table below with budgets presented prior to any adjustment that may be proposed in this Quarterly Budget Review:

Job No	Project No	Project	Current Budget 2017/2018 $
4835.187	0	Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan	239,300
44283.013	1	Byron Street	200,000
44265.001	1	Byron Street	311,400
4835.188	2	Byron St Connection Upgrade	139,000
4835.189	3	Railway Park Upgrade	237,500
4835.190	4	Visitor Centre Refurbishment	130,000
2306.028	5	Countrylink Building Project Plan	35,000
4835.191	0	Visitor Centre Technology Project	45,000
4835.219	18	Byron Rail Corridor Park	57,000
4835.222	9	Conservation Mgmt Strategy	8,800
4835.223	11	Market/Comm Relocation/DAs	500
4835.224	12	Rail Corridor Contamination Assessment	32,100
4835.225	13	Farmers Market Relocation	21,900
		Total	1,457,500

Financial Implications

The 31 March 2018 Quarter Budget Review of the 2017/2018 Budget has improved the overall budget result by an estimated $256,900. As a result there is an increase of $256,900 to the estimated unrestricted cash balance attributable to the General Fund, with this becoming an estimated $1,145,200 at 30 June 2018. This is above the adopted target of Council of $1,000,000. Council has recovered the 2017/2018 budget result back to a balanced outcome after the March 2018 Quarter Budget Review.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

In accordance with Regulation 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 the Responsible Accounting Officer of a Council must:-

(1) Not later than 2 months after the end of each quarter (except the June quarter), the responsible accounting officer of a council must prepare and submit to the council a budget review statement that shows, by reference to the estimate of income and expenditure set out in the statement of the council’s revenue policy included in the operational plan for the relevant year, a revised estimate of the income and expenditure for that year.

(2) A budget review statement must include or be accompanied by:

(a) a report as to whether or not the responsible accounting officer believes that the statement indicates that the financial position of the council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure, and

(b) if that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action.

(3) A budget review statement must also include any information required by the Code to be included in such a statement.

Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer

This report indicates that the short term financial position of the Council is still satisfactory for the 2017/2018 financial year, having consideration of the original estimate of income and expenditure at the 31 March 2018 Quarter Budget Review.

This opinion is based on the estimated General Fund Unrestricted Cash Result position and that the current indicative budget position for 2017/2018 remains the same during the remainder of the 2017/2018 financial year.

There needs to be an awareness that any modifications proposed for Council’s budget are not approved without consideration of funding if additional expenditure is proposed through either reallocation of existing budgets, additional revenue or available reserves.

The short term financial position of Council may become unsatisfactory if work is not undertaken to maintain the current budget position. It is pleasing that Council has passed resolution 18-111 part 5 at the 22 February 2018 Ordinary Meeting that Council reaffirm that no expenditure is to occur without an approved budget backed by resolution of Council.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.12

Report No. 13.12 PLANNING - Development Application 10.2017.280.1 Development Application for Alterations and Additions to existing building including, construction of basement car park, Restaurant at ground level (including cellar bar and sandwich bar), and two self contained Motel or Hotel Accommodation units at first floor level at 32-34 Byron Street Bangalow

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Paul Mills, Senior Planner

File No: I2018/681

Theme: Ecology

Development and Approvals

Proposal:

Proposal description:	Alterations and Additions to existing building including, construction of basement car park, Restaurant at ground level (including cellar bar and sandwich bar), and two self contained Motel or Hotel Accommodation units at first floor level.
Property description:	LOT: 1 DP: 1062312
Property description:	32-34 Byron Street BANGALOW
Parcel No/s:	239099
Applicant:	Bureau SRH Architects
Owner:	Ms C J Gracanin
Zoning:	B2 Local Centre
Date received:	1 June 2017
Integrated Development:	No
Public notification or exhibition:	- Level 2 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications - Exhibition period: 22/6/17 to 5/7/17 - Submissions received: Four (4)
Planning Review Committee:	Considered at the PRC Meeting held 22 February 2018 where it was resolved the application is to be determined by Council.
Delegation to determination:	Meeting of Council
Issues:	· The subject site is as identified within Byron LEP 2014 to be a Heritage Item and is also located within the Bangalow Heritage Conservation Area. · The proposed development involves a shortfall of nine (9) on-site parking spaces to satisfy DCP 2014 requirements. The Applicant has proposed to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement for the payment of a monetary contribution towards the provision of parking within proximity of the Bangalow CBD.

Summary:

The application seeks development consent for Alterations and Additions to existing building including, construction of basement car park, Restaurant at ground level, and two self contained Motel or hotel accommodation units at first floor level.

The proposed development seeks to provide nine (9) parking less than required by Council’s DCP 2014 and the application is accompanied by a draft voluntary Planning Agreement (dated 12 September 2017) seeking to make a monetary contribution towards public car parking within (or in close proximity to) the Bangalow CBD. Council’s Developer Contributions Officer has advised that Council may accept a Planning Agreement for the remaining shortfall in on-site car parking. These contributions will be put towards funding peripheral parking as set identified in the access and movement strategy or alternative additional parking in the town centre.

The subject site is a listed Heritage Item of local significance and is also located within the Bangalow Conservation Area. The proposal was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for comment and realised no objection to the development subject to conditions of consent. The development is positioned behind the existing building fronting Byron Street and is an appropriate response to the site, the planning controls and the characteristics of the area.

In response to the public notification process a total of four (4) submissions were received, the issues raised in the submissions included heritage conservation and insufficient on-site car parking which have been discussed in this report.

The proposed development is considered to accord with the relevant provisions of Council’s LEP and DCP 2014, and relevant State Environmental Planning Policies. The proposed development is considered to have sufficient planning merit to warrant approval subject to conditions of consent. .

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Development Application No. 10.2017.280.1 for Alterations and Additions to existing building including, construction of basement car park, Restaurant at ground level (including cellar bar and sandwich bar) and two self contained Hotel or Motel Accommodation units at first floor level, be granted consent subject to the conditions included in Attachment 3 #E2018/38603.

Attachments:

1 Plans prepared by Bureau SRH Architecture, E2018/38591 ⇨

2 Heritage Assessment dated 18 July 2017 , E2018/38597 ⇨

3 Proposed conditions of consent 10.2017.280.1, E2018/38603 ⇨

4 submissions received 10.2017.280.1, E2018/38555 ⇨

Assessment:

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. History/Background

10.2002.536.1 Consent granted to Development Application seeking consent for a change the use of the main building on the allotment for use as three (3) independent shops and two (2) consulting rooms.

10.2004.367.1 Consent granted to Development Application to convert a 4m x 6m portion at the rear of an existing approved shop to a hairdressing salon.

10.2016.235.1 Withdrawn Development Application for Alterations and Additions to Existing Commercial Building Including a Sub Ground Level Carpark, Restaurant and Three (3) One Bedroom Motel Units.

This proposal was considered to be inconsistent with the established character of the Bangalow Heritage Conservation Area and to detract from the setting of the subject Heritage Item. Council’s heritage advisor recommended design modifications to make the proposal sympathetic to the heritage significance of the site. The applicant subsequently lodged this proposal adopting the recommendations of Council’s heritage advisor.

View of DA 10.2016.235.1 from Byron Street (former proposal shown in red) the DA was withdrawn following issues with heritage conservation, height and character.

1.2. Description of the proposed development

This application seeks development consent for Alterations and Additions to the rear of existing building including, construction of basement car park, Restaurant at ground level, and two self contained Motel or hotel accommodation units at first floor level. The proposal specifically involves:

Basement Level

· Two car parking spaces (including one accessible parking space) and bicycle parking are proposed with gated access to the rear (Deacon Street).

· Basement is also to contain a vehicle turntable and lift access to ground floor level.

Ground Floor

· The proposal involves minor alterations to the rear of the existing building;

· Construction of a new restaurant to rear of existing building with 76.25m² of internal floor space;

· New outdoor dining area including raised podium level,

· Sandwich /salad bar;

· Cellar bar

· Toilets and separate accessible toilet including nappy change room,

· Cold store room;

· New external waste storage area and separate lifts to basement and first floor level.

First Floor

· Erection of two self contained hotel/motel apartments (each with 50m² of internal floor space) containing single bedroom, lounge, kitchen and bathroom and external balcony

· Lift and stair access from ground level.

Artists impressions of proposed development when viewed from the rear Deacon Street are contained in Figure No.1 and No.2. The roof of the proposed addition does not exceed the height of the existing building when viewed from Byron Street as can be seen in Figure 3 below. This is a significant change to the original concept with the saw tooth roof additions. .

Proposed Planning Agreement

The proposed development is short nine (9) car parking spaces required by Byron DCP 2014. To compensate for this shortfall in parking the proposal includes a draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (dated 12 September 2017) which seeks to make a monetary contribution towards public car parking within (or in close proximity to) the Bangalow CBD.

Figure 1 - Artistic impression of proposed development when viewed from Deacon Street

Figure 2 - Artistic impression of proposed development when viewed from Deacon Street

Figure 3 - View of proposed development (shown in red) from Byron Street frontage

1.3. Description of the site

Land is legally described as	LOT: 1 DP: 1062312
Property address is	32-34 Byron Street BANGALOW
Land is zoned:	B2 Local Centre
Land area is:	607m²
Property is constrained by:	Heritage Item and Heritage Conservation Area

Figure 4 – Existing building at 32-34 Byron Street, Bangalow

The subject property is identified as a Heritage Item (No. I016 ‘Bangalow House’) within Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014, and is also located within the Bangalow Heritage Conservation Area.

2. SUMMARY OF REFERRALS

Referral	Issue
Development Engineer	No objection to the proposal subject to Conditions of Consent. Car parking shortfall to be resolved through contributions.
Building Surveyor	Compliance of the existing and proposed buildings with relevant provisions of the BCA (Clause 94 of the Regulation). No objection to the proposal subject to conditions.
S64 / Systems Planning Officer	Provision of water, bulk water and sewerage services. No issues identified subject to conditions.
S94 / Contributions Officer	No objection to the proposed VPA for payment of monetary contributions to compensate for the shortfall in on-site parking proposed.
Heritage Advisor	No objection to the proposal subject to conditions. The Heritage Advisor’s comments are attached fro Councils consideration.

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	☒	☐
Consideration: Following an inspection of the subject site and based on the information available there is no evidence to suggest the site is likely to have been contaminated by a past use. The site was used for residential purposes over 100 years ago. The subject land is considered to be suitable for the proposed restaurant use and motel units subject to conditions requiring the preparation of an Unexpected Findings Protocol.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004	☒	☐
Consideration: Not applicable, proposal is not a BASIX affected building.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007	☒	☐
Consideration: No issues identified.

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 Hotel or motel accommodation and Restaurant;

(b) The land is within the B2 Local Centre according to the Land Zoning Map;

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

B2 Local Centre Zone Objectives

Consideration

• To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

• To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

• To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

• To encourage vibrant centres by allowing residential and tourist and visitor accommodation above commercial premises.

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the B2 Local Centre Zone. The proposal seeks to provide a restaurant and motel accommodation which will serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area. The proposal also encourages a vibrant centre by providing tourist and visitor accommodation above a commercial premises.

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 clauses of LEP 2014 (in some cases subject to conditions and/or to the satisfaction of other assessing officers).

Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

The proposed additions have a maximum height of 7.5 metres and complies with the 9 metre height limit for Bangalow

Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio

The subject site has a maximum Floor Space ratio of 1.0:1.0 under Byron LEP 2014. The proposal has an FSR of 0.65:1.0 and complies with the LEP provisions.

Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation

Clause 5.10(4) states:

(4) Effect of proposed development on heritage significance

The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause in respect of a heritage item or heritage conservation area, consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned. This subclause applies regardless of whether a heritage management document is prepared under subclause (5) or a heritage conservation management plan is submitted under subclause (6).

Assessment: The subject property is identified as a Heritage Item (No. I016 ‘Bangalow House’) within Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014, and is also located within the Bangalow Heritage Conservation Area.

Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the proposed development in the context of the Heritage Item status of the site and in the broader context of the Bangalow Conservation Area. The proposed roof height of the addition does not exceed that of the existing heritage building which substantially restricts views of the development from Byron Street. Following is an extract from the comments from Council’s Heritage Advisor:

“The proposed additions are considered sympathetic and are not likely to have an adverse impact upon the significance or setting of the subject heritage item or the setting of the Bangalow Heritage Conservation Area, subject to final colours.”

Overall the proposed development is considered to be compatible with the heritage significance of the site and surrounds.

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

No relevant draft Environmental Planning Instruments have been identified for this proposal.

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 checked 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).

Chapter C1 Non-Indigenous Heritage

The proposal is considered to accord with Section C1.3 (Conservation Guidelines and Requirements -Heritage Items, Heritage Conservation Areas and Development in their Vicinity) for the following reasons:

· The proposal seeks to retain the original front façade of the subject building with all additions located to the rear of the existing building.

· The proposed roof height of the addition does not exceed that of the existing heritage building which substantially restricts views of the development from Byron Street.

· The proposed infill development is compatible in terms of bulk and scale.

A heritage assessment prepared by Council’s Heritage Advisor concludes that the proposal would not impact adversely upon the significance of the Heritage Item or the Bangalow Conservation Area.

Chapter B4 Car Parking

The proposal has been calculated to require a total of 20 parking spaces. The site is considered to have credit for 8.8 spaces, therefore, the site requires a further 11 additional parking spaces. Only two (2) parking spaces are proposed, resulting in a shortfall of 9 spaces. The applicant has proposed to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement to make a cash contribution towards the provision of parking within proximity of the Bangalow CBD. The draft Planning Agreement is the subject of a separate report to Council to determine whether Council is prepared to enter into the submitted draft Planning Agreement.

Chapter D4 Commercial and Retail Development

Section D4.2.10 Restaurants, Cafes, Small Bars, Pubs Registered Clubs, Function Centres and other Licensed Premises in the Urban Areas of Byron Shire

The restaurant component of the proposal is satisfactory with the DCP controls. A condition has been included in the recommendation to limit the hours of operation of the restaurant to day trading between 7:00am to 6:00pm Monday to Sunday (seven days per week) as discussed with the applicant.

Chapter E2 Bangalow

The proposed development is considered to be compatible with the historical and architectural significance of its setting. The proposed character, bulk and scale is compatible with the low rise, historical character and scale of Bangalow in accordance with Section E2.1.3 of DCP 2014.

4.5 Any Planning Agreement or Draft Planning Agreement?

Yes

Is there any applicable planning agreement or draft planning agreement?

☒

☐

Consideration: The applicant has submitted a draft Planning Agreement seeking to make a monetary contribution towards the provision of additional car parking in Bangalow, it is for the consideration of Council if it wishes to enter into the planning agreement.

The proposed plans provide on site car parking for the hotel/motel accommodation units. This satisfies clause B4.2.10 of the DCP. Council may accept a VPA for the remaining commercial shortfall in parking. The current draft VPA requires amendment but is satisfactory to form the basis of an offer under the terms of Section 7.4. Council’s Developer Contributions officer is satisfied that a condition of consent may be imposed for a planning agreement and that the development application may be approved. These contributions will be put towards funding peripheral parking as identified in the access and movement strategy or alternative additional parking in the town centre.

A condition is recommended requiring a VPA be entered into prior to the construction certificate.

4.6 Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 Considerations

Clause 94 Consent Authority may require buildings to be upgraded

The applicant has submitted a BCA Compliance Audit Report prepared by East Coast Certification Group dated 2 April 2018. The report was considered by Council’s Building Certifier who has raised no objection to the proposal subject to compliance with the recommendations of the BCA Audit Report.

4.7 Any coastal zone management plan?

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Not applicable

Is there any applicable coastal zone management plan?

☐

☒

Consideration: Byron embayment CZMP not adopted by the NSW Government at this time.

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

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

4.9 The suitability of the site for the development

The subject site is a listed Heritage Item of local significance and is located within the Bangalow Conservation Area. The proposal has been designed following comments from Council’s Heritage Advisor and is considered to be compatible with the heritage significance of the site and area, subject to conditions.

4.10 Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

The development application was publicly exhibited. There were four (4) submissions received in response to the development application, following is a summary of the planning matters raised in those submissions.

Summary of planning issue

Comment

Character and appearance. This significant original structure and surrounding space essentially defines the characteristic curtilage of Deacon Street with deep rear areas that are typically vegetated and partially used for tenant parking. There is also a somewhat random collection of garages but certainly no dominant buildings yet occupy these spaces. It is in this context that this DA is of particular importance because planning decisions may well set a precedent for the entire line of heritage buildings on the southern side of Byron Street. The distinctive character of the Deacon Street precinct would then be completely compromised.

New/Old Building Relationship. The retention and preservation of the original structure is endorsed. Although the proposal for the new building emphasises roof line compatibility with the old building and minimal impact from the Byron Street view, it is clear that the clean symmetrical lines of the old building will be diminished by the inconsistent western section of roofing on the new building.

Curtilage. There has been no attempt to respect the curtilage associated with the old building and which is repeated for other buildings along Deacon Street towards St Stephen’s church. Moreover, by filling this space, various options for improving traffic and pedestrian flow in Deacon Street are removed.

Scale. While scale has been reduced from the previous application, the new building still dominates the available space such that a section of roof line interferes with the Byron Street facade and there is no longer a meaningful view of the old building from Deacon Street. The large footprint also entirely removes the availability of convenient all-day tenant parking.

Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the proposed development in the context of Deacon Street and raised no objection. The following comments from the Heritage advisor are pertinent in this regard.

“Although the proposed additions are close to the rear of the existing building, the rear of the site is currently developed with a sealed car park and does not display any visible remnants of an earlier relationship with the heritage item such as gardens or early outbuildings. Open space will be created for a proposed garden outdoor eating area on the eastern side which will retain some views to the rear elevation of the heritage item, and the café area also maintains some transparency.”

The proposal is at a height, bulk and scale sympathetic with development in the Bangalow CBD and complies with the LEP controls having regards to the commercial zoning of the land, and the height and floor space ratio provisions that apply. The proposal has also been considered against heritage provisions in Byron LEP 2014 and DCP 2014 with expertise sought from Councils Heritage advisor. It is considered the development in maintaining the Byron Street character is the main elevation of significance not the rear of the site in this instance. The proposed development is considered acceptable in this instance. .

No On-Site Parking.

Lack of parking puts this issue back on Byron Shire Council. This adds to the existing parking problem.

A planning agreement between BSC and the applicants does nothing to lessen this burden. “The purpose of the planning agreement is for the developer to pay Council for the provision of public car parking.”

The proposal seeks to provide two (2) on-site parking spaces in the basement level with access directly from Deacon Street. The shortfall in parking is to be made up by entering into a voluntary planning agreement for the payment of a monetary contribution towards parking in Bangalow. With the payment of the contribution car parking is considered acceptable.

4.11 Public interest

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

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

Having regard to sections 5A, 5C and 5D of the EP&A Act, there is unlikely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats as a result of the proposed development because the proposal does not involve the removal of any significant vegetation or known threatened species habitat.

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

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

5. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

5.1 Water & Sewer Levies

Section 64 levies will be payable.

5.2 Section 94 Contributions

Section 94 Contributions will be payable.

6. CONCLUSION

The proposed development is considered to accord with the relevant provisions of Council’s LEP 2014, DCP 2014, and relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, subject to conditions.

The proposal is considered to have sufficient planning merit to warrant approval subject to conditions.

7. DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL DONATIONS AND GIFTS

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

Provide Disclosure Statement register details here: Not applicable.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.14

Report No. 13.14 Update - Resolution 18-266 The Terrace Reserve Holiday Park, Brunswick Heads

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Shannon Burt, Director Sustainable Environment and Economy

File No: I2018/797

Theme: Ecology

Development and Approvals

Summary:

Council considered Report 13.24 Update - Resolution 17-184 Brunswick Heads Holiday Parks and Resolution 17-523 Heritage and Environmental Assessment Reports - Coastal cypress Pines at Terrace Reserve Brunswick Heads at the ordinary meeting 19 April 2018, and resolved as follows:

Resolution 18-266:

1. That Council defer this report to the 24 May Ordinary Meeting.

2. That Council request an urgent meeting (within 28 days) with NSWCHPT and their consultants, as well as Robert Kooyman and two representatives from the Brunswick Community, with respect to the recommendations made in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Arborsafe 2018 (Attachment 1 E2018/30243) as to specific conditions required on site to meet resolution 17-418.

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update of the meeting held 11 May 2018, as per item 2 of the resolution.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council note the report.

Attachments:

1 Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Arborsafe, E2018/30243 ⇨

2 Ecological considerations of vegetation management Terrace Holiday Park: Southern Precinct, E2018/32644 ⇨

Report

A meeting was held 11 May 2018, as per item 2 of Resolution 18-266. The points of discussion and agreed actions are summarised below.

Reflections Holiday Parks propose to carry out works within the Coastal Cypress Pine (Callitris columellaris) forest community located in the southern portion of the Terrace Holiday Park, Brunswick Heads.

Coastal Cypress Pine Forest in the NSW North Coast Bioregion is listed as an Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

Two consultant reports discussing proposed works in the Coastal Cypress Pine Forest have been provided to Council by Reflections Holiday Parks, and they are:

· Terrace Holiday Park: Southern Precinct Arboricultural Impact Assessment for the Southern Precinct of Terrace Holiday Park, Brunswick Heads. Prepared by Arborsafe Australia Pty Ltd March 2018. (Attachment 1)

· Ecological Considerations of Vegetation Management Terrace Holiday Park: Southern Precinct. April 2018. (Attachment 2)

Council engaged the services of Dr. Robert Kooyman (Ecologist / Botanist) to carry out an ecological assessment of the Coastal Cypress Pine Forest located in the Terrace Holiday Park. Dr. Kooyman’s report was provided to Council in August 2017 and was subsequently submitted to Council at its meeting on 26 October 2017 (Council Report 2017/523). Dr Kooyman has since reviewed both the above consultants’ reports.

The Coastal Cypress Pine trees located in the southern portion of the Terrace Holiday Park are subject to Chapter B2 of Council’s Development Control Plan 2014 Preservation of Trees and Other Vegetation) as adopted under clause 26 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017.

Chapter B2 of Council’s Development Control Plan 2014 applies to the protection of “Locally indigenous species (of any height) within a vegetation community described as forest, woodland, heath land, scrubland, fernland, saltmarsh, mangrove or wetland.”

It is Council’s view that the proposed works to any of the individual Coastal Cypress Pine trees may affect the EEC and as such require development consent.

As an alternative to a development application to Council, Reflections Holiday Parks may make an application to the Office of Environment and Heritage for a licence to carry out works or activities within the EEC. This application is made under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

Reflections Holiday Parks confirmed this to be their preferred approval pathway at the meeting. An application for a licence to the Office of Environment and Heritage has not yet been lodged.

A difference of opinion was expressed at the meeting between consultants, about the test of significance that would be applied to the licence application and whether ‘significant affect’ would be triggered under the test when applied to the Coastal Cypress Pines community, given the proposed works at the Terrace Holiday Park. The consultants’ reports were silent or unclear on this.

This will be a matter for the Office of Environment and Heritage. Extract of Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 below:

7.3 Test for determining whether proposed development or activity likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats

(1) The following is to be taken into account for the purposes of determining whether a proposed development or activity is likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats:

(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the proposed development or activity is likely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

(b) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the proposed development or activity:

(i) is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or

(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

(c) in relation to the habitat of a threatened species or ecological community:

(i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the proposed development or activity, and

(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed development or activity, and

(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species or ecological community in the locality,

(d) whether the proposed development or activity is likely to have an adverse effect on any declared area of outstanding biodiversity value (either directly or indirectly),

(e) whether the proposed development or activity is or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to increase the impact of a key threatening process.

(2) The Minister may, by order published in the Gazette with the concurrence of the Minister for Planning, issue guidelines relating to the determination of whether a proposed development or activity is likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats. Any such guidelines may include consideration of the implementation of strategies under the Biodiversity Conservation Program.

A number of actions were agreed to by Reflections Holiday Parks to address concerns raised at the meeting, these are:

· To review and update their consultants’ reports to clarify aspects of the works proposed to the EEC and the assessment of impacts provided.

· To engage directly with OEH on the above, and provide that advice back to Council as soon as possible to assist Council in its consideration of the Approval to Operate application pending for Terrace Holiday Park.

· To consider agreeing to conditions on the Approval to Operate for Terrace Holiday Park, for restricting the use of the southern end of the Terrace Holiday Park for ‘camping’ to holiday periods only, allowing a vegetation regeneration period in between times.

A further report to finalise this matter is anticipated for the June ordinary meeting to enable the required information as described above to be submitted by Reflections Holiday Parks in a time appropriate manner for Council’s consideration.

Financial Implications

N/A

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Local Government Act 1993

Section 68 Approval to Operate

The operation of caravan parks and camping grounds require Approval to Operate (ATO) under

Section 68 (Part F2) of the Local Government Act 1993. Applications are lodged by the land owner

to continue the operation of caravan park and camping ground activities and application fees are paid in accordance with Councils’ adopted fees and charges.

The process of assessing and determining ATO applications is regulated under Chapter 7 Part 1 of

the Local Government Act 1993. Part of the consideration of such applications involves the

auditing of compliance with the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks,

Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005 (“the Regulation”).

Once it has been determined that the application represents the actual site activities, and satisfies

the requirements of the Regulation, then an ATO approval is granted. Once an approval has been

issued Council may determine to extend or renew an approval (but without changing the terms of

the approval) if satisfied there is good cause for doing so.

Section 105 Circumstances in which approval is taken to have been refused

(1) If the council has not determined an application:

(a) within the period of 40 days after the application is lodged with it, except as provided by paragraph (b), or

(b) within the period of 80 days after the application is lodged with it in the case of an application for which the concurrence of a person or authority is required by or under this Act,

the council is, for the purposes only of section 176, taken to have determined the application by refusing approval on the date on which that period expires.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) prevents the council from determining an application after the expiration of the 40-day or 80-day period, whether on a review under section 100 or otherwise.

(3) A determination under subsection (2) does not prejudice or affect the continuance or determination of an appeal made under section 176 in respect of a determination that is taken under subsection (1) to have been made, subject to subsection (4).

(4) Where a determination under subsection (2) is made by granting approval, the council is entitled, with the consent of the applicant and without prejudice to costs, to have an appeal made under section 176 in respect of a determination that is taken by subsection (1) to have been made, withdrawn at any time before the appeal is determined.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.15

Report No. 13.15 PLANNING - Development Application 10.2017.460.1 - Utility Installation: Telecommunication Tower at 54 Jones Road Wooyung

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Simone Kenyon, Planner

File No: I2018/813

Theme: Ecology

Development and Approvals

Proposal:

Proposal description:	Utility Installation: Telecommunication Tower
Property description:	LOT: 100 DP: 1178907
Property description:	54 Jones Road WOOYUNG
Parcel No/s:	241928
Applicant:	Optus Mobile Pty Ltd
Owner:	Billinudgel Property Pty Ltd
Zoning:	Part RU1 Primary Production/Part DM Deferred Matter – 7(k) Habitat Zone
Date received:	24 August 2017
Integrated Development:	No
Public notification or exhibition:	- Level 2 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications - Exhibition period: 14/9/17 to 27/9/17 - Submissions received: Two (2) submissions received
Planning Review Committee:	N/A
Delegation to determination:	Council
Issues:	- Natural Constraints – Flood, Bushfire, Acid Sulfate Soils – Class 3, High Conservation Value Vegetation and a Cattle Dip Buffer; and - Clause 40 – Exceeds 9m height limitation – SEPP 1 Objection

Summary:

This development application was reported to the 19 April 2018 Ordinary meeting whereby Council deferred making a decision on the application subject to further information being provided for there consideration. This report provides that additional information and is aimed at addressing Council Resolution 18-263 which ‘resolved that this matter be deferred until Council has received a development application, the environmental report and the points within the submissions raised are answered by either staff or the proponents’. Further detail has been included in this report including Councils Ecologists Comments and details as to why the site has been selected.

Development approval is sought for a Utility Installation – Telecommunications Tower at 54 Jones Road, Wooyung. The property is zoned Part RU1 Primary Production/Part DM Deferred Matter – 7(k) Habitat Zone in accordance with the Byron Local Environment Plans 2014 and 1988 respectively. However, it is noted that the proposal is wholly located within the portion of the site that is mapped 7(k) Habitat Zone and as such, an assessment against BLEP 1988 and BSDCP 2010 only, has occurred.

The fragmented allotment has a total land area of 21.235 hectares and is utilised for a variety of purposes, more specifically the ‘Splendour on the Grass’ festival. The proposal includes one (1) 35m tower with ancillary infrastructure such as dishes, antennae and cabling. The phone tower is to provide improved telecommunication in the Wooyung area and festival goers. It is noted that mobile phone towers are used at present for the festivals.

The proposed development is generally consistent with the relevant environmental planning instruments and planning controls applicable to the site including the LEP and DCP provisions for this type of development, excluding Clause 40 of BLEP 1988. The height of the tower is supported as strict compliance with the development standards is not warranted in this instance. In particular a phone tower would be in-effective at 9 metres in height, whilst the proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the locality.

It is considered the proposal raises no significant issues in terms of environmental impacts which cannot be managed through reasonable and relevant conditions of approval, and the site is considered suitable for the development as discussed in this report. As such the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That Pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, development application no. 10.2017.460.1 for a Utility Installation: Telecommunication Tower, be granted consent subject to conditions listed in Attachment 4 #E2018/30097.

Attachments:

1 Proposed Plans 10.2017.460.1, E2018/28608 ⇨

2 Site Selection Process, Co-location Opportunities and Alternate Candidates, E2018/37994 ⇨

3 Confidential - Site Selection Mapping, E2018/40591

4 Conditions of consent 10.2017.460.1, E2018/30097 ⇨

5 submissions received 10.2017.460.1, E2018/25091 ⇨

Assessment:

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. History/Background

The subject allotment was registered 19 September 2012. A search of Council records identifies the following development application history:

1.2. Description of the proposed development

This application seeks approval for Utility Installation Telecommunication Tower as demonstrated Attachment 1.

The proposal includes:

a) One (1) 35m monopole;

b) Six (6) panel antennas, each less than 2.8m in length, mounted on the pole in the following configurations:

i. Three (3) panel antennas mounted on a turret headframe at a centreline height of 36.5m; and

ii. Three (3) panel antennas mounted on the pole at a centreline height of 31.7m.

c) One (1) radio-communication dish with a diameter of 1.2m, mounted at 28.7m in height;

d) One (1) outdoor equipment shelter, with a floor area of 7.5m², mounted at ground level adjacent to the new pole; and

e) Ancillary equipment associated with operation and safety of the facility, including remote radio units, cabling, safe access methods, earthing, electrical works and air conditioning equipment.

The facility will be within an 80m² compound area, enclosed by a 2.4m chain-link security fence. The total height of the facility, including antennas and ancillary equipment, will be no taller than 38.3m above the natural ground level.

1.3. Description of the site

Land is legally described as Lot 100 DP1178907.

Property address is 54 Jones Road, Wooyung.

Land is zoned Part RU1 Primary Production/Part DM Deferred Matter – 7(k) Habitat Zone.

Land area is 21.235ha.

The property has a whole is constrained by Flood, Bushfire, Acid Sulfate Soils Class 3, High Conservation Value Vegetation and a Cattle Dip Buffer.

The subject lot is a fragmented allotment that supports numerous festivals including ‘Splendour on the Grass’. The portion of the allotment proposed to support the facility is within a cleared portion of the allotment.

2. SUMMARY OF REFERRALS

Referral	Issue
Environmental Health Officer	No objections subject to conditions.
S94 Contributions Officer	No objections subject to conditions.
Consultant Heritage Advisor	No objection. Conditions to apply in relation to cultural heritage
Ecologist	No objections subject to conditions. See discussion below from Councils Ecologist on ecological values of the site. .
Office of Environment & Heritage – National Parks	Original information submitted was deemed insufficient. Information supplied by the applicant in response to this request is considered to satisfy any concerns raised.
Bundjalung (Arakwal)	Original information submitted was deemed insufficient. Re-referral was undertaken. No objection was received by Council.
Tweed Byron Land Council	Original information submitted was deemed insufficient. Re-referral was undertaken. No objection was received by Council.

ECOLOGY SUMMARY

Conservation Values

The Jones Road locality contains known high-value habitat for a range of threatened and protected species. The area is within the Endangered Population listing for the Koala (between the Tweed and Brunswick Rivers) and the surrounding area is recognised as containing secondary Koala habitat, with Primary habitat in proximity.

The larger site and the adjacent Billinudgel Nature Reserve contain a mix of significant vegetation types including wetlands, littoral rainforest and wet sclerophyll forests, with grasslands between. The lot occurs within a mapped Regional Wildlife Corridor (Office of Environment and Heritage), which connects Inner Pocket and Billinudgel Nature Reserves and serves as a major hinterland to coast link. Corridor focal species are the Long-nosed Potoroo and Stephens Banded Snake.

The subject site contains vegetation mapped as Blackbutt-Mixed Eucalypt-Brush Box (Moist Blackbutt) immediately adjacent; with Pink Bloodwood - Blackbutt - Grey Ironbark shrubby open forest nearby.

Proposed Development Impact

The original ecological assessment provided with the application was limited in scope and based on one day ‘random meander’ survey only. Likely direct impacts including track widening and provision of underground services were not assessed and indirect impacts were not considered in any depth. Council requested further survey and reporting on specific issues to be undertaken. In response, the footprint of the proposal was reduced and moved slightly to avoid the need for native vegetation removal and further detailed survey and reporting was undertaken. Assessments of Significance were completed for threatened species and expert advice sought with regard to Microchiropteran bat species.

1. Koalas

A Koala habitat assessment and scat survey was undertaken for the proposal. No Koala use was found at the site and no Primary Koala food trees will be affected. The area is within the Endangered Population boundary (north of the Brunswick River) and few Koala records have been found since major fires occurred within the Wooyung Nature Reserve.

Figure 1: Approx. location of the Optus mobile phone tower indicated by black arrow.

Koala habitat mapping: Red - Primary habitat, Orange - Secondary A habitat, Yellow- Secondary B habitat. Green shading - Billinudgel Nature Reserve.

Applicant response

Koalas were considered to have a good chance of being in the area, based on desktop assessment. None were observed and no evidence of activity was recorded in the area. The consultant ecologist concluded koalas may use the area for foraging occasionally as transients, or when moving between preferred habitats, but do not appear to depend on habitats in the area for their survival – koalas are unlikely to permanently occupy or breed onsite. While trimming of two Black Wattle specimens is needed, this trimming will not reduce local potential foraging resource for koalas, and will have no effect on any koala populations that may be present. No potential impact on breeding or persistence of local koala populations (if present) is expected. The Optus proposal will not isolate koala habitats, restrict movement of koalas or otherwise adversely impact their wellbeing.

Assessment

It is unlikely that the monopole would lead to a significant impact on Koalas. No Koala food trees are proposed for removal and the tower will not exacerbate other threats to Koalas such as road deaths, dog attacks or disease.

Figure 2: Maximum extent of zone of influence arising from the tower

2. Microchiropteran Bats

Of most concern is the likely presence of microchiropteran bat species in the locality and the potential impact of Electro-magnetic Emissions (EME) in relation to microchiropteran bat species. Such species use echo-location to navigate and feed, particularly those catching insects on the wing. It is considered that since little research has been conducted in this area, potential exists to cause impacts, which could be significant. Nine threatened micro-bat species have been recorded from Billinudgel Nature Reserve (see list below).

Table 1: Microchiropteran bat species recorded from Billinudgel nature reserve

The adverse effects of EME are thought to be inversely proportional to size (Steve Phillips pers.comm. December 2017), thus bigger effects are thought to occur to smaller species. In addition, the micro-bats are flying at or around the height of the emissions from the tower, so there is little or no loss of intensity (such as has been demonstrated for humans on the ground). Finally, it is highly likely that other carriers (Telstra, Vodaphone) who have previously used mobile units during festivals, will wish to add infrastructure to the tower at varying heights, so that total emissions may be high and widespread in terms of the flight paths of various micro-bat species. Council requested additional consideration of potential impacts of Electro-magnetic Emissions (EME) in relation to microchiropteran bat species.

Applicant Response

Twelve species of bat were considered to have a good chance of being present in the area, though none were observed. The consultant ecologist found the proposal would have no potential negative impact to these species, given:

· Some areas of suitable foraging habitat are present in the Optus work area, but no hollow bearing trees or caves – there is minimal potential for critical life cycle stages to occur in the study area

· These species would, in any case, be expected to seasonally range across the network of interconnected nature reserves close by, including Billinudgel, according to life cycle stage and prey abundance

· Given the seasonal movements of the 12 bat species, and the extent of potential habitat within their local range, the Optus work area represents a small amount of potential foraging habitat. Its loss would be highly unlikely to impact overall foraging success of bats, or their ability to raise young.

· The ecologist found that radiofrequency emissions are unlikely to adversely impact on animals utilizing the reserve or traversing the site – there is no substantive evidence suggesting radiofrequency emissions have adverse impacts on animals in the general environment.

Due to the absence of available roost sites in close proximity to the proposed tower, the tower position within a cleared area and that a number of towers have been approved within National Parks of higher biodiversity values, the extent of harm is likely to be reduced by the fact that roosts and hollows/caves etc used for breeding habitat do not occur nearby. The matter is not likely to cause sufficient harm such that a significant impact is likely.

3. Billinudgel Nature Reserve

The consultant ecological report assessed the likelihood of impacting Billinudgel Nature Reserve, finding that there is a possibility of sediment flow to affect the reserve, however runoff impacts are considered unlikely because of the surrounding vegetation buffer – the only area where sediment runoff is possible is the site access driveway. Optus have proposed sediment controls in response.

4. Bushfire Risk

The tower is to be located within a flame zone in terms of bushfire risk. While Optus may accept the risk to their property, Council need to be certain that the presence of the tower and associated infrastructure could increase the chance of fire or the significance of fire impact to adjoining significant habitat areas by its presence. Additional information was sought as follows:

1. An assessment by a qualified bushfire consultant as to any risk that the phone tower and associated infrastructure could lead to a bushfire event, or increase the bushfire risk to surrounding natural areas.

Applicant Response

The applicant has proposed a redesigned site layout and facilities to avoid clearing for APZ, as well as upgraded the housing unit to Flame Zone standard. The bushfire consultant’s report also satisfactorily demonstrates that the tower itself and associated facilities would not increase bushfire risk to surrounding natural areas. No tree or understorey removal is required to achieve the development footprint.

2. Land swap

As an additional positive outcome, a parcel of land close to the tower that is part of the Billinudgel Nature Reserve but is largely unvegetated (grassed) will be swapped for land of high environmental value to the south of Jones Rd which directly adjoins the NR. The permanent protection of this area of land provides a clear ecological benefit.

Conclusion

Wolters (Applicants Ecologist) have recommended a number of mitigation measures, including:

· Boundary of works to be delineated by fencing, with no works to occur outside the boundary.

· Trimming to be kept to a minimum and restricted to the trees identified in the report

· Prior to works, a pre-clear fauna check should be undertaken by the construction contractor and should fauna be found (considered unlikely), they be ushered into the adjacent forest

· Erosion, sediment and stormwater controls are to be adopted and maintained throughout the construction phase

The consultant ecological report concludes that “the Subject Site fulfils a high ecological function; however no vegetation clearing or habitat harm will eventuate from the current construction proposal. The proposed compound is sited within a cleared footprint and necessitates the trimming of trees only, specifically two (2) Acacia leiocalyx (Black Wattle) adjacent to the future compound. Based on the findings of this report, construction of the proposed telecommunications compound will have no impact on the ecological values and functions of the subject site, the adjoining Billinudgel Reserve or the greater Byron Shire.

It is acknowledged that the North Byron Parklands is an ecologically sensitive area. However, based on qualified specialist advice, the proposal will have a negligible impact on local environmental values. It is considered that the revised footprint and additional information provided is sufficient to determine that a significant ecological impact is unlikely to arise as a result of the proposed development. The development is recommended for approval subject to the ecological conditions provided.

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 bush fire prone land. The development application is accompanied by a Draft Bushfire Management Plan, Reference No. 003.07.17, prepared by Bushfire Risk Reducers dated July 2017. Conditions have been included in the Recommendation of this Report requiring that the development must comply at all times with the requirements of the Draft Bushfire Management Plan, Reference No. 003.07.17, prepared by Bushfire Risk Reducers dated July 2017.

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 and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act 1979), the following is a summary of the evaluation of the issues.

4.1 State Environmental Planning Instruments

	Satisfactory	Unsatisfactory
State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards	☒	☐
Consideration: Where the consent authority is satisfied that the objection is well founded and is also of the opinion that granting of consent to that development application is consistent with the aims of this Policy as set out in clause 3, it may, with the concurrence of the Director, grant consent to that development application notwithstanding the development standard the subject of the objection referred to in clause 6.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 44—Koala Habitat Protection	☒	☐
Consideration: No vegetation removal will occur to facilitate the proposal. The proposal has been assessed by Council’s Ecologist who has determined that the proposal will unlikely adversely impact on any koalas in this locality.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land	☒	☐
Consideration: The subject site is located on undeveloped, cleared land used as a service area for the parklands, approximately 470m northeast of the Pacific Highway. The subject site is bounded by established mature vegetation, and located close to but not within Billinudgel Nature Reserve. A review of the EIS (DEC 2017) for Parklands discovered that a site contamination assessment was conducted on the subject site by EAL Consulting Services on behalf of Parklands as part of the original concept plan for the Festival Site. The assessment included: · A site history review; · Geological and hydrogeological review; site inspection; · Soil and water sampling, including 65 individual soil samples and 1 water samples from the farm dam; and · Analysis of potential contaminants of concern. The assessment found that the Parklands site had been used for low intensity agricultural purposes since at least 1947. Past agricultural use included dairy farming, some cropping for banana (approximately 10 to 12 acres for 3 to 4 year, typically north facing slopes), and some cropping for sugar cane (in low lying areas and, predominantly, cattle grazing. Soil and water samples were analysed for a range of potential contaminants of concern including hydrocarbons, pesticides and heavy metals. The analysis found that contaminate levels were all below the applicable criteria, with the exception of: · Chromium and manganese in some samples; and’ · Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in one sample near an abandoned car in a forested area. Chromium and manganese are naturally elevated in local soils. The TPH is not located near the proposed Telecommunication Tower. No further investigation is warranted.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008	☒	☐
Consideration: The compound has been sited as close as possible to the lot boundary, allowing for large trucks to pass the compound unimpeded. Because this area hosts large festivals and other events, Optus are willing to coordinate scheduled maintenance activities with Council and North Byron Parklands to minimise conflict. This may be formalised as a condition of development consent. No significant Land use conflicts are envisaged should the development be approved by Council. The proposal will not adversely impact on rural land uses within the immediate locality.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007	☒	☐
Consideration: Development permitted with consent (1) Development for the purposes of telecommunications facilities, other than development in clause 114,[applies to works by public authorities] may be carried out by any person with consent on any land. The SEPP makes the proposed development permissible in any Zone and would over ride any LEP prohibition. The application invokes the SEPP thereby ensuring that there is no uncertainty in regard to the permissibility of the proposed development

4.2A Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988 (LEP 1988)

LEP 1988 is an applicable matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP&A Act 1979 because it applies to the subject land and the proposed development. The LEP 1988 clauses that are checked below are of relevance to the proposed development:

Part 1	☒1\| ☒2\| ☒2A\| ☒3\| ☒4\| ☒5\| ☒LEP 1988 Dictionary\| ☒7
Part 2	☒8\| ☒9
Part 3	☐10\| ☐11\| ☐11A\| ☐11B\| ☐12\| ☐13\| ☐14\| ☐15\| ☐16\| ☐17\| ☐17A\| ☐17B\| ☐18\| ☐19\| ☐22\| ☐22\| ☐23\| ☒24\| ☐25\| ☐27\| ☐ 29\| ☐29AA\| ☐29A\| ☐30\| ☐31\| ☐32\| ☐33\| ☐34\| ☐35\| ☐36\| ☐37\| ☐38\| ☒38A\| ☐38B\| ☐39\| ☐39A\| ☐39B\| ☐39C\| ☒40\| ☐41\| ☐42\| ☐43\| ☐44\| ☒45\| ☐46\| ☐47\| ☐47AA\| ☐47A\| ☐48\| ☐49\| ☐51\| ☒52\| ☐53\| ☐54\| ☐55\| ☐56\| ☐ 57\| ☐58\| ☐59\| ☐60\| ☐61\| ☐62\| ☒63\| ☐64
Part 5	\| ☐65\| ☐66\| ☐67\| ☐68\| ☐69\| ☐70\| ☐71\| ☐72\| ☐73\| ☐74\| ☐75\| ☐76\| ☐77\| ☐78\| ☐79\| ☐80\| ☐81\| ☐82\| ☒83\| ☐84\| ☐85\| ☐86\| ☐87\| ☐88\| ☐89\| ☐90\| ☐91\| ☐92\| ☐93\| ☐94\| ☐95\| ☐96\| ☐97\| ☐98\| ☐99\| ☐100\| ☐101

In accordance with LEP 1988 clauses 5, 8 and 9:

a) The proposed development is defined in the LEP 1988 Dictionary as a ‘utility installation’;

b) Whilst the land has multiple land use zones, the proposed structure will be wholly located within the 7(k) Habitat Zone under LEP 1988. Utility Installations are permissible in the zone;

c) The proposed development is also permissible by the Infrastructure SEPP; and

d) The proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of the Zone for the following reasons:

Zone Objective

Consideration

The objectives are:

a) To identify and protect significant vegetation and wildlife habitats for conservation purposes;

b) To prohibit development within the zone that is likely to have a detrimental effect on the wildlife habitats which exist;

c) To enable the carrying out of development which would not have a significant detrimental effect on the wildlife habitats; and

d) To enable the careful control of noxious plants and weeds by means not likely to be significantly detrimental to the native ecosystem.

The 7K zone identifies and protects significant vegetation; the general area around the Optus site is acknowledged to retain environmental significance based on Council policy and Optus’ own environmental assessments, and is therefore appropriately zoned.

The Optus proposal does not prevent this area from being identified ‘significant’ – the area will still retain its significance after the facility has been constructed. Further, the proposal does not conflict with the objective of protecting the area, since the subject site is on land that has been previously disturbed, with minimal environmental impact.

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 1979. The proposed development complies with all of these clauses (in some cases subject to conditions and/or to the satisfaction of other assessing officers), except in relation to Clause 40 which is considered further as follows:

What clause does the development not comply with and what is the nature of the non-compliance?	Further consideration, including whether the development application is recommended for approval or refusal accordingly
Clause 40 (2)(b)(ii)- (1) The Council must not consent to the erection of any building if the vertical distance between the topmost part of the building and the existing ground level below exceeds 9 metres.	The proposed maximum height inclusive of ancillary antennae and dishes of 38.5m. As such, further discussion is detailed below:

Clause 40 – Height of buildings

Subclause 40(2)(b)(ii) of LEP 1988 states that ‘Council must not consent to the erection of any building if the vertical distance between the topmost part of the building and the existing ground level below exceeds 9 metres’.

The LEP map indicates that the site is zoned 7(k) Habitat zone with the proposed utility installation having a maximum height of 38.5m, a variation of approximately 425% to the 9m height restriction.

Accordingly, the development application does not meet the 9m building height requirement and the DA is supported by an objection pursuant to SEPP 1. The Land Environment Court judgment in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] identified requirements needed in order to uphold a SEPP 1 objection, and these are addressed in the circumstances of this particular case as follows:

Is the requirement a development standard?

The 9m building height requirement is a development standard as defined by section 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, because it is a provision of an environmental planning instrument in relation to the carrying out of development, being a provision by or under which requirements are specified and standards are fixed in respect to the maximum height of a building.

Is the objection in writing, is it an objection “that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case” and does it specify “the grounds of the objection”?

The development application is accompanied by an objection in writing. It is an objection that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and specifies the grounds of the objection as follows:

‘This proposal is in response to an established community need for improved mobile coverage in the Wooyung area. Optus have a discrete and specific area (the area around and including North Byron Parklands) within which coverage is to be improved by establishing a new telecommunications facility.

There is a technical requirement for telecommunications facilities to protrude above the surrounding environment to function correctly. In order to achieve Optus’ coverage objectives, this facility needs to be at its current proposed height. A shorter tower would be blocked by surrounding vegetation and terrain, meaning it would not work.

· Optus cannot achieve a feasible level of coverage in this location, or any alternate site in the vicinity, without exceeding Council height limits. Council’s policies are designed to prevent inappropriately tall buildings being constructed; the policy is not responsive to the technical needs of telecommunications infrastructure, or the actual amenity impacts of the development;

· All of the potential sites in North Byron Parklands would require a protrusion above the 9m height limit. Because this protrusion cannot be avoided, Optus have selected a site where amenity impacts resulting from the protrusion can be minimised, while still ensuring a feasible technical outcome.

· From a visual amenity perspective, this site is considered highly favourable.

- There is very little development in the area. There is one residence approximately 240m west of the site, which is oriented away from the Optus facility; the next closest residences are over 1.5km east;

- The facility is located in a heavily vegetated, hilly area well screened from passing traffic on Jones Road; and

- The facility will have a visual presence from within North Byron Parklands. This is unavoidable given the nature of the use; however the North Byron Parklands owners, who are likely to be most affected, are supportive of the project. For visitors to the Parklands, and festivalgoers, the visibility of the facility is unlikely to adversely impact their experiences at the venue – especially as their presence onsite is transient, and only a handful of events are held each year.

We acknowledge Council’s policy is designed to protect the visual amenity of the local community. In this case there are very few community members whose amenity could feasibly be impacted, and the facility is well hidden from these perspectives.

It is an established principle that telecommunications carriers seek out rural and industrial areas for deployment of new infrastructure, if possible, over residential areas or community spaces. This site is in a rural area. While the facility will contravene Council’s height limit for the area, Optus consider there is both technical need, and sufficient planning merit, for the variation to be allowed’.

Is “the objection well founded” and will “granting of consent to the development application be consistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as set out in clause 3”?

An objection under SEPP 1 may be well founded and be consistent with the aims set out in clause 3 of the Policy in one of a variety of ways (according to the above mentioned judgment). These are:

1. ‘Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary because the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

2. The underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

3. The underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

4. The development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary.

5. The zoning of particular land was unreasonable or inappropriate so that a development standard appropriate for that zoning was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land and compliance with the standard in that case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary’.

In the subject case, compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary because the objectives of the development standard were created at a date in time that facilities such as these were not in existence or the purpose of mobile phone coverage. The technical needs of a functional mobile telecommunications network are such that they need height to work. In this regard, compliance with this objective would ensure the proposal was ineffective and thus is considered unreasonable. Further:

a) This proposal is in response to an established community need for improved mobile coverage in the Wooyung area. Optus have a discrete and specific area (the area around and including North Byron Parklands) within which coverage is to be improved by establishing a new telecommunications facility;

b) The surrounding trees exceed 9m in height, meaning the actual protrusion of the tower above the surrounding landscape is much lower than the numbers would suggest. The standard fails to account for existing landscape features;

c) Strict compliance with Council’s height limits would prevent new telecommunications facilities from being deployed in much of Byron Shire. Optus and other mobile carriers would be unable to deliver an effective service to the community, with significant social, economic and public safety implications; and

d) There is a precedent for telecommunications facilities to be installed in areas subject to a height restriction in Byron Shire, provided they can be justified appropriately on town planning grounds. Some examples include the 35m Optus monopoles at 8 Grevillea Street, Byron Bay (DA10.2008.425.1) and Byron Golf Club, 62 Broken Head Road, Byron Bay (DA 10.2011.325.1). While these sites are obviously in very different environments to this proposal, both were progressed under the 1988 LEP and deemed to be appropriate on planning grounds, despite exceeding a 9m height restriction.

Given the above, it is considered that the SEPP 1 objection is well founded notwithstanding non-compliance with the development standard and it is recommended that the SEPP 1 objection be upheld.

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

1. Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2016 (CM SEPP). The proposal is unlikely to conflict with this Policy.

2. The Department of Planning and Environment (‘DPE‘) has announced a Draft Remediation of Land SEPP (‘Draft SEPP‘) which will repeal and replace the current State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land (‘SEPP 55‘). The Explanation of Intended Effect of the Draft SEPP is on exhibition to 31 March 2018. The Draft SEPP will maintain the two categories of remediation work currently in SEPP 55:

· Category 1 – works that require development consent; and

· Category 2 – works that may be carried out without development consent.

The proposal is unlikely to conflict with this Policy.

4.4A Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2010 (DCP 2010)

DCP 2010 is an applicable matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP& A Act 1979 because its purpose is to provide planning strategies and controls for various types of development permissible in accordance with LEP 1988. The DCP 2010 Chapters/Parts that are checked below are of relevance to the proposed development:

Chapter 1 Parts:	☒A\| ☐B\| ☐C\| ☐D\| ☐E\| ☒F\| ☒G\| ☐H\| ☐J\| ☒K\| ☐L\| ☐ N
Chapters:	☐4\| ☐6\| ☐7\| ☐8\| ☐9\| ☐10\| ☐11\| ☐12\| ☐14\| ☐15\| ☐16\| ☒17\| ☐18\| ☐19\| ☐20\| ☐21\| ☐22

These checked Chapters/Parts have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 79C(1) of the EP&A Act 1979. The proposed development is demonstrated to meet the relevant Objectives of DCP 2010 (in some cases subject to conditions and/or to the satisfaction of other assessing officers).

4.5 Any Planning Agreement or Draft Planning Agreement?

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

4.6 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 Considerations

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

4.7 Any coastal zone management plan?

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

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

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

Conditions to apply to control impacts associated with construction activities such as hours of work builders waste and the like.

4.9 The suitability of the site for the development

The proposed telecommunications tower is appropriately sited on a cleared portion of land that is utilised for numerous festivals and will provide telephone reception in a commonly known ‘blackspot’ area. The applicants submission indicted that the area as indicated below will be covered by the tower. This includes the localities of Yelgun, Wooyung, Crabbes Creek and North Ocean Shores. The towers will also serve Parklands during events, and also road users on the Pacific Highway.

The applicants considered a range of options in choosing the site including collocating on existing sites in Ocean Shores to the south and Sleepy Hollow to the north and other sites within the property. In this regards co-locating on these existing sites to the south and north is not suitable with the applicant providing the following information: (See also Attachments 2 and 3)

In terms of other sites in the Yelgun/ Wooyung area 7 sites were considered. The subject site as indicted by the Letter G on the map below was chosen as the preferred site for a range of reasons including coverage, planning, design, and tenure. Other sites were excluded as a higher tower would be needed (eg 60 metres at site A, 100 metres at Site B, 80 metres at Site C) Visual Impact to surrounding properties at Sites D and E, the need to clear vegetation and other adverse impacts. It is considered Site G is the most appropriate site for the tower.

Further confidential information has also been provided by Optus for Councils consideration as to why the site has been selected. This has been attached for Councils. consideration.

4.10 Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

The development application was publicly exhibited with two (2) submissions being received by Council. An outline of these submissions is detailed below:

1) No Community Consultation – ‘According to the DA the proposal for the OMT has been in the pipeline for almost 12 months. Despite this, there has been no community consultation with residents of Jones Road from the proponent (Optus) or the landowner (North Byron Parklands)’.

Planner’s Comment

The proponent is not required to consult with residents prior to lodgement of the application. The application was placed on Level 2 notification and residents are permitted to lodge submissions up to the point an application is determined. Two (2) submissions only were received by Council. Council has consulted as required under DCP 2014. Any additional consultation by the proponent is a matter for the proponent to consider and undertake.

2) Concerns of impacts by electromagnetic fields on fauna species and the 7(k) habitat zone

Planner’s Comment

The proposal does not involve vegetation clearing. Information supplied by the applicant considered potential impacts on bats and was found to be considered satisfactory by Council’s Ecologist. Conditions have been supplied by Council’s Environmental Health Officer in relation to electromagnetic impacts and was further considered by Council’s Ecologist.

3) Fire Hazard Area – ’It is our understanding that telecommunication towers have been known to ignite and cause fires.

Planner’s Comment

The applicant has proposed a site layout and facilities to avoid clearing for an APZ, as well as upgrade the housing unit to Flame Zone standard. The bushfire consultant’s report also satisfactorily demonstrates that the tower itself and associated facilities would not increase bushfire risk to surrounding natural areas.

4) Festival Site – ‘Over the past 5 years during festival events, NBP have provided ‘Cell On Wheels’ (Optus, Telstra & Vodaphone) to cater for the patrons, staff and emergency services on site. Our family utilizes Optus as a provider, which is reliable and not an issue. We understand, however, that the Yelgun Valley & Crabbes Creek areas have poor mobile phone reception.

Planner’s Comment

The proposal will provide service to an area with a telecommunications blackspot extending into the Crabbes Creek and Yelgun Valley areas, Wooyung, North Ocean Shores, travellers on the Pacific Hwy and festival goers from time to time at the North Byron Parklands site. .

5) Alternate Locations – ’Optus needs to investigate alternate sites located outside areas identified as ‘Extreme Fire Risk’. For example, there may be areas in the north of the Parklands site or alternatively on the western side of Tweed Valley Way which could potentially supply the festival site as well as the Yelgun Valley and Crabbes Creek communities.

Planner’s Comment

Alternate sites have been investigated with the subject site chosen as the best location in terms of servicing the area.

6) Power Supply – ‘We have lived on Jones Road for 39 years. Our property is at the very end of the power supply. During this time, our power supply has often been affected, i.e. black outs, power shortages and interferences which has resulted in the loss of electrical equipment. We are concerned that our electricity supply could become even more problematic, if the MOT is approved for this location.

Planner’s Comment

This is a matter for Essential Energy to augment power supply if required to service the development. It is not unusual though for developments to upgrade power supply with the provision of transformers and the like where existing supply is inadequate prior to connection. In such case this is negotiated between Essential Energy and the developer and Council has no role in the matter.

7) Aesthetics – ‘The installation of a 35 metre MOT is not in keeping with the surrounding rural environment and is contrary to the values of the Marshalls Ridge wildlife corridor and the adjacent Billinudgel Nature Reserve’.

Planner’s Comment

Additional studies were undertaken by the applicant which has since been reviewed by Council’s Ecologist. Alternate options were considered including higher and larger towers creating increased visual impacts. The proposal is considered to be more than acceptable and unlikely to adversely impact on the values of the wildlife corridor or the Billinudgel Nature Reserve.

Given the above, it is determined that the concerns raised by submission authors have been considered within the assessment of this application.

4.11 Public interest

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

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

Having regard to sections 5A, 5C and 5D of the EP&A Act 1979, there is unlikely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats as a result of the proposed development as the proposal does not involve the removal of vegetation. In addition, the applicant provided a flora and fauna report which offered particular attention to microchiropteran bats. Given the location of the tower within a cleared area, and the extent of any potential harm being reduced by no roosts or hollows/caves being affected which are used for breeding, the proposal does not impact on bats.

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

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

5. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

5.1 Water & Sewer Levies

No Section 64 levies will be required.

5.2 Section 94 Contributions

Section 94 Contributions will be payable.

Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts

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

Provide Disclosure Statement register details here: Nil.

6. CONCLUSION

The proposed development is consistent with the relevant environmental planning instruments and planning controls applicable to the site. The proposal raises no significant issues in terms of environmental impacts which cannot be managed and the site is considered suitable for the development. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.16

Report No. 13.16 PLANNING - Submissions Report - 26.2017.5.1 - Planning Proposal to activate the Rail Corridor in Byron Town Centre

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Rob Van Iersel, Major Projects Planner

File No: I2018/834

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

This report presents the outcomes of the public exhibition undertaken for the planning proposal relating to activation of the rail corridor in Byron Bay. The proposal seeks to amend Byron LEP to provide for the permissibility of a range of additional uses on that land.

The proposal relates to the corridor from Lawson Street in the north, to just south of the Railway Hotel. Council has recently negotiated a licence over that part of the corridor, also aimed at activating that space.

As exhibited, the planning proposal sought to add a new clause to Schedule 1 of the LEP, which would allow a range of uses to be permitted within that corridor, including community uses as well as temporary commercial/ retail uses. The intention regarding the latter was to provide a space where local up and coming innovative businesses could establish close to the town centre.

The Planning Proposal was publically exhibited from 1 to 30 March 2018. The exhibition was advertised in local press and letters sent to land owner and business operators in the immediate vicinity. Letters were also sent to the Arakwal Corporation and various State Government Agencies.

In addition, the proposal was discussed at a meeting of the Byron Bay Town Centre Guidance Group on 28 April 2018.

Six individual submissions were received. All objected to the proposal to permit commercial/ retail uses on the land, as they would be in direct competition to business already established in the Town Centre.

The discussion of the Guidance Group reflected the same concerns, with the individual members of that Group opposed to commercial use of the space. The consensus view of the group at that meeting was that the activation of the corridor should be by way of community uses and activities.

Given the submissions and comments received, it is recommended that the Planning Proposal be amended to delete any reference to commercial uses of the corridor as permitted with consent. Other adjustments are recommended to strengthen the reference to community and social enterprise use of the space, to avoid future confusion.

Given that the proposal is different from the exhibited version, the Department of Planning and Environment has recommended that it be re-exhibited.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1. Forward the revised planning proposal (Attachment 1) to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment to advise of the re-exhibition.

2. Agree that staff can proceed to public exhibition of the planning proposal and government agency consultation, based on any subsequent advice from the NSW Department of Planning and Environment, and report back to Council as part of post-exhibition reporting.

Attachments:

1 Attachment 1 submissions redacted, E2018/39092 ⇨

2 Attachment 2 State Agency Submissions, E2018/37792 ⇨

3 Attachment 3 - Planning Proposal BBTC Additional permitted uses - v4 - post exhibition version with appendices, E2018/37806 ⇨

Report

Planning Proposal 26.2017.5.1 was reported to the Council meeting of 23 November 2017. The proposal outlined amendments to the Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP), primarily aimed at activating the rail corridor, by permitting a range of temporary uses on that land.

Specifically, the proposal was to:

1. Specify additional permitted uses with consent under Schedule 1 of the LEP on land at:

a. Byron Rail Corridor State Heritage Land (zoned SP2 Infrastructure – Rail Corridor) to permit markets and other temporary, creative, pop-up activities that cannot otherwise be undertaken as Exempt Development; and

b. Lawson Street South Car Park (zoned SP2 Infrastructure – Car Park) to permit markets.

2. To permit Single Temporary Events and ceremonies in Schedule 2 as Exempt Development in public reserves, public roads, car parks, community land, showgrounds, church grounds, Crown Land and other appropriate outdoor areas.

3. To amend the maximum period under Clause 2.8 Temporary use of land from 14 days to 52 days in any period of up to 12 months to permit temporary events.

The Planning Proposal reported to Council also included a proposal to permit additional uses of Car Park and Passenger Transport Facility on Butler Street Reserve.

A separate Planning Proposal, 26.2017.6.1, was also reported at the same meeting, recommending a review of planning controls for the wider Town Centre area.

At that meeting, Council resolved (17-599):

1. That Planning Proposal 26.2017.5.1 (excluding that part relating to the Butler Street Reserve) be approved by Council to proceed to gateway determination and for public exhibition.

2. That the balance of Planning Proposal 26.2017.5.1 (relating to the Butler Street Reserve) and Planning Proposal 26.2017.6.1 be deferred for public consultation including the following:

a) conducting community information sessions and collating feedback.

b) issuing a media release and Council website post at least two weeks prior to the first information session to advise the community of the planning proposals with notice of all information sessions.

3. That following completion of the information sessions and other community consultation, a report be received by Council, no later than the March Ordinary meeting, with a review of the community meetings and consultation.

Planning Proposal 26.2017.5.1 was publically exhibited from 1 to 30 March 2018. The exhibition was advertised in local press and letters sent to land owner and business operators in the immediate vicinity. Letters were also sent to the Arakwal Corporation and various State Government Agencies.

In addition, the proposal was discussed at a meeting of the Byron Bay Town Centre Guidance Group on 28 April 2018.

Based on the submissions received, the discussions with Byron Bay Town Centre Guidance Group and further internal review, the table below summarises the changes now suggested for the Planning Proposal:

*As Exhibited*	*Suggested Changes*
	Amend the notation that accompanies the SP2 Infrastructure Zoning on the Byron LEP 2014 Map LZN_003CC, from “Rail Corridor” to “Rail Corridor and Community Facilities”.
Comments: · Within the SP2 Infrastructure Zone, the only uses that are currently permitted are Environmental facilities; Roads; The purpose shown on the Land Zoning Map, including any development that is ordinarily incidental or ancillary to development for that purpose Expanding the notation on the Land Zoning Map will permit uses consistent with the definition of “community facilities”, which is: a building or place: (a) owned or controlled by a public authority or non-profit community organisation, and (b) used for the physical, social, cultural or intellectual development or welfare of the community, but does not include an educational establishment, hospital, retail premises, place of public worship or residential accommodation.
Additional clause in Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses:	Additional clause in Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses:
*9. Use of certain land at Lawson Street Car Park and Byron Railway Precinct, Byron Bay* (1) This clause applies to land at Lawson Street South Car Park, being Lots 3 & 7 DP 827049 and Byron Rail Corridor and Station Precinct, being Lot 1 DP 1001454 and Part of Lot 4729 DP 1228104 (extending from Lawson Street to the south west corner of Lot 9 DP 617509). (2) Development for the purposes of a portable or demountable single storey structure or temporary activity including a creative workspace, shared office space or retail activity that is not a food and drink premises is permitted with development consent. (3) Development for the purposes of markets is permitted with development consent.	*9. Use of certain land within the Byron Railway Corridor and at Lawson Street Car Park, Byron bay* (1) This clause applies to land at the Byron Rail Corridor and Station Precinct, being Lot 1 DP 1001454 and Part of Lot 4729 DP 1228104 (extending from Lawson Street to the south west corner of Lot 9 DP 617509) and at Lawson Street South Car Park, being Lots 3 & 7 DP 827049. (2) The following uses are permitted on the land without development consent: (a) landscape works undertaken for the implementation of a Council-endorsed Landscape Concept Plan; and (b) recreation area. (3) Development for markets is permitted with development consent, but only in the case of a relocation of existing markets legally operating elsewhere in Byron Shire. (4) Development for the purposes of a community facility, including commercial activity undertaken by a not-for-profit organisation or social enterprise, is permitted with development consent within the Station Building, previously used as a ticketing office for the rail station, and the adjacent railway platform.
*Comments:* · Provision to allow markets retained, but clarified to relate to the relocation of existing markets, rather than allowing new (or additional) markets to be approved – addresses community concerns regarding increased commercial competition. · Provision related to creative workspace, shared office space or retail activity deleted – as above. · Provision added to allow landscape works and children’s play areas (recreation area) to be developed without consent – this was overlooked in the original proposal; those uses/works currently prohibited. · Provision added to permit community use of the station building (CountryLink building) added – this was overlooked in the original proposal; that use currently prohibited.
*Additional clause to Schedule 2 – Exempt Development:*	Additional clause to Schedule 2 – Exempt Development:
*Single temporary events and ceremonies [adapted from Bega Valley and Ballina]* (1) Must be located in a public reserve, public road, car park, community land, showgrounds, church grounds, Crown land or other appropriate outdoor area. (2) Must be: (a) a community event; or (b) a commercial event including pop-up trading for retail or other commercial purposes, such as operation of a street market; or (c) outdoor dining associated with and adjacent to a lawfully approved restaurant or cafe; (3) May include associated storage areas and truck lay-by areas for vehicles not exceeding 4.5 tonnes or a lesser weight limit if specified in a plan of management applicable to the land. (4) Must obtain all necessary approvals, including but not limited to local approval, under the Local Government Act 1993 and, if on a public road, may require approval under section 138 of the Roads Act 1993. (5) Must not restrict any car parking, vehicular or pedestrian access required to be provided by a condition of development consent applying to the land, unless that parking and access is on land owned, controlled or managed by a council or public authority. (6) Must not include the erection of a permanent structure on the land. (7) Must not include the clearing or disturbance of native vegetation. (8) Maximum period - 52 days (whether or not consecutive days) in any period of 12 months. (9) Must always have consent in writing of the owner of the land on which the event is to be carried out and, if a council or public authority has the control or management of the land, the consent in writing of the council or public authority.	*Single one-off events and ceremonies on public reserves and roads* (1) This exemption applies to single occurrence cultural and social activities and events, including markets, concerts, festivals, carnivals, entertainment or educational based events, or the like where the land is used for a period not exceeding seven (7) consecutive days. (2) Must be located in a public reserve, public road, car park, community land, showgrounds, church grounds, Crown land or other appropriate outdoor area. (3) Must obtain any necessary approvals, including under the Local Government Act 1993 and the Roads Act 1993, if required. (4) Must make provision for vehicular or pedestrian access, including deliveries, required for adjoining commercial land. (5) Must comply with all relevant requirements and provisions of Byron Shire Council’s Policies: (a) Events on Public and Private Land; and (b) Temporary Use of Land.
*Comments:* · Clarification of the nature of the single, one-off events; · Deletion of maximum period for temporary use – responds to community concerns that a temporary commercial event that runs for a maximum of 52 days is neither temporary, nor a “single event”. · Inclusion of provision linking to existing Council policies.
	Delete the following clause from Schedule 2 of Byron LEP 2014:
	*Entertainment and events on public roads* Must be in accordance with an approval issued under section 125 of the Roads Act 1993.
*Comments:* · Provision is superseded by the single one-off events clause described above.
Amendment to clause 2.8 of BLEP:	No longer pursued
*2.8 Temporary use of land* (1) The objective of this clause is to provide for the temporary use of land if the use does not compromise future development of the land, or have detrimental economic, social, amenity or environmental effects on the land. (2) Despite any other provision of this Plan, development consent may be granted for development on land in any zone for a temporary use for a maximum period of 52 days (whether or not consecutive days) in any period of 12 months. (3) Development consent must not be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied that: (a) the temporary use will not prejudice the subsequent carrying out of development on the land in accordance with this Plan and any other applicable environmental planning instrument, and (b) the temporary use will not adversely impact on any adjoining land or the amenity of the neighbourhood, and (c) the temporary use and location of any structures related to the use will not adversely impact on environmental attributes or features of the land, or increase the risk of natural hazards that may affect the land, and (d) at the end of the temporary use period the land will, as far as is practicable, be restored to the condition in which it was before the commencement of the use. (4) Despite subclause (2), the temporary use of a dwelling as a sales office for a new release area or a new housing estate may exceed the maximum number of days specified in that subclause. (5) Subclause (3) (d) does not apply to the temporary use of a dwelling as a sales office mentioned in subclause (4).
*Comments:* · This was originally included to allow for a temporary approval for the weekly farmers market. · Allowing markets as a permissible use will allow for the relocation of that market (if required), without the need to use the clause 2.8 Temporary Use provisions. · Increasing the number of days available for a temporary use would have consequences for any proposed temporary use on any land in the Shire.

In addition to these amendments, the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, in response to consultation, advised that the additional use provisions should not apply to the vegetation within the corridor that is identified as High Environmental Value.

This vegetation, shown below, is Coastal Swamp Forest. It is located away from areas where activation events/ activities would be proposed, and Council is developing an enhancement project to improve the biodiversity values of the vegetation and its ability to capture and clean local stormwater.

As such, there are no detrimental impacts of excluding this vegetated area from the operation of the proposed LEP amendments.

High Environmental Vegetation

An amended Planning Proposal is Attachment 3 to this report.

Financial Implications

Staff resource and advertising costs will be associated with the re-exhibition of the Planning Proposal.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The relevant policy considerations are outlined above, and will be considered again at the completion of the re-exhibition.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 13.18

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services

Report No. 13.18 Clarkes Beach Stormwater and Gully Rehabilitation Works - update

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: James Flockton, Drain and Flood Engineer

Chloe Dowsett, Coastal and Biodiversity Coordinatior

File No: I2018/669

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Water Supplies

Summary:

Over the last 12 months, following Council resolution 17-127, staff have been working with NSW Holiday Parks, National Parks and Wildlife and a local consultant to develop an approved design to resolve stormwater erosion issues in a gully above Clarkes Beach, Byron Bay.

This report provides an update to Councillors on the current status of all works surrounding this project.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That a further report be presented to Council regarding the Clarkes Beach Stormwater and Gully Rehabilitation Works once a final design has been agreed to between stakeholders.

2. That required funding in future years be considered when the matter is reported to Council to redirect flows from Lighthouse Road away from the Clarkes Beach Holiday Park eastern outlet and to the main Clarkes Beach outlet.

Attachments:

1 Ardill Payne engineering design Clarkes Beach Stormwater Protection Design v2 - PG-SW01, E2018/35982 ⇨

2 Ardill Payne engineering design Clarkes Beach Stormwater Protection Design v2-PG-SW01 - 2, E2018/35983 ⇨

3 Clarkes Beach stormwater engineering design landscape architect interpretation - low beach level, E2018/40597 ⇨

4 Letter from National Parks and Wildlife Service to Council regarding stormwater impacts at Clarkes Beach, E2018/35990 ⇨

5 Lighthouse Road Proposed Upgrade to Drainage SMEC Design 2007 FINAL.pdf, DM721347 ⇨

Report

At the 20 April 2017 meeting Council resolved (Res 17-127, relevant parts only):

1. Note the report outlining some of the issues contributing to unacceptable erosion at the eastern stormwater outlet at Clarkes Beach caravan park.

2. Note that Council staff will be working with NSWCHPT, NPWS and Consultant Ardill Payne and Partners to prepare the most efficient engineering design available that maintains the beauty of the eroded area, while protecting it from erosion in the long term.

3. Receive a report on the engineering design/s and planning pathway (including any approvals required) resulting from that project.

4. In consultation with the Coastal Estuary Catchment Panel, explore what options it has to mitigate its contribution to the water flowing into the catchment of the stormwater outlet at the eastern end of the North Coast Holiday Park at Clarke's Beach for example redirection of run off from Lighthouse Road and Captain Cook Car Park, the exploration of use of porous pavements, paving stones or other water sensitive design initiatives that will help prevent excessive run off. Council invite NSWCHPT, Office of Environment and Heritage, Angus Gordon and the Arakwal Corporation to attend and/or comment. (Ndiaye/Richardson)

Progress Update

Resolution Item 1 – Erosion at the Clarkes Beach eastern stormwater outlet and tertiary dunes

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting held 23 March 2017 meeting it was resolved that a report be provided to the next Council meeting outlining the issues contributing to “erosion taking place through the tertiary coastal dune” at the far end of Clarkes Beach near the Holiday Park.

As such, staff provided a report to Council at the 20 April 2017 meeting outlining the issues contributing to the large-scale shoreline erosion of tertiary dunes at Clarkes Beach and localised erosion in the vicinity of the Clarkes Beach Holiday Park eastern stormwater outlet currently threatening an Aboriginal midden. The report acknowledged that the eastern stormwater outlet at the Clarkes Beach Holiday Park is causing localised erosion effects only. This was based on advice from the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and a Consultant’s Report (A.Gordon, 2016). However, at certain times both stormwater and wave action combined are contributing to cause erosion of the seaward toe of the dune which is threatening an Aboriginal midden.

A year later, erosion has continued along the dunal area at Clarkes Beach, causing agency, community and Councillor concern. As outlined in the 20 April 2017 report, the beach erosion that is occurring along Clarkes Beach particularly in the vicinity of the Clarkes Beach Holiday Park is caused by the macro-effects of the lack of northward movement of sand along the east coast. Now, one year later coastal processes have not been and are still presently not conducive to the accretion of beaches due to the insignificant southerly swell regime for the past 1- 2 years which is the primary factor for movement of sand by longshore drift. Adding to this, there have been numerous swell events and high tides experienced over the preceding months and we are currently in what is deemed an 'erosion phase', being a cycle of constant significant swell events.

In parallel with present reduced longshore sand transport the Byron Bay Embayment is undergoing a long term trend of shoreline recession which is significantly higher in embayments north of controlling headlands, such as Clarkes Beach.

Once conditions are conducive to beach building, sand will start to move into the bay and rebuild the berm and dunes. As an interim measure, landowners in the Clarkes Beach precinct are being encouraged to limit public access to the dunes through fencing and revegetation activities. This will help decrease further destabilisation.

The Coastal Zone Management Plan for the Eastern Precincts (Cape Byron to Main Beach) proposes ‘soft’ dune stabilisation works within the Clarkes Beach precinct by land managers (Council and CHPT) including beach scraping. Should the CZMP be certified by the Minister in the near future, beach scraping may be investigated as an option to rebuild the tertiary dunes along this stretch of coastline.

Management action proposed for the stormwater issue and protection of the midden is outlined in the next section below.

Resolution Items 2 & 3 – Stormwater and gully rehabilitation works, design and approvals

Staff have been liaising with agencies on the stormwater issue at Clarkes Beach eastern outlet and the associated risk to the Aboriginal midden since March 2017 when the project was initiated. Agreement was reached for Crown Holiday Parks Trust (CHPT) and Council to immediately implement corrective action at the eastern stormwater outlet to protect the midden currently being exposed. Council staff provided feedback on the engineering concept design options for managing stormwater at the outlet, with preference for hard engineering works within the stormwater gully to 2m AHD and a soft approach closer to the frontal dunes.

As reported to Council at the 20 April 2017 meeting a follow up meeting between Council staff and CHPT was held on Friday 10 March 2017. At this meeting, discussion involved short term and medium term work required for this area, and an outline of stakeholder roles and responsibilities. CHPT are leading the project as well as commissioning and funding the design/s for the short term and longer term works identified. There is in principle agreement from Council staff that there will be a contribution to the project in relation to stormwater flow coming from Lighthouse Road into the Holiday Park. There is also acknowledgement that water runoff from the NPWS controlled Captain Cook car park is also a contributor to the erosion issue.

Also reported to Council at the 20 April 2017 meeting there are no typical best practice guidelines for resolving issues such as these. Various hard and natural engineering solutions for gully and beach erosion around stormwater outlets can be constructed, and all have good and bad features.

Council resolved at the 20 April 2017 (Res 17-127) a number of items in relation to the issue of stormwater at Clarkes Beach, for which staff have been actioning in due progress over the past year. Staff have been consistently liaising with CHPT, National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) and the Office of Environment and Heritage on the matter, however as it is not Council land and we are not the project manager, the speed of progress of the project is not in our control.

In May 2017, CHPT commissioned engineering consultant Ardill Payne and Associates to complete further stormwater survey work and prepare engineering design/s for the site, based on one of the options proposed by the consultant (Option 3). Agencies have advocated consistently for an engineering design that maintains the natural beauty of the area, while protecting the midden from erosion.

Staff attended an on-site meeting with Ardill Payne on 17 October 2017 to discuss the option in more detail and to refine the engineering design.

In January 2018, CHPT forwarded through a design of the proposed works. The design includes two areas – gully protection works and beachside escarpment protection works (See attachment 1 and 2). The gully protection works will help alleviate the impact of stormwater velocity and erosion of the dune further landward, while the beach protection works aim to mitigate further impact to the Aboriginal midden. Along with the design drawings are a landscape architects interpretation of the proposed works (See attachment 3). Staff have reviewed the drawings and the landscape architect pictures and it appears that previous conversations and advocacy for “an engineering design that maintains the natural beauty of the area, while protecting the midden from erosion” has been interpreted by the Consultant differently, possibly due to the consultant being concerned about the structural integrity of a lesser design.

CHPT have now engaged a Coastal Specialist (James Carley, WRL) to review the information and designs to date and provide advice and direction on a suitable design for the area, with preference for a structure that maintains the natural beauty of the area.

In February 2018, the NPWS Byron Coast Area Management Committee (NPWS and Arakwal – the Committee) discussed the various options available for mitigating stormwater impact to the midden as outlined in a report prepared by coastal engineer Angus Gordon (2016). The Committee were supportive of the proposal to construct a cobble berm at the base of the dune supporting the midden, however advocated for the berm to be smaller than proposed in the report (0.5m high and 2m wide). Hence, they too are advocating for a more natural design for the site.

It is acknowledged that the cobble berm concept design for the beach protection area will be less effective than a higher berm and will most likely fail in any kind of significant swell event. The Committee acknowledged their preference for a small berm to protect the midden, however understands that the advice of a Coastal Engineer needs to be obtained to determine if it is viable.

A further report including costs and funding options will be provided once the James Carley report has been provided and final design agreed upon by all stakeholders.

Resolution Item 4 – Diversion of Stormwater from Lighthouse Road

Various upgrades to the Clarkes Beach Holiday Park, including road, stormwater drains and structures in the eroded gully have occurred over the preceding years. Council and NPWS have also undertaken upgrade works in the Captain Cook carpark. This work has increased the impervious areas and is contributing to increased runoff.

Staff agree that diversion of Council stormwater flows to the midden site is the optimal approach and is achievable. A letter received from NPWS (See attachment 4) further requests that Council flows are redirected. In preliminary conversations, NPWS have stated they would be happy to assist in funding of the diversion works to the amount agreed as a % stormwater from the NPWS estate, subject to final determination of the total costs. NPWS stormwater contribution is expected to be around 10%, therefore the bulk of the cost to divert would need to be funded by Council.

In 2007 consultant SMEC prepared a drainage design and flood assessment to divert stormwater from the holiday park (See attachment 5). This assessment was prepared when NSW Holiday Parks first raised concerns regarding stormwater flows with Council in 2007. The assessment considered two options one diverting upstream flows and one without, i.e allowing stormwater to continue to drain through the holiday park. Both options included additional parking, kerb, gutter and drainage along the edge of Lighthouse Road because it made sense to formalise this area as part of the proposed upgrade works.

Total cost without diversion $244,500 excl GST as at 2007

Total cost with diversion $628,500 excl GST as at 2007

These costs show that the cost to divert existing stormwater flows away from Clarkes Beach Holiday Park would be in the region of $384,000 at 2007 costs. In 2018 the cost would be expected to be in the region of $532K excl GST (assuming a 3.5% increase per year). The flows would be redirected to the main Clarkes Beach outlet.

No further works were completed on this project because it wasn’t financially viable for Council at the time. Recent works on the Lawson and Massinger Street roundabout has resulted in the 2007 proposed pipeline route no longer being viable, however, the alternative route is still an option (see blue line in below image). Staff have not prepared any concept designs or costs for this option to date because the works are currently unfunded and not within the 10 year plan.

Where are we now?

Presently, CHPT have a Coastal Specialist reviewing the designs and reports to date and will provide Council an amended engineering design for comment in the near future. Staff have not yet received this review report and amended drawings from CHPT , however, will report to Council once this information is provided.

Once a final engineering design has been confirmed and agreed upon by the various agencies and stakeholders, construction costs and planning/approvals can be confirmed.

Council staff will continue to liaise with CHPT to finalise the engineering design/s and provide advice/support on the planning pathway and approvals (as required).

Conclusion

At present, there are engineering and gully rehabilitation works proposed to help mitigate the effects of stormwater flow onto the beach and to protect the Aboriginal midden. These works will not help alleviate the erosion of the beach or dunal area as a whole (neither would diversion of the stormwater as discussed above).

The CZMP presently advocates for 'soft' stabilisation works (such as beach scraping) and this idea can be canvassed. Noting however that the erosive nature of the present coastal conditions is not conducive to beach building and (like New Brighton) we could scrape and lose the sand in the next swell event.

Please note that this area of the beach is not owned or managed by Council, hence it has been hard and slow going trying to get clear action about how to manage the site.

A copy of this memo will be provided to the Coastal and Estuary Catchment Panel at its next meeting for information purposes.

Staff are happy to hold a separate briefing if required to discuss the issues with Councillors if required.

Financial Implications

A detailed estimate for the gully improvement works will be provided, including a proposed funding method, once a design has been agreed upon. Council’s 50% share of the costs is likely to be in the region of $150-200k.

The cost to divert all of Council’s stormwater flows away from the current Clarkes Beach outlet is expected to be in the region of $530 to $550k. This is considered to be beyond Council’s current funding abilities and priorities. The proposed works could be added to the 10 year plan for review against other Council priorities.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The Coastal Management Act 2016 was enacted on 3 April 2018 and repeals the Coastal Protection Act 1979.

As per the letter from NPWS:-

In terms of direct impacts, discharge of Lighthouse Road stormwater to the upper gully is destabilising the fragile edges in the part of gully within Cape Byron State Conservation Area which is protected under the National Parks & Wildlife Act 1974. This has resulted in trees collapsing into the gully which continues a cycle of destabilisation. The collapsing trees form part of a Littoral Rainforest Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) protected under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. The BCA Act includes offences for knowingly damaging such habitat. The National Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2009 includes offences for damaging or destroying park vegetation.

Lighthouse Road stormwater is also impacting on the Aboriginal site located closer to the mouth of the gully. Aboriginal sites are protected under the NPW Act 1974. The NPW Act includes the offence of harming Aboriginal sites and a higher order offence, with higher penalties, for knowingly causing harm.

At this time NPWS are ‘urging’ Council to resolve the issues in the gully. However, they do have the power to apply more direct pressure. It is noted that Council’s stormwater flows in this location pre-date the creation of the Cape Byron State Conservation Area, therefore, we do have some existing use rights. This cannot be used as an argument to not proceed with the gully rehabilitation works, but it could be used as an argument to not redirect stormwater flows until such time that Council has the resources and priorities to complete these works.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 13.19

Report No. 13.19 Mullumbimby Leagues Club Amenities Facility Section 64 Contribution

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Dean Baulch, Principal Engineer, Systems Planning

Peter Rees, Manager Utilities

File No: I2018/802

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Water Supplies

Summary:

Council has advised that s64 contributions are due to be paid by the Mullumbimby Rugby League Football Club Limited (MRLFC) for charges levied under the Water Management Act 2000 applicable as a condition of consent for the subject development application 10.2016.125.1.

The DA proposes the construction of a detached amenities block for use at the Mullumbimby Leagues Club football grounds. This is a similar proposal as a previous development application but with the proposed facility on a different site location and an alternative project title.

The Mullumbimby Leagues Club has again requested that Council waive this charge under Clause 2.7 of the Water Supply and Sewerage Developer Servicing Plans.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council levy s64 contributions due to be paid by the Mullumbimby Rugby League Club for DA 10.2016.125.1, but at the 2004 rate to be paid over a 10 year period.

Attachments:

1 Council Report - Waiving of s64 Charges - Mullumbimby Rugby Leagues Club, E2014/70916 ⇨

2 Supporting Documents from Barry Stenner re Exemption Development Contribution for Mullumbimby Leagues Club received on 8 May 2018 (attachment to Council Report I2018/802), E2018/38624 ⇨

Report

On 16 October 2017 Council received a request from Mullumbimby Leagues Club for s64 contributions relating to Development Application (DA) 10.2016.125.1 to be waived.

DA10.2016.125.1 is a similar proposal as DA 10.2013.310.1 with the proposed facility on a different site location and an alternative project title.

Council considered the Club’s same request for DA 10.2013.310.1 at the Ordinary Meeting held 20 November 2014 (see report at Attachment 1 E2014/70916) and resolved as follows:

14-584 Resolved that Council levy s64 contributions due to be paid by the Mullumbimby Rugby League Club for DA 10.2013.310.1, but at the 2004 rate to be paid over a 10 year period.

The application of s64 contributions upon DA10.2016.125.1 has been consistent with the Water Management Act 2000, Water Management (General) Regulation 2011, Council’s Water Supply and Sewerage Developer Servicing Plan’s and also the Equivalent Tenement Policy 13/005.

As per previous assessment of DA 10.2013.310.1; Council Report with subsequent Council resolution 100.2014.584.1 the operations of the Mullumbimby Leagues Club do not have any capacity for development without the payment of Water and Sewer ETs. Nothing has changed with DA10.2016.125.1.

A meeting (11 December 2017) with representatives of the Club provided additional time to research the Clubs ‘Not-for-Profit and Charitable’ status. The applicable regulating authority being the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC).

Council’s Development Servicing Plans for Water Supply and Sewerage does provide exemption of s64 charges for such organisations.

2.7 Exemption

…

BSC may waive developer contributions where the proponent demonstrates to Council’s satisfaction that it is a non-profit and charitable organisation, which by virtue of carrying out such development, is considered to be making a significant and positive contribution to the community and is unable to recover the charge from the end user.

Subsequent correspondence from Mr David Graber Senior Analyst at the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission confirmed that the Mullumbimby Rugby League Football Club Ltd is a not-for-profit organisation; however, it is not entitled to registration as a charity because it has a sporting purpose and, therefore, cannot be registered with the ACNC.

Again, registration with the ACNC was the requirement for waiver of the s64 developer contributions to satisfy Council. Council resolution 14-584 also states that Mullumbimby Rugby League Football Club Ltd do not have any capacity for development without the payment of Water and Sewer s64 developer contributions.

The Mullumbimby Leagues Club Limited is a registered business and exists for the benefit of its members. It does not fall into a category for waiver of s64 contributions as per the ACNC ruling. Additionally Council made the same decision in 2014 but gave some concession.

Staff do not support the waiving of s64 charges based on the above. There is an existing charitable organisation that has met the requirements for the waiver (a group home on Bangalow Road, Byron Bay) and an impending development for a childcare centre in Suffolk Park that has also received pre-approval for the waiver.

Both organisations have maintained their status with the ACNC and are required to do so under the conditions of their DA approval. Doing anything less would create an additional layer of regulation/management upon Council and would require additional resources – it is not a function Council needs to acquire as the ACNC is the appropriate National regulator.

There is scope for Council to amend its Water & Sewer Developer Servicing Plan (DSP) to cater for sporting groups such as the Mullumbimby Leagues Club, so that the waiver can include or consider them to some degree. Such an amendment to the DSP will require a resolution and public exhibition. This also raises the question about the s94 contribution and the Plan associated with them – there appears to be no allowance for sporting groups either. Should Council wish to amend the current policy staff can provide further advice in relation to amendments to provide guidance for all sporting clubs for the future.

It is conceded that Mullumbimby Leagues Club have been a long time charitable organisation in the community which is represented in their constitution. Staff have met with Club representatives a number of times to provide a pathway for assistance however the request for the waiver is outside staff delegation.

Financial Implications

Council has assessed that $171,975.57 is due to be paid by the Mullumbimby Rugby League Football Club Limited (MRLFC) for charges levied under the Water Management Act 2000, applicable as a condition of consent for the subject development application 10.2016.125.1.

Should Council waive this charge, future developers under a new Developer Servicing Plan (DSP) will be subsidising the new amenities facility for the Leagues Club.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The application of s64 contributions upon DA10.2016.125.1 has been consistent the Water Management Act 2000, Water Management (General) Regulation 2011, Council’s Water Supply and Sewerage Developer Servicing Plan’s and also the Equivalent Tenement Policy.

Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993 is also relevant and must be considered:

Can a council financially assist others?

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

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

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

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

(b) the program’s details have been included in the council’s draft operational plan for the year in which the financial assistance is proposed to be given, and

(c) the program’s proposed budget for that year does not exceed 5 per cent of the council’s proposed income from the ordinary rates levied for that year, and

(d) the program applies uniformly to all persons within the council’s area or to a significant group of persons within the area.

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

Note. Part 4 of the Graffiti Control Act 2008 deals with graffiti removal work.

The recommendation does constitute financial assistance as it is applying fees at a reduced rate and therefore will require 28 days public notice.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 13.20

Report No. 13.20 Grays Lane Upgrade Status Update

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Daniel Strzina, Project Engineer

File No: I2018/814

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Local Roads and Drainage

Summary:

The purpose of this report is to provide to Council a status update on plans to upgrade Grays Lane, Tyagarah.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council note the planning work to date on the Grays Lane Upgrade project.

2. That Staff report back to Council at its meeting on 14 August 2018 with the results of consultation with residents and the Minister for the Environment.

Attachments:

1 24.2015.20.1 Grays Lane Upgrade Review of Environmental Factors REF (Geolink), E2018/37603 ⇨

2 24.2015.20.1 Grays Lane Upgrade Preliminary Road Works Plans, E2017/53558 ⇨

3 Grays Lane Upgrade Options Overview Table For Council Report 24 May 2018, E2018/38074 ⇨

Report

At its meeting on 22 May 2014, Council considered a staff report (#E2014/17829) on the subject and resolved as follows:

14-240

Resolved:

1. That Council maintain dialogue with the Grays Lane community in developing plans for an upgrade of the 800m unsealed gravel pavement at the north western end of Grays Lane by way of holding another meeting when staff have progressed with some planning for a future upgrade .

2. That initial planning and design for the upgrade of Grays Lane be undertaken by Council staff in the first instance and as resources permit.

3. That as progress of the initial planning and design for the upgrade reaches the point of needing to engage consultants to undertake ecological assessments and floodway analysis and design, and in consensus with the community of Grays Lane, a further report be presented to Council advising of the progress and recommending a funding source to engage consultants.

4. That traffic counts be carried out around the Grays Lane precinct with the view to assessing the traffic volumes of local traffic verses tourist traffic.

5. That Council write to the Local Government Minister, the Minister for Roads and the Minister for the Environment seeking a contribution towards the upgrade of Grays Lane due to the traffic generated by the Tyagarah Nature Reserve and Beach.

Since this resolution, the following documents have been prepared as part of preliminary planning and design:

· Grays Lane Upgrade Geotechnical Investigation and Pavement Upgrade Options (Coffey)

· Grays Lane Upgrade Flood Impact Assessment (BMT WBM)

· Grays Lane Upgrade Preliminary Road Works Plan (Staff)

· Grays Lane Upgrade Review of Environmental Factors (Geolink)

· Grays Lane Upgrade Option – Works Project Estimate (Staff)

In accordance with point four of the above resolution, traffic counts were undertaken and analysed. The average number of traffic movements on Grays Lane in 2012/13 was 467 movements per day, approximately 270 (58%) of which were to access Tyagrah Nature Reserve according to the 2013 NPWS State of the Parks Report. In February 2015 Council Staff recorded a daily average of 596 traffic movements on Grays Lane, 280 (47%) of which were recorded as accessing Tyagrah Nature Reserve. It is quite clear that roughly half of all traffic using Grays Lane do so to access the beach and/or Tyagrah Nature Reserve.

Compliant with point five of the above resolution, letters were sent to the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight seeking contribution towards the upgrade of Grays Lane. Responses were received with recommendations to apply for various state and federal funding programs, however no contributions were offered.

The Hon. Gabrielle Upton MP, who is currently both the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for the Environment replied on behalf of the Office of Local Government but not as the Minister for the Environment. A letter has been written to her as the Minister for the Environment seeking contribution to the upgrade of Grays Lane on the premise that roughly half of the traffic movements on the road are for access to the NPWS Tyagrah Nature Reserve.

On the 7^th of September 2017 a presentation was delivered to Council’s Strategic Planning Workshop. The following is a summary of the presentation content:-

Grays Lane Issues

· Existing gravel portion of the road in poor condition, generates high levels of dust (impeding visibility) and has poor flood immunity.

· Road is currently flood-prone, causing access issues to residents and emergency services during flooding, as well as maintenance issues for council.

Upgrade Objectives

· To provide an improved driving surface for residents.

· To reduce flood damage to the road surface.

· To reduce number of days the road is closed due to flooding each year.

· To ensure safety for the local koala population

Project Scope

· Upgrade 890m of Grays Lane

o Raise and seal 830m of gravel road

o Improvements to an additional 60m section of road

o Concrete alterations to culvert headwalls to allow road levels to be raised.

Project Constraints

· Flooding

· Acid Sulphate Soils

· Koala Habitat and local population

· Vegetation loss (20 trees)

Funding Status

· Currently unfunded

· Identified in the 10 year capital plan for construction in 2022/23

o $311,000 Section 94 funds forecast for 2022/23

o $500,000 Roads to Recovery Grant (to be determined)

Funding Options

· NPWS contribute to upgrade for Tyagrah Nature Reserve Traffic

o 2013 NPWS State of the Parks Report estimated 50,000 visitors per year; average 270 traffic movements per day

o 2012/13 traffic count: 467 traffic movements per day average

o Therefore 58% of traffic movements may be for National Park

o A letter has been written to the Minister for the Environment seeking contribution on this premise

· Special Rate

o Approx. 56 residential properties use Grays Lane

· Section 94 (none available until 2022/23)

· General Revenue

· Combination of above options (recommended)

Options Assessment

(this table has also been provided as an attachment TRIM #E2018/38074 )

Proposed Action To Move Forward

· Further develop Option 3 estimate

· Construct Option 3 next financial year

· Possible funding

o Section 94

o NPWS Contribution

o General Revenue 2018/19

o Special Rate ($4,750pp): $266,000

· Report to Council to seek endorsement of recommended way forward

Outcomes from the presentation to Council’s Strategic Planning Workshop included the following actions:

1. Investigate the legality of narrowing the road to save cost and protect the Koala population. This would include a lower speed limit.

2. Further review construction estimates, including the above option.

3. Write to NPWS requesting they contribute funds towards upgrading Grays Lane because the nation park users generate significant amount of traffic on Grays Lane. Letters is to detail the options Councils in considering, the likely costs and funds Council has available.

4. Write to residents to provide an update on works to date and advise on the options being investigated. Letter should include a link to a survey asking, how much property owners would be willing to contribute in order to bring the project forward, their design standard desires, including flood immunity preferences.

5. Report back to Council once the above has been investigated and a preferred way forward can be recommended.

These actions are currently being worked on by Council Staff, with letters sent to residents in accordance with point four above. Once responses have been collected and actions completed, Staff will report back to Council at its 14 August 2018 Ordinary Meeting with further recommendations.

Financial Implications

No negative implications in the recommendations of this report.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Council must provide reasonable infrastructure, as resources and priorities permit. Where existing infrastructure becomes known to be inadequate for any reason within the control of Council, repair, renewal and upgrade of these assets is a fundamental component of meeting Council’s obligations.

Provision of road infrastructure is a legitimate function of local government under the Local Government Act 1993. Council is also responsible for the provision of safe assets under the Roads Act 1993.

Resolving as recommended demonstrates that Council is carrying out its functions to the best of its ability and following best practice processes.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 13.22

Report No. 13.22 Tweed Street Master Plan Status Update

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Daniel Strzina, Project Engineer

Evan Elford, Team Leader Infrastructure Planning

File No: I2018/826

Theme: Community Infrastructure

Local Roads and Drainage

Summary:

The purpose of this report is to provide to Council a status update on the Tweed Street Master Plan project and to seek resolution from Council on the recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council note the current status of the Tweed Street Master Plan project.

2. That the Tweed Street Master Plan as a stand-alone project be put on hold until the Brunswick Heads Master Plan and associated Access and Movement Strategy have been developed, noting that the works undertaken and plans developed for the Tweed Street Master Plan will be supplied as supporting information to the consultant tasked with preparing the Brunswick Heads Master Plan and associated Access and Movement Strategy.

Attachments:

1 24.2008.68.1 Tweed Street Master Plan Options Report - Public Consultation Draft, E2017/3980 ⇨

Report

Council at its meeting on 17 March 2016 considered a staff report (I2016/152) on the subject matter and resolved as follows:

16-102

Resolved:

1. That staff proceed with the geotechnical report, identification of public utility service locations and cost estimations within the existing approved budget and use this as a basis for the consultation as set out in item 3a).

2. That staff consult with the community on the Tweed Street Masterplan.

3. That prior to the commencement of the consultation, staff prepare a consultation plan with options on:

a) proceeding with the existing Masterplan, including funding risks and opportunities;

b) not proceeding with the Masterplan and amending the Section 94 Plan to collect funds for alternative amenity improvement works in Brunswick Heads as a priority.

(Woods/Richardson)

The motion was put to the vote and declared carried.

Tweed Street Options Assessment

In accordance with point one of the above resolution, Council engaged specialist consultant Planit Engineering for the development of the Tweed Street Options Assessment. The scope of this project was to develop and assess three options for the upgrade of a 315m section of Tweed Street, from Booyun Street to Mullumbimbi Street, with the purpose of improving amenity of the road space and the adjacent precinct.

The Options Assessment provides insight into existing constraints, investigates opportunities for upgrade and assesses three upgrade options with recommendations based on field and desktop based technical investigations including:

· Detailed underground services locating

· A feature survey of the area

· Geotechnical investigations

· Drainage assessment

The Options Assessment considered a Draft Master Plan developed by Social Habitat in collaboration with the Tweed Street Action Group (TSAG) that promoted the following key design ideas:

· Tweed Street will be returned to a slower, quieter and more narrow street.

· The road will be lined with street trees that are distinct to Brunwick Heads relating to both its natural environment and cultural heritage.

· The shared path will create a spine for art installations that interpret various parts of the environment, people and history of Brunswick Heads.

· The existing stormwater system and ‘nature strip’ will not be altered. Except in the new pocket park in front of the ‘Breeze’ housing development.

Strategic Planning Workshop

The findings and options developed as part of the Options Assessment were reviewed and discussed at Council’s Strategic Planning Workshop on 8 June 2017.

The outcomes of the Workshop were as follows:

1. Tweed Street has deep and good quality pavement, therefore moving the road off this pavement to create a central median is not recommended.

2. Drainage is an issue in the surrounding area and the trunk main system is aging. Replacement of this should be considered as part of any upgrades to Tweed Street.

3. Option 1 was the preferred option because it was simple, cheap and achievable.

4. Parts of options 2 and 3 are desirable and should be considered as part of a bigger master plan for Brunswick Heads

5. A movement, transport and parking strategy should be used to help guide the future upgrade of Tweed Street and Master Plan.

6. Further comment from RMS should be sought on; roundabouts, cycleways, and pedestrian crossings.

7. Council would like to see recommendations brought back that involve:

• Approval of the preferred option, whilst keeping some other options open.

• A program of low cost projects that can be funded and achieved in the short term.

• Long term goals to put into the master plan.

• A proposal to prepare a master plan.

Community Consultation

In compliance with the outcomes above and to initiate community consultation on the matter, RMS comments and recommendations for small low cost projects were collected and presented with the Options Assessment to the TSAG for discussion. The purpose of the meeting was to seek initial feedback and comments on the options, as well as strategically plan the community consultation process. The outcomes of this meeting were as follows:

· The TSAG was disappointed in the report and options prepared by the consultant.

· The TSAG held a strong belief that the consultant has not properly considered the original Draft Master Plan and/or the level of community ownership of that plan.

· There was a high level of understanding of the community wishes within the TSAG that may not have been well understood by Council.

· The TSAG expressed their need to have an ongoing high level of involvement in the process.

· The TSAG had concerns that further public consultation providing three options for consideration and comment would be detrimental to the process and would open up divisions within the community.

· The TSAG suggested that the report and options should be modified whilst preferring that only one option be put to the community for consideration and comment.

· The TSAG suggested that the modified option should be presented in a way that it is easy to add or remove components to ensure the project meets budgetary constraints.

· The TSAG identified a number of issues with the options currently being presented which need modification before being presented to the community should Council determine to proceed with undertaking broader community consultation on all options as follows:

o Option 1 – maximise green space, provide additional parking and detail planting

o Option 2 – more parking required, remove one pedestrian crossing zone so as to provide two only

o Option 3 – modify the lane alignments to provide for sheltered right turn lanes and stacking of turning vehicles.

· The TSAG consider there are other points of contention applicable to all options that include the location of a deck, landscape treatments and potentially the location of cycleways.

As a consequence of this initial meeting with the TSAG, broader community consultation has not been progressed as the feedback raises concerns about continuing the consultation process with the documentation as it stands. Further concerns come from the fact that there are several other community groups within Brunswick Heads with views and objectives that are not necessarily aligned with those of the TSAG.

Funding

Completion of community consultation and associated reporting to Council would be required for Council to resolve in relation to a preferred option which would be necessary in making any application for grant funding.

All options at this stage have costs in the order of $1 million and Council does not currently have future funding commitments in place to implement any of the options. It would also be considered inappropriate to take options with costs of this order of magnitude to the community if grant funding of $600k is the likely maximum available, since community expectations would not be met.

Future Actions

Advice is sought from Council on how to proceed with this project, with the following comprising potential paths forward:

1. Resume community consultation based on the documentation prepared to date, as presented to the Strategic Planning Workshop. In this case the Options Assessment in its current form would be consulted on, with feedback to be reported to Council in due course.

2. Modify the existing documentation in collaboration with the Tweed Street Action Group prior to proceeding with further community consultation. In this case the Options Assessment would be revised in line with feedback from the initial limited community consultation undertaken prior going out to full community consultation.

3. Delay any further consultation until a Brunswick Heads Master Plan and associated Access and Movement Strategy has been developed, noting that there is currently no timeframe or budget defined for these works to be undertaken. In this case it should be noted that the works undertaken and plans developed for the Tweed Street Master Plan would be supplied as supporting information to the consultant tasked with preparing the Brunswick Heads Master Plan and associated Access and Movement Strategy if and when this were to occur.

Financial Implications

Council have previously allocated $20,000 for the community consultation phase of this project, of which roughly $15,000 remains reserved for this purpose.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Local Government Act 1993

Roads Act 1993.

Requested funds from funding bodies	18,848,875
Council cash contribution	10,393,699
Council in-kind Contribution	330,158
Other contributions	17,324,960
Funding applications submitted and awaiting notification (total project value)	46,897,692

DA No.	10.2017.270.1
Development	Multi Dwelling Housing Comprising Eight (8) Dwellings and Strata Title Subdivision
Property:	6A Canowindra Court Ocean Shores
Lot and DP:	11 DP 1225527
Zoning:	R2 Low Density Residential
Development Standard being 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, in relation to the strata lots.
Justification	The underlying objective of the minimum lot size provision is to guide the density of development in particular areas. The floor space ratio, building height plane and minimum lot size provisions for certain forms of development also inform the potential density of residential development in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone. The subject site is consistent with the form and scale of development prescribed in this location. The strict compliance with the provisions of Clause 4.1, will result in no change to the built form on the site and will merely prevent the sale of the individual dwellings on the allotment.
Extent of variation	The extent of the variation ranges from 69.1% to 81.4%
Concurrence	Council
Determined Date	28/11/2017

DA No.	10.2017.380.1
Development	Multi dwelling housing comprising the existing dwelling and two (2) new dwellings, two (2) swimming pools, tree removal (5 trees) and Strata Title Subdivision
Property:	34 Bangalow Road Byron Bay
Lot and DP:	Lot 2 DP 7117
Zoning:	R2 Low Density Residential
Development Standard being 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
Justification	The underlying objective of the minimum lot size provision is to guide the density of development in particular areas. The floor space ratio, building height plane and minimum lot size provisions for certain forms of development also inform the potential density of residential development in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone. The subject site is consistent with the form and scale of development prescribed in this location. The strict compliance with the provisions of Clause 4.1 will result in no change to the built form on the site and will merely prevent the sale of the individual dwellings on the allotment. Further, the site enjoys a current consent to undertake the construction of 2 additional dwellings on the property and to strata subdivide them.
Extent of variation	The extent of the variation ranges from 35.7% to 41.5%.
Concurrence	Director
Determined Date	2/11/18

DA No.	10.2017.101.1
Development	Mixed Use Development Comprising a Child Care Centre, Four (4) Industrial Retail Outlets, Six (6) Light Industry units and Two (2) Take-away Food and Drink Premises, an Ancillary Caretakers Dwelling and Parking Area
Property:	88-94 Centennial Drive Byron Bay
Lot and DP:	Lot 60 DP 835294
Zoning:	IN2 Light Industrial
Development Standard being varied:	BLEP 2014 Cl.4.3 - 9.0m building height limit
Justification	The proposed building includes a small section, located in the southern edge, that exceeds the 9m height limit by 0.6m. This is because of the slope of the existing ground at that part of the site, where it falls toward the adjacent drainage reserve. This part of the site will be filled for the development, which will result in the building being 8.45m above the finished ground level.
Extent of variation	6.60%
Concurrence	Assumed Concurrence
Determined Date	15/11/2017