Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 18 October 2018

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - General Manager 13.2

Report No. 13.2 Proposed lease to Lilly Pilly Community Pre-School Inc, 96 Kingsford Drive Brunswick Heads

Directorate: General Manager

Report Author: Paula Telford, Leasing and Licensing Coordinator

File No: I2018/1706

Theme: Corporate Management

Corporate Services

Summary:

Lot 70 DP 851902, 96 Kingsford Drive Brunswick Heads is Council owned community land currently leased to the Lilly Pilly Community Pre-School (‘the Pre-School’) to provide early childhood education and care services to the Brunswick Heads community. The Pre-School has requested that Council considers a new twenty (20) year lease when the current lease expires on 30 November 2018.

The Plan of Management over Lot 70 DP 851902 categories the land for general community use and allows Council to grant a lease up to 21 years over the land. Section 46A(3) of the Local Government Act permits Council to directly negotiate a lease for a term greater than five years with the Pre-School, being a non-profit organisation.

Councils Children’s Services Policy expressly authorises Council to provide community land at nominal cost to the Pre-School. The proposed lease should provide subsidised rent, with the Pre-School paying annual rent to the value of minimum Crown rent. Further, in accordance with Council’s Section 356 Donations, Rates, Water and Sewerage Charges Policy, the proposed lease should provide for a 100% subsidy for the value of annual general rates payable on the unimproved capital value of the land.

To ensure asset maintenance of all buildings and land over the term of the lease, Council staff recommend that the lease places an obligation on the Pre-School to replace or repair all non-structural building defects identified in building audits obtained prior to commencement of the lease and again prior to commencement of each five year options of the lease.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorises the General Manager to negotiate a new lease with the Lilly Pilly Community Pre-School for:

a) an initial term of five (5) years with three additional options of five (5) years to renew;

b) the lessor provide subsidised rent to the value of $40,190 (Calculated on the basis of 6% of the lands Unimproved Capital Value $40,680 less $490 being the value of minimum Crown rent) and adjusted each year;

c) the lessee pay annual rent of $490 (excluding GST) being minimum Crown rent, adjusted for each year of the lease;

d) the lessor provide full (100%) subsidies general land rates value for each year of the lease;

e) the Lessee pay all other outgoings;

f) the Lessee repair or replace all non-structural defects identified in a building audits obtained prior to commencement of the lease, and subsequent obtained prior to commencement of each additional option of the lease.

Report

Community Land and Plan of Management:

Lot 70 DP 851902, 96 Kingsford Drive Brunswick Heads is Council owned land classified as community land for general community use.

The adopted Generic Plan of Management for Community Land Categorised as General Community Use – Community Facilities (‘POM’) guides the management and development of the land. The POM expressly permits Council to lease the land for a term not greater than 21 years for purposes consistent with the core objectives of land categorised as general community use. The provision of facilities on the land to meet current and future needs of the local community and wider community for individual development or the physical, cultural, social and intellectual welfare of individuals is core objective for which a lease may be granted.

Council has acknowledged in its Policy 3.44 Children’s Services Policy the significant social and economic benefits to individuals, families and the community that flow from inclusive access to quality early childhood education and care services.

A lease to the Lilly Pilly Community Pre-School Inc (‘the Pre-School’) over Lot 70 DP 851902 for the purpose of early childhood education and care is consistent with both the POM over the land and Council’s Children’s Services Policy.

The Proposed Lease:

The Pre-School holds a current lease to 30 November 2018. To ensure the ongoing equitable access to pre-school services in Brunswick Heads, the Pre-School Inc, a registered charity (93 549 848 039) and approved children’s care provider (PR-00005056), has requested that Council considers a new twenty (20) year lease. A long-term lease would provide the pre-school with the security to apply for applicable grant funding.

A twenty (20) year lease is expressly authorised by the POM. Council staff would recommend that the lease be offered as a five (5) year lease with three additional options of five (5) years to commence 1 December 2018 for the purpose of early childhood education and care.

Direct negotiation:

In accordance with s46A(3) of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), Council is exempted from running a tender process to let a proposed lease for greater than five years to the Pre-School because the Pre-school is a registered non-profit organisation.

Subsidies:

Council’s Policy 3.44 Children’s Services Policy provides that Council will continue to support community pre-schools in the Shire by providing land and/or buildings for delivery of services to children aged 3 – 5 years. That Policy states that Council will provide community land at nominal cost to the organisations including the Pre-School.

As a result, it is proposed that Council provides subsidies rent to the Pre-School. Market rent is calculated at 6% of the lands Unimproved Capital Value (UCV) being $40,680. A Council subsidy of $40,190 with the Pre-school paying $490 (exclusive of GST) is required for year one of the lease. The proposed lease would require a full rent review to occur on the commencement of each additional five year option.

Further, Council’s Policy 12/008 Section 356 Donations, Rates, Water and Sewerage Charges provided eligibility for not for profit organisations to receive a section 356 donation for general rates, fixed water and sewerage charges. Under the existing five year lease, the Pre-School pays all outgoings except for general rates charges

To enable the Pre-School to continue to provide pre-school services to the Brunswick Heads community, it is proposed that Council continue to support the Pre-School and fully subsidise 100% of the annual general rate amount payable on the unimproved capital value of the land.

Asset maintenance:

To ensure ongoing asset maintenance during the term of the proposed twenty (20) year lease, Council staff recommends that a building audit is obtained prior to commencement of the lease and again before the commencement of each additional five year lease option. Terms of the proposed lease will then place an obligation on the Lessee to repair or replace all non-structural building defects identified in each subsequent building audit report. A regime of scheduled building audits through the term of the lease will ensure ongoing maintenance to the Council asset.

Financial Implications

This report is proposing that Council provides subsidised rent under the lease to the value of $40,680 for year one of the lease with the Pre-School to pay the value of minimum Crown rent currently $490 (exclusive of GST). A full rent review will occur on the commencement of each additional five year option.

The proposed lease will require the Pre-School to pay all outgoings except the value of annual general rent payable on the unimproved capital value (‘UCV’) of the community land. The annual general rent for the 2018-19 financial year based on a UCV of $678,000.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

446A Means of granting leases, licences and other estates

(1) A plan of management is to specify, in relation to the community land to which it applies, any purposes for which a lease, licence or other estate may be granted only by tender in accordance with Division 1 of Part 3.

(2) Nothing in this section precludes a council from applying a tender process in respect of the grant of any particular lease, licence or estate.

(3) A lease or licence for a term exceeding 5 years may be granted only by tender in accordance with Division 1 of Part 3, unless it is granted to a non-profit organisation.

47 Leases, licences and other estates in respect of community land—terms greater than 5 years

(1) If a council proposes to grant a lease, licence or other estate in respect of community land for a period (including any period for which the lease, licence or other estate could be renewed by the exercise of an option) exceeding 5 years, it must:

(a) give public notice of the proposal (including on the council’s website), and

(b) exhibit notice of the proposal on the land to which the proposal relates, and

(c) give notice of the proposal to such persons as appear to it to own or occupy the land adjoining the community land, and

(d) give notice of the proposal to any other person, appearing to the council to be the owner or occupier of land in the vicinity of the community land, if in the opinion of the council the land the subject of the proposal is likely to form the primary focus of the person’s enjoyment of community land.

(2) A notice of the proposal must include:

• information sufficient to identify the community land concerned

• the purpose for which the land will be used under the proposed lease, licence or other estate

• the term of the proposed lease, licence or other estate (including particulars of any options for renewal)

• the name of the person to whom it is proposed to grant the lease, licence or other estate (if known)

• a statement that submissions in writing may be made to the council concerning the proposal within a period, not less than 28 days, specified in the notice.

(3) Any person may make a submission in writing to the council during the period specified for the purpose in the notice.

(4) Before granting the lease, licence or other estate, the council must consider all submissions duly made to it.

(5) The council must not grant the lease, licence or other estate except with the Minister’s consent, if:

(a) a person makes a submission by way of objection to the proposal, or

(b) in the case of a lease or licence, the period (including any period for which the lease or licence could be renewed by the exercise of an option) of the lease or licence exceeds 21 years.

(6) If the council applies for the Minister’s consent, it must forward with its application:

• a copy of the plan of management for the land

• details of all objections received and a statement setting out, for each objection, the council’s decision and the reasons for its decision

• a statement setting out all the facts concerning the proposal to grant the lease, licence or other estate

• a copy of the public notice of the proposal

• a statement setting out the terms, conditions, restrictions and covenants proposed to be included in the lease, licence or other estate

• if the application relates to a lease or licence for a period (including any period for which the lease or licence could be renewed by the exercise of an option) exceeding 21 years, a statement outlining the special circumstances that justify the period of the lease or licence exceeding 21 years

• a statement setting out the manner in which and the extent to which the public interest would, in the council’s opinion, be affected by the granting of the proposed lease, licence or other estate, including the manner in which and the extent to which the needs of the area with respect to community land would, in the council’s opinion, be adversely affected by the granting of the proposed lease, licence or other estate.

(7) On receipt of the application, the Minister must request the Director of Planning to furnish a report concerning the application within such period as the Minister specifies.

(8) After considering the application and any report of the Director of Planning, the Minister, if satisfied that:

(a) subsections (1), (2) and (6) have been complied with, and

(b) such consent would not contravene section 46, and

(c) in all the circumstances, it is desirable to grant consent,

may consent to the granting of a lease, licence or other estate in respect of the whole or part of the land to which the application relates, subject to such terms and conditions as the Minister specifies.

(8AA) The Minister may consent to a lease or licence referred to in subsection (5) (b) only if the Minister is satisfied that there are special circumstances that justify the period of the lease or licence exceeding 21 years.

(8A) On request by any person, the Minister must provide that person, within 14 days of that request, with a written statement of reasons for consenting to, or refusing to consent to, the granting of a lease, licence or other estate in accordance with subsection (8).

(9) The Minister’s consent is conclusive evidence that the council has complied with subsections (1), (2) and (6).

(10) For the purposes of this section, any provision made by a lease or licence, or by an instrument granting any other estate, in respect of community land, according to which the council:

(a) would suffer a disadvantage or penalty if the same or a similar lease, licence or estate were not to be granted, for a further term, after the expiry of the current lease, licence or other estate, or

(b) would enjoy an advantage or benefit if the same or a similar lease, licence or estate were to be so granted, is taken to confer an option for renewal for a term equal to the further term.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - General Manager 13.4

Report No. 13.4 LGNSW request for financial assistance in legal proceedings

Directorate: General Manager

Report Author: Ralph James, Legal Counsel

File No: I2018/1872

Theme: General Manager

General Manager

Summary:

The Council has received a request from Local Government NSW (LGNSW) for assistance with legal costs incurred by the Council of the City of Sydney; Bayside City Council and North Sydney Council in respect of an appeal of the Land and Environment Court's decision in Karimbla Properties v Council of the City of Sydney; Bayside City Council and North Sydney Council [2017] NSWLEC 75.

The requested assistance is in the sum of $3,216.52 incl GST.

LGNSW guidelines provide that a council may apply for the support of the Association in seeking contributions from all councils to assist with its legal costs where that council is involved in litigation.

A prerequisite is that the principle in question in the matter involves a major local government principle which may be eroded but for pursuing the matter, and is one which should not be eroded merely because the council involved is not itself, so seriously affected by the outcome of the case that the legal costs associated with pursuing the principle outweigh any other consequences.

Council is under no obligation to provide assistance.

There have been 7 requests for assistance since 2008. Council has approved 5 and has not approved 2.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1. Acknowledge that the principle involved in the proceedings is one which is a major local government principle.

2. Authorise the provision of assistance requested by LGNSW in the sum of $3216.52 including GST, to be drawn from the Legal Services Budget.

Attachments:

1 Letter received from Local Government NSW regarding Request for Financial Assistance for Legal Costs - Karimbala Properties v Council of the City of Sydney, S2018/12199 ⇨

Report

The requested assistance is in the sum of $3,216.52 incl GST.

From time to time, LGNSW requests that Councils support other NSW Councils by providing financial assistance to help off-set costs incurred in relation to legal proceedings in which they have been involved.

The purpose is to assist Councils faced with substantial legal costs to defend their reasonable decisions, where the issues arising from and/or outcomes of such legal proceedings directly benefit the NSW local government sector.

· involves a major local government principle which may be eroded but for pursuing the matter; and

· is one which should not be eroded merely because the council involved is not itself, so seriously affected by the outcome of the case that the legal costs associated with pursuing the principle outweigh any other consequences. That is, just because the council involved itself, has decided in all the circumstances not to further pursue the matter, legal assistance can be provided where the matter is of such significance and broader concern to the whole of local government to warrant pursuing the principle.

This may include a ‘test case’ where the matter will affect all councils.

Assistance under the guidelines is usually only be granted in respect of appeal matters to the New South Wales Court of Appeal or the High Court of Australia. Assistance is generally not available to fund litigation in a court of initial jurisdiction (including the Land and Environment Court) unless the Association is satisfied that there exists special and exceptional reasons for doing so.

On 6 October 2017, the Board of LGNSW resolved to approve applications for legal assistance made by the City of Sydney Council and Bayside Council. On 9 February 2018, the Board resolved to approve an application for legal assistance made by North Sydney Council. Approvals were in accordance with the LGNSW Legal Assistance Policy and Guidelines (November 2015). See https://www.lgnsw.org.au/files/imce-uploads/127/legal-assistance-policy-guidelines-november-2015.pdf

The Karimbla case

In the Land and Environment Court proceedings Karimbla Properties (‘Karimbla’) contended that once earthworks commence on land which has approval for a residential project, the land should be classified as ‘residential’ for rating purposes.

Two of the respondent councils contended that such land should be classified as ‘commercial land development’ until at least the residential construction was complete (i.e. an occupation certificate issued).

The third respondent council contended that such land should only be classified ‘residential’ when a substantial portion of the residential units were actually occupied.

The dispute centred on the interpretation of s 516 of the Local Government Act(‘LGA’).

Essence of the Decision

Basically, the Court followed the decision in Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2003] NSWLEC 309 (Parramatta), as urged by Karimbla, over the opposition of all the respondent councils.

Categorisation of land as ‘residential’ (under the first limb of s 516) depended on the physical use of the land and that use was sufficiently manifested by commencement of construction of buildings that would be used for the purpose of residential accommodation. Where land is vacant (i.e. not any construction activity), the second limb of s 516 required consideration of its zoning and it was sufficient that the zoning includes the ability to develop land for residential purposes.

The fiscal implications of the case for councils are exacerbated by Sheahan J’s decision that:

· As decided in Parramatta, the Court was not constrained in determining its categorisation decision could take effect from the time the ratepayer had applied to the Council for review of the categorisation of the land as ‘residential’. However, as per the Parramatta decision, the Court should normally exercise its discretion to determine the time from which the new categorisation took effect by holding it took effect from the time that the ratepayer applied to the Council for the re-categorisation.

· Certain NSW legislative impediments to seeking a refund of tax rates where 12 months had elapsed since payment had been made did not preclude recovery of overpayment of rates due to land being re-categorised from ‘business’ to ‘residential’.

· The Court should not decline to order a refund of overpaid rates in the exercise of its discretion on the basis that the Karimbla had not notified the relevant Council of the change in categorisation within 30 days of the change occurring in accordance with s 524 LGA.

Whether to categorise land for rating purposes as ‘residential’ from commencement of earthworks

Legislative Context

Section 516 of the LGA provides (underlining added):

‘Land is to be categorised as residential if it is a parcel of rateable land valued as one assessment and:

(a) its dominant use is for residential accommodation (otherwise than as a hotel, motel, guest-house, backpacker hostel or nursing home or any other form of residential accommodation (not being a boarding house or a lodging house) prescribed by the regulations), or

(b) in the case of vacant land, it is zoned or otherwise designated for use under an environmental planning instrument (with or without development consent) for residential purposes, or

Before rating land, Councils are obliged to declare the category of the land for rating purposes. The categorisation takes effect from the date specified in the declaration. Where a ratepayer’s land changes in category, the ratepayer must notify the Council of the change within 30 days – s 524 LGA.

Ratepayers can apply to Council at any time for review of the rating classification – s 525 LGA. The Council can declare a particular classification shall apply and is deemed to declare the existing classification applies where the Council fails to make a decision within 40 days of application for re-classification.

A ratepayer can appeal (s 526 LGA) to the Court in relation to either/both of:

· the Council’s actual/deemed classification decision, and

· the date on which the declaration is specified to take effect

Any appeal from the Council decision must be instituted by the ratepayer within 30 days after the declaration is made.

Section 527 LGA requires the Council to ‘make an appropriate adjustment of rates paid or payable’ by a ratepayer following re-categorisation of the ratepayer’s land.

By s 574(2) LGA) that ratepayers can appeal to the Court within 30 days of service of a rates notice on the ground that the rateable land has been wrongly categorised.

Whether land is ‘residential’

The Karimbla case considered each of the limbs in s 516(a) and (b).

Sheahan J held that the Parramatta case was directly relevant and that he was obliged to interpret the limbs in accordance with that decision. He went further, and endorsed the case as being ‘correctly decided, and should and would be decided in the same way now’. He adopted its construction of s 516 and also adopted:

‘its finding that activities implementing a development consent, which will lead to a residential development of a type not excluded by the section, dictate that the land in such circumstances be categorised for rating purposes as for “residential accommodation”.’

In Parramatta, the Court rejected the Parramatta City Council’s contention that the dominant use of land (s 516(a)) was determined by the ratepayer’s purpose (of building development), which would have required the land to be categorised as used for business activity rather than residential activity.

In Parramatta, the Court was referring to ‘physical use’ in the extended sense discussed in Council of the City of Newcastle v Royal Newcastle Hospital [1957] HCA 15 and Council of the City of Parramatta v Brickworks Limited [1972] HCA 21. Those cases recognised that is possible for land to be used for (i.e. ‘devoted to’) a physical purpose without any physical activity occurring on the land.

The key point made in the Parramatta decision is that a ratepayer’s intention that in the future the land will be used for residential purposes is not sufficient, the land must be physically used for that purpose at the time of re-categorisation to ‘residential’ is sought. Commencement of development works (e.g. excavation of the land as part of the process of constructing foundations) in relation to a residential building will constitute a sufficient physical use of the land for residential purposes.

In relation to s 516(b), the Court in Parramatta considered that the zoning requirement. It held that it was sufficient that the zoning of the relevant land allowed ‘development of any kind, including residential, subject to obtaining development consent’. The point being made is that the ability to develop the land for non-residential purposes, in addition to the ability to develop the land for residential purposes, does not preclude the land meeting the s 516(b) test of being zoned for residential purposes.

In relation to the term ‘vacant land’ to which s 516(b) refers, Sheahan J adopted the Macquarie Dictionary definition applied in Ulan Coal Mines Pty Ltd v Mid-Western Regional Council [2013] NSWLEC 1167:

‘Vacant

1. having no contents; empty; void.

2. devoid or destitute (of).

3. having no occupant: vacant chairs.

4. untenanted, as a house, etc.

5. not in use, as a room.

6. free from work, business, etc., as time.

7. characterised by or proceeding from absence of occupation: a vacant life.

8. unoccupied with thought or reflection, as the mind.

9. characterised by, showing, or proceeding from lack of thought or intelligence.

10. not occupied by an incumbent, official, or the like, as a benefice, office, etc.

11. Law
(a) idle or unutilised; open to any claimant, as land.

(b) without an incumbent; abandoned: a vacant estate (one having no heir or claimant).’

Refund of rates overpaid due re-categorisation of land as ‘residential’

Of great importance for councils is whether their annual budgets can be disrupted retrospectively, and possibly after the elapse of several years, by re-categorisation decisions being made by the Court.

In the Parramatta case, the Court said:

‘The fact that an application [for re-categorisation] can be made at any time and that there is a 30 day limit for an appeal to be lodged under s 526(2) should not be interpreted as limiting the period of a declaration made by the Court to the date of the application for review made to the Council. Nothing in the legislation suggests such a limitation should be applied. How the Court’s discretion is exercised in making any declaration sought will depend on the circumstances of each case. If the circumstances warrant a change in the rating category I consider it would generally be appropriate to make such a change from the time sought in the absence of “disentitling” conduct by the applicant.’

In the Karimbla Case, Sheahan J accepted that this was correct. In short, in the absence of ‘disentitling circumstances’, a Court should exercise its discretion to declare that re-categorisation took effect from the time application for change in categorization had been sought.

He had to consider a potential disentitling circumstance, as identified under the next heading.

It would appear that failure to notify a Council of the circumstance that development of land has commenced within 30 days of that commencement (and where a later request for re-categorisation to ‘residential’ is made) will not affect the Court’s discretion to apply the re-categorisation from the time of the actual request for re-categorisation. The appeal to the Court from the Council’s decision to refuse re-categorisation is a different issue and the appeal must be commenced (s 526 LGA) within 30 days after the Council makes the declaration (or semble the deemed declaration under s 525 LGA where the Council has not made an actual declaration within 40 days of the re-categorisation application).

One of the councils contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction to order a refund of rates. Sheahan J held that he had the power to order refund of the overpaid rates. The power arose as ancillary to the express jurisdiction conferred on the Court.

Summary - why is the Karimbla case important?

Justice Sheahan confirmed the approach to determining when to categorise land as “residential” under s516 LGA. It is not necessary to have a building ready for occupation in order to classify it as “residential”. The Court can order the Council to repay rates paid under an incorrect classification.

While the councils in the proceedings adopted slightly different approaches to their arguments, one of the central issues was whether Parramatta was correctly decided. Sheehan J considered there was no reason to depart from the ratio decidendi in Parramatta, and confirmed that “activities implementing a development consent, which will lead to a residential development of a type not excluded by the section, dictate that the land in such circumstances be categorised for rating purposes as for “residential accommodation.”

Sheahan J also considered whether the Court could order a repayment of rates paid previously under the incorrect categorisation. North Sydney argued that if a refund was sought, different proceedings for restitution would be required. Sheahan J was satisfied that having regard to the objective of finality in proceedings and the broad jurisdiction of the Land and Environment Court, that it was possible to make an order for repayment, and that it was appropriate to do so. The Applicants were therefore entitled to a repayment of rates paid previously under different categorisations.

Comments by Revenue Co-ordinator

I am aware of this case and there is no doubt that the judgement (currently reserved) will affect all NSW Councils to some degree.

It may result in adopting an alternative trigger to consider a rating categorisation change for a property where development has commenced rather than completed. There are a few other issues that may be affected by this case too.

I can’t imagine the appeal outcome having a significant financial effect on Byron (it may change procedure etc) – it seems to have a significant effect on metro councils due to high rise developments on valuable parcels of land.

Ignoring perceived equity issues that may result from the judgement, I believe that a councils future notional permissible income shouldn’t be affected, however, any adjustments for prior years would likely result in one-off lost income.

How Council has dealt with previous requests for assistance

1) 19 March 2008 Gosford City Council. Assistance of $3346.30 approved. The issue was legal principles associated with a Tree Preservation Order.

2) 21 July 2009 Berrigan Shire Council. Assistance of $419.69 not approved. The issue was the consolidation of smaller parcels of land adjacent to a river to create dwelling entitlements.

3) 20 January 2010 Murray Shire Council. Assistance of $217.59 not approved. The issues concerned a tourist development and external agency concurrence and the interpretation of the LEP.

4) 27 April 2012 Blacktown City Council. Assistance of $118.28 approved. The issue was the interpretation of the GIPA Act.

5) 14 May 2013 Mid-Western Regional Council. Assistance of $3479.48 approved. The issue was categorisation of land as mining for ratings purposes.

6) 23 February 2016-Cowra Shire Council. Assistance of $569.76 approved. The issue was LGA prohibition orders in relation to animal welfare.

7) 6 May 2016-Bathurst Regional Council. Assistance of $1044.96 approved. The issue was a Council’s jurisdiction to fix fees for services under long-term contracts.

Financial Implications

The requested assistance is in the sum of $3,216.52 incl GST.

If Council resolved to provide assistance funding would be drawn from the Legal Services Budget allocation.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Council is under no obligation to provide assistance.

Rating categorisation and the application of s 516 LGA are dealt with in the body of the report. So too have ss 524, 525, 526, 527 and 574 LGA.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.6

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services

Report No. 13.6 Investments September 2018

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: James Brickley, Acting Director Corporate and Community Services

File No: I2018/1702

Theme: Corporate Management

Financial Services

Summary:

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

Report

In relation to the investment portfolio for the month of September 2018, Council has continued to maintain a diversified portfolio of investments. At 30 September 2018, the average 90 day bank bill rate (BBSW) for the month of September was 1.93%. Council’s performance to 30 September 2018 is 2.73% 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 September 2018:

Schedule of Investments held as at 30 September 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	Y	BBB+	28/10/19	Y	FRN	3.17%	655,144.56
24/03/17	1,000,000	NAB Social Bond (Gender Equality)	Y	AA-	24/03/22	N	B	3.25%	1,017,387.17
31/03/17	1,000,000	CBA Climate Bond	Y	AA-	31/03/22	N	FRN	3.25%	1,000,000.00
16/11/17	750,000	Bank of Queensland	Y	BBB+	16/11/21	N	FRN	2.63%	750,000.00
30/08/18	500,000	Bank Australia Ltd (Sustainability Bond)	Y	BBB+	30/08/21	N	FRN	3.20%	500,000.00
04/04/18	2,000,000	Police Credit Union Limited (SA)	Y	NR	03/10/18	Y	TD	2.86%	2,000,000.00
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 Bank	Y	A	02/10/18	N	TD	2.60%	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
17/04/18	1,000,000	Police Credit Union Limited (SA)	N	NR	17/10/18	Y	TD	2.94%	1,000,000.00
02/05/18	2,000,000	Police Credit Union Limited (SA)	N	NR	30/10/18	Y	TD	2.83%	2,000,000.00
02/05/18	1,000,000	Maitland Mutual Building Society	Y	NR	29/10/18	Y	TD	2.83%	1,000,000.00
15/05/18	1,000,000	Maitland Mutual Building Society	N	NR	15/10/18	Y	TD	2.85%	1,000,000.00
23/05/18	1,000,000	The Capricornian Credit Union	Y	NR	23/11/18	U	TD	2.85%	1,000,000.00
28/05/18	1,000,000	B & E Ltd (Bank of Us)	Y	NR	28/11/18	U	TD	2.85%	1,000,000.00
30/05/18	1,000,000	AMP Bank	N	A	25/02/19	N	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
05/06/18	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	03/10/18	N	TD	2.70%	1,000,000.00
08/06/18	2,000,000	ME Bank	Y	BBB	07/12/18	Y	TD	2.84%	2,000,000.00
08/06/18	1,000,000	Suncorp	Y	A	09/10/18	Y	TD	2.82%	1,000,000.00
15/06/18	1,000,000	Suncorp	N	A	15/10/18	Y	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
18/06/18	2,000,000	Beyond Bank	Y	BBB	18/12/18	Y	TD	2.75%	2,000,000.00
18/06/18	1,000,000	Gateway Credit Union	Y	NR	18/12/18	Y	TD	2.90%	1,000,000.00
03/07/18	1,000,000	B & E Ltd (Bank of Us)	N	NR	31/10/18	U	TD	3.00%	1,000,000.00
04/07/18	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	08/10/18	N	TD	2.57%	1,000,000.00
05/07/18	1,000,000	Hunter United Employees Credit Union	Y	NR	03/10/18	U	TD	2.90%	1,000,000.00
05/07/18	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	03/10/18	N	TD	2.76%	1,000,000.00
09/07/18	1,000,000	Beyond Bank	N	BBB	10/12/18	Y	TD	2.75%	1,000,000.00
23/07/18	1,000,000	AMP	N	A	21/01/19	N	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
23/07/18	1,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	22/10/18	N	TD	2.68%	1,000,000.00
23/07/18	1,000,000	Bankwest	Y	AA-	22/10/18	N	TD	2.65%	1,000,000.00
24/07/18	1,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	22/10/18	Y	TD	2.73%	1,000,000.00
30/07/18	2,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	29/10/18	Y	TD	2.73%	2,000,000.00
01/08/18	1,000,000	Defence Bank	Y	BBB	30/01/19	U	TD	2.75%	1,000,000.00
01/08/18	2,000,000	Bankwest	N	AA-	30/10/18	N	TD	2.65%	2,000,000.00
01/08/18	1,000,000	Bank Vic	Y	NR	30/10/18	Y	TD	2.82%	1,000,000.00
03/08/18	2,000,000	AMP	N	A	30/01/19	N	TD	2.80%	2,000,000.00
03/08/18	1,000,000	B & E Ltd (Bank of Us)	N	NR	02/11/18	U	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
06/08/18	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	05/11/18	N	TD	2.67%	2,000,000.00
07/08/18	1,000,000	Gateway Credit Union	N	NR	07/12/18	Y	TD	2.78%	1,000,000.00
07/08/18	2,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	04/02/19	Y	TD	2.70%	2,000,000.00
07/08/18	1,000,000	Coastline Credit Union	Y	NR	05/11/18	U	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
08/08/18	1,000,000	AMP	N	A	08/02/19	N	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
13/08/18	1,000,000	Bank of Us	N	NR	12/11/18	U	TD	2.75%	1,000,000.00
15/08/18	1,000,000	Police Credit Union Limited (SA)	N	NR	15/11/18	Y	TD	2.70%	1,000,000.00
20/08/18	1,000,000	Maitland Mutual Building Society	N	NR	19/11/18	Y	TD	2.70%	1,000,000.00
22/08/18	1,000,000	Suncorp	N	A+	22/11/18	Y	TD	2.65%	1,000,000.00
30/08/18	1,000,000	Suncorp	N	A+	28/11/18	Y	TD	2.65%	1,000,000.00
30/08/18	2,000,000	NAB	N	AA-	14/12/18	N	TD	2.63%	2,000,000.00
31/08/18	2,000,000	Suncorp	N	A+	29/11/18	Y	TD	2.65%	2,000,000.00
03/09/18	1,000,000	Bank Vic	N	NR	07/01/19	Y	TD	2.76%	1,000,000.00
04/09/18	1,000,000	Suncorp	N	A+	01/03/19	Y	TD	2.70%	1,000,000.00
06/09/18	1,000,000	Bananacoast Credit Union	Y	NR	06/03/19	Y	TD	2.70%	1,000,000.00
06/09/18	1,000,000	Suncorp	N	A+	05/03/19	Y	TD	2.70%	1,000,000.00
11/09/18	1,000,000	Bank Vic	N	NR	10/12/18	Y	TD	2.78%	1,000,000.00
12/09/18	1,000,000	Bankwest	N	AA-	10/01/19	N	TD	2.65%	1,000,000.00
12/09/18	2,000,000	Suncorp	N	A	08/02/19	Y	TD	2.70%	2,000,000.00
17/09/18	1,000,000	The Capricornian Credit Union	N	NR	17/01/19	U	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
17/09/18	1,000,000	The Capricornian Credit Union	N	NR	17/12/18	U	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
17/09/18	1,000,000	Hunter United Employees Credit Union	N	NR	17/12/18	U	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
19/09/18	1,000,000	Maitland Mutual Building Society	N	NR	17/01/19	Y	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
21/09/18	1,000,000	ME Bank	N	BBB	05/02/19	Y	TD	2.67%	1,000,000.00
21/09/18	1,000,000	Police Credit Union Limited (SA)	N	NR	21/01/19	Y	TD	2.80%	1,000,000.00
24/09/18	1,000,000	Bankwest	N	AA-	22/01/19	N	TD	2.65%	1,000,000.00
27/09/18	1,000,000	Suncorp	N	A	25/01/19	Y	TD	2.65%	1,000,000.00
28/09/18	1,000,000	Police Credit Union Limited (SA)	N	NR	02/01/19	Y	TD	2.85%	1,000,000.00
N/A	1,084,183	CBA Business Online Saver	N	A	N/A	N	CALL	1.40%	1,084,182.84
12/01/18	1,014,484	NSW Treasury Corp	N	AAA	N/A	Y	CALL	2.16%	1,014,483.54
Total	77,998,667						AVG	2.73%	78,021,198.11

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 Council’s website via the following link:

https://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/Council/Your-right-to-Council-information/Policies?dlv_OC%20CL%20Public%20DocLib%20Relative=(pageindex=6)

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 September 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 September 2018

Principal Value ($)	Investment Linked to:-	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
72,000,000.00	Term Deposits	72,000,000.00	0.00
2,900,000.00	Floating Rate Note	2,905,144.56	5,144.56
1,084,182.84	Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	1,084,182.84	0.00
1,014,483.54	NSW Treasury Corp (T Corp)	1,014,483.54	0.00
1,000,000.00	Bonds	1,017,387.17	17,387.17
77,998,666.38		78,021,198.11	22,531.73

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 September 2018 on a current market value basis.

Movement in Investment Portfolio – 30 September 2018

Item	Current Market Value (at end of month) $
Opening Balance at 1 September 2018	77,017,471.34
Add: New Investments Purchased	17,000,000.00
Add: Call Account Additions	0.00
Add: Interest from Call Account	2,146.45
Less: Investments Matured	15,000,000.00
Add: T Corp Additions	0.00
Add: Interest from T Corp	1,580.32
Less: Call Account Redemption	1,000,000.00
Add: Fair Value Movement for period	0.00
Closing Balance at 30 September 2018	78,021,198.11

Investments Maturities and Returns – September 2018

Principal Value ($)	Description	Type	Maturity Date	Number of Days Invested	Interest Rate Per Annum	Interest Paid on Maturity $
1,000,000.00	Bananacoast Credit Union	TD	06/09/18	184	2.60%	13,106.85
2,000,000.00	MyState Bank Limited	TD	06/09/18	184	2.65%	26,717.81
1,000,000.00	Maitland Mutual Building Society	TD	11/09/18	104	2.80%	7,978.08
1,000,000.00	Bankwest	TD	12/09/18	92	2.55%	6,427.40
2,000,000.00	Suncorp	TD	12/09/18	90	2.75%	13,561.64
1,000,000.00	The Capricornian	TD	17/09/18	154	2.74%	11,560.55
1,000,000.00	The Capricornian	TD	17/09/18	185	2.80%	14,191.78
1,000,000.00	Hunter United Credit Union	TD	17/09/18	123	2.80%	9,435.62
1,000,000.00	ME Bank	TD	21/09/18	120	2.60%	8,547.95
1,000,000.00	Police Credit Union Limited (SA)	TD	21/09/18	112	2.82%	8,653.15
1,000,000.00	Bankwest	TD	24/09/18	90	2.80%	6,904.11
2,000,000.00	ME Bank	TD	27/09/18	85	2.70%	12,575.34
15,000,000.00						139,660.28

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

Dissection of Council Cash Position as at 30 September 2018

Item	Principal Value ($)	Current Market Value ($)	Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)
Investments Portfolio
Term Deposits	72,000,000.00	72,000,000.00	0.00
Floating Rate Note	2,900,000.00	2,905,144.56	5,144.56
Business On-Line Saver (At Call)	1,084,182.84	1,084,182.84	0.00
NSW Treasury Corp (T Corp)	1,014,483.54	1,014,483.54	0.00
Bonds	1,000,000.00	1,017,387.17	17,387.17
Total Investment Portfolio	77,998,666.38	78,021,198.11	22,531.73

Cash at Bank
Consolidated Fund	1,621,532.64	1,621,532.64	0.00
Total Cash at Bank	1,621.532.64	1,621.532.64	0.00

Total Cash Position	79,620,199.02	79,642,730.75	22,531.73

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.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services 13.9

Report No. 13.9 Election of Deputy Mayor 2018-2019

Directorate: Corporate and Community Services

Report Author: Heather Sills, Corporate Governance Officer

File No: I2018/1859

Theme: Corporate Management

Councillor Services

Summary:

In accordance with Section 231 of the Local Government Act 1993 Councillors can elect a Deputy Mayor. Normal practice for Byron Shire is to elect their Deputy Mayor for a period of 12 months at the first meeting in September each year.

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 20 September 2018, Council resolved (18-619) that Council extend the period of Deputy Mayor to the October 2018 meeting and defer the election of a new Deputy Mayor to the next meeting of Council.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council elect a Deputy Mayor for the period from 18 October 2018 until the first meeting of Council in September 2019.

2. That the method of election of the Deputy Mayor be by way of ordinary ballot.

Attachments:

1 Byron Shire Council Nomination Form Deputy Mayor 2018, E2018/60931 ⇨

Report

In accordance with Section 231 of the Local Government Act 1993, a council may elect a Deputy Mayor to assist the Mayor in the performance of their duties.

(1) The councillors may elect a person from among their number to be the deputy mayor.

(2) The person may be elected for the mayoral term or a shorter term.

(3) The deputy mayor may exercise any function of the mayor at the request of the mayor or if the mayor is prevented by illness, absence or otherwise from exercising the function or if there is a casual vacancy in the office of mayor.

(4) The councillors may elect a person from among their number to act as deputy mayor if the deputy mayor is prevented by illness, absence or otherwise from exercising a function under this section, or if no deputy mayor has been elected.

Term of the Deputy Mayor

Section 231 (2) of the Local Government Act states: “The person may be elected for the mayoral term or a shorter term” such as:

1. For a period of 12 months

2. For the period of the Mayoral Term

3. For another period determined by Council

Returning Officer

Schedule 7(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 states that the “General Manager (or a person appointed by the General Manager) is the Returning Officer.”

Nomination

Schedule 7(2) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 states that:

(1) A councillor may be nominated without notice for election as mayor or deputy mayor.

(2) The nomination is to be made in writing by 2 or more councillors (one of whom may be the nominee). The nomination is not valid unless the nominee has indicated consent to the nomination in writing.

(3) The nomination is to be delivered or sent to the returning officer.

(4) The returning officer is to announce the names of the nominees at the council meeting at which the election is to be held.

Nomination forms have been provided as an attachment to this business paper. Any completed nomination forms should be handed to the General Manager prior to the commencement of the Council meeting.

Election

Schedule 7(3) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 states:

(1) If only one councillor is nominated, that councillor is elected.

(2) If more than one councillor is nominated, the council is to resolve whether the election is to proceed by preferential ballot, by ordinary ballot; or by open voting.

(3) The election is to be held at the Council meeting at which the Council resolves the method of voting.

(4) In this clause:

“ballot” has its normal meaning of secret ballot;

“open voting” means voting by a show of hands or similar means.

Traditionally this Council has determined that the election for Deputy Mayor should be by ordinary ballot. The following additional information is provided in respect to an election by preferential ballot and by ordinary ballot.

Preferential ballot – as per its normal interpretation, the ballot papers are to contain the names of all candidates and Councillors mark their votes 1, 2, 3 and so on against the various names, so as to indicate their order of preference for all of the candidates.

Ordinary ballot – this is the usual method adopted in New South Wales. Ballots are secret with only one candidate’s name written on a ballot paper.

Where there are two candidates, the person with the most votes is elected. If the ballots for the two candidates are tied, the one to be elected is to be chosen by lots, with the first name out being declared elected.

Where there are three or more candidates, the person with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and the process started again until there are only two candidates. The determination of the election would then proceed as if the two were the only candidates. In the case of three or more candidates where a tie occurs, the one to be excluded will be chosen by lot.

Choosing by Lot – to choose a candidate by lot, the names of the candidates who have equal numbers of votes are written on similar slips of paper by the returning officer, the slips are folded by the returning officer so as to prevent the names being seen, the slips are mixed and one is drawn at random by the returning officer and the candidate whose name is on the drawn slip is chosen, on the basis detailed above.

Financial Implications

On 21 June 2018, Council resolved (18-420) in part 3: "That Council in accordance with its current practice not determine a fee payable to the Deputy Mayor."

Section 249(5) of the Local Government Act 1993 states:

(5) A council may pay the deputy mayor (if there is one) a fee determined by the council for such time as the deputy mayor acts in the office of the mayor. The amount of the fee so paid must be deducted from the mayor’s annual fee.

Therefore the Deputy Mayor when acting in the role of Mayor, in instances where the Mayor has leave of absence endorsed by Council, would be paid a fee calculated on a pro-rata basis of the annual Mayoral allowance, which would be deducted from the amount of the monthly Mayoral allowance paid to the Mayor, in accordance with Section 249 of the Local Government Act 1993.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The Deputy Mayor will undertake the Mayor’s role at the request of the Mayor and in situations where the Mayor is prevented by illness, absence or other reasons from exercising the functions of the position. The role of the Mayor is defined by Section 226 of the Local Government Act 1993.

Section 226 states that:

The role of the mayor is as follows:

(a) to be the leader of the council and a leader in the local community,

(b) to advance community cohesion and promote civic awareness,

(c) to be the principal member and spokesperson of the governing body, including representing the views of the council as to its local priorities,

(d) to exercise, in cases of necessity, the policy-making functions of the governing body of the council between meetings of the council,

(e) to preside at meetings of the council,

(f) to ensure that meetings of the council are conducted efficiently, effectively and in accordance with this Act,

(g) to ensure the timely development and adoption of the strategic plans, programs and policies of the council,

(h) to promote the effective and consistent implementation of the strategic plans, programs and policies of the council,

(i) to promote partnerships between the council and key stakeholders,

(j) to advise, consult with and provide strategic direction to the general manager in relation to the implementation of the strategic plans and policies of the council,

(k) in conjunction with the general manager, to ensure adequate opportunities and mechanisms for engagement between the council and the local community,

(l) to carry out the civic and ceremonial functions of the mayoral office,

(m) to represent the council on regional organisations and at inter-governmental forums at regional, State and Commonwealth level,

(n) in consultation with the councillors, to lead performance appraisals of the general manager,

(o) to exercise any other functions of the council that the council determines.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.11

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report No. 13.11 Draft Bangalow Village Plan for public exhibition

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Rob Van Iersel, Major Projects Planner

File No: I2018/918

Theme: Ecology

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

Council resolved (16-623) to prepare a masterplan for the village of Bangalow through a participative planning process with the Bangalow Guidance Group.

This report presents the Draft Bangalow Village Plan – Vision and Initiatives for Council’s consideration for public exhibition (Attachment 1), and outlines the next step community engagement initiatives. This report also highlights some changes to the original communication and engagement plan that was endorsed by the Communications Panel earlier in the year.

The draft Plan is the outcome of a two year participative planning process with the Bangalow Guidance Group. The process has sought to define the things people value about Bangalow and want to conserve; identify what’s not working and needs improvement; develop strategies to guide future change and sustainable development of the village over the next 15 years; and ensure it’s unique heritage character and rural amenity are conserved and enhanced into the future.

The draft Plan presents the synthesis of visions and initiatives that have come from the process, outlining a recommended framework to guide the future of Bangalow.

The Plan’s key visions are outlined in the Executive Summary within Attachment 1, and cover areas of public realm; built form; access and movement; natural environment and sustainability; and culture and sociability.

The intent of the draft Plan at this time is to present these visions and initiatives to the broader Bangalow (and Shire) community to test a wider view and gain an understanding of desired priorities.

The results of this wider public engagement process will allow for the finalisation of the Plan and development of a detailed Implementation Plan/Program.

At the same time, staff from Infrastructure Services (IS) propose to run a separate community consultation process to determine user needs in regard to Council-owned land at the Bangalow Sportsfields. A budget allocation is sought by IS to undertake this parallel consultation and a subsequent review of the Plan of Management for the Bangalow Sportsfields (otherwise unrelated to the subject plan and exhibition). This allocation is addressed in a separate report to this Council meeting, associated with budget carryovers.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That Council place the Draft Bangalow Village Plan – Vision and Initiatives, Attachment 1 (#E2018/79056) on public exhibition for a period of 6 weeks.

2. That Council delegate authority to the Director of Sustainable Environment and Economy to amend the Plan prior to public exhibition, if need be, for the purposes of proof reading and formatting edits.

3. That Council endorse the updated Communications and Engagement Plan, Attachment 2 (#E2018/75449), to guide the public engagement activities to be undertaken.

Attachments:

1 draft Bangalow Village Plan - Vision and Initiatives, E2018/79056 ⇨

2 Communications Action Plan Bangalow Village Plan Public Exhibition, E2018/75449 ⇨

3 Special Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest Annexure, E2012/2815 ⇨

Report:

This report presents the Draft Bangalow Village Plan – Vision and Initiatives (Attachment 1) and summarises the community engagement activities planned to occur over a period of 6 weeks.

Background

Council resolved (16-623) to prepare a masterplan for the village of Bangalow, through a participative planning process with selected representatives of the Bangalow community.

Key outcomes that Council and the community are seeking from the plan and the process include:

· greater involvement of Bangalow residents in Council decision-making about their town;

· a shared vision for the future – to get everyone rowing in the same direction (including Council, community groups and private developers);

· better integration, coordination and sequencing of activities in Bangalow, including the delivery of infrastructure by Council;

· to inspire and drive change by trialling some new ideas, temporary events and creative initiatives in the public domain; and

· to ensure that the things people love about Bangalow – such as its small town feel, heritage character, rural setting and natural environment – are conserved.

The process commenced in late 2015 with a community survey, which received 300 responses. Results of the survey are included in the appendix to the draft Village Plan (Attachment 1).

A two-day Place Creation Workshop followed in March 2016, attended by 31 representatives from Bangalow community groups, the Mayor, Councillors and Council staff. Workshop participants were invited to continue their involvement by becoming members of a community Guidance Group.

The Bangalow Guidance Group was formed in June 2016, comprising 19 community members and 3 Councillors. It has met regularly since then and, through a series of participative workshops, assisted Council staff in developing the draft Village Plan.

Intent and scope of the draft plan

The ‘Bangalow Village Plan’ will be a “place plan” (or town-scale masterplan) to set out the community’s visions and ideas for their town. When finalised, it will guide future change and sustainable development of the Bangalow Village over the next 15 years (from 2018 to 2033).

The draft Bangalow Village Plan – Vision and Initiatives is an important step in the process, to articulate the value of this place; define the important aspects that make up its character; and put forward initiatives that will ensure Bangalow’s unique heritage character and rural amenity are recognised, valued, conserved and enhanced.

It is appropriate, at this time, to engage with the broader Bangalow (and Shire) community to present these visions and initiatives, to test a wider view and gain an understanding of desired priorities.

The results of this wider public engagement process will allow for the finalisation of the draft Plan and development of a detailed Implementation Plan/ program and future governance structure to assist in project delivery, consistent with Council’s Community Strategic Plan, Operational and Delivery Plans.

The draft Plan presents the community’s vision for Bangalow Village as:

a healthy environment to live, work and raise a family

a village rich in history and heritage

a socially resilient community

an economically viable centre, providing a range of services to the people of the community and the surrounding area

nestled in the hills, surrounded by natural beauty

The Plan’s key aspirations and initiatives are collated across the following themes:

1. Public realm (streets, parks, public reserves)

2. Built form and village structure

3. Access and movement

4. Natural environment and sustainability

5. Culture and sociability

6. Shopping and business

In addition to the initiatives across these themes, the draft Plan provides conceptual visions for the future of four main precincts within the Village:

· Byron Street, from Station Street to the Granuaille/Lismore Road roundabout;

· Station Street, including “the Triangle”, rail corridor and Memorial Park;

· Showgrounds, sportsfields, eastern end of rail corridor and Bowling Club; and

· Bangalow Parklands and Heritage House.

Community Engagement

Members of the Group had previously discussed an Implementation Schedule and were keen for this to form Part B of the draft Village Plan for public exhibition. Staff remain of the view that further work is required to test and scope the range of initiatives, to develop projects, resources and funding mechanisms that would allow the development of an appropriate Implementation Plan.

In finalising the draft Village Plan, a workshop was held with the Guidance Group to work through the draft initiatives, to identify where there was consensus among the Group. For the purposes of public exhibition, the current draft contains a list of all the initiatives as Appendix 3 (see Attachment 1).

At the workshop, the Group provided a number of specific comments that will be considered, together with further submissions resulting from the public exhibition of the draft Plan. These included:

· the document should clearly prioritise residential amenity over tourism;

· the highest priority action item in the Draft Plan should be the creation of a walk/cycle way between Rifle Range Road and the A&I Hall in the rail corridor with a priority to extend to the sportsfield as soon as practicable suitable [Note: not all of the members of the Group supported this specific action as the highest priority];

· The wording on page 9 ‘purpose and scope’ should be amended to align with the language from the purpose and scope of the Bangalow Settlement Strategy 2003;

· that Bangalow as a service centre to the 2479 postcode area be included in the Purpose and Scope;

· that the NSW Government’s Office of Environment & Heritage’s map of its gazetted Bangalow Conservation Area be inserted into the document and properly introduced in the Introduction to the Draft Plan and be referenced at appropriate and relevant places throughout the document;

· that the height limit for the total area gazetted as the Bangalow Conservation Area be limited to no more than two storeys or 9 metres [Note: not all of the members of the Group supported this comment];

· that Section 02 Built Form and Structure includes reference to, and aligns with the design principles for places of cultural significance and heritage areas described in The Burra Charter (2013) and the NSW Govt’sDesign Guide for Heritage (2018);

· that all presumptive and premature references to ‘density’ and ‘medium density’ in Bangalow be moderated with reference to the need to establish the actual capacity for what is possible and realistic after an audit

· that all presumptive and premature descriptions throughout the document of developments in Station Street be moderated with reference to the amended process described in point 7 on page 91 ‘though a collaborative design process with developers and their consultants and the Bangalow Guidance Group.’

· that all references to a lookout or path at the top of Rankin Drive (water tower area) be removed

The Guidance Group was invited to provide feedback on the place planning process to the Sustainable Planning Workshop on the 6 September 2018. Councillors were able to hear directly from the Guidance Group members about their learnings and experiences from the Bangalow Village Plan making process.

The group were also asked to identify their top priorities from within the Draft Bangalow Village Plan. The general themes that arose were:

· Better pedestrian and cycle connections through Bangalow

· Protection of the important heritage character of Bangalow and heritage buildings, including amending the DCP; and

· Protecting the village and rural feel of Bangalow.

There was a general consensus that the plan making process had taken too long. However, this had also created a highly cohesive group which has worked well together to produce a valuable draft Plan.

In addition to collaboration with the Bangalow Village Plan Guidance Group, initial consultations with Arakwal, Jali LALC, Tweed/Byron LALC and Ngulingah LALC have commenced. Further details on this are highlighted in the updated communication and engagement plan (Attachment 2).

From initial conversations, the ‘Culture and Sociability’ and the ‘About Bangalow’ sections of the Plan have been updated with information on the importance of cultural heritage in the area. It is expected that further amendments and inputs relating to cultural heritage will be necessary once each board have completed their review, which will take place during the public exhibition period.

As outlined above, it is now appropriate that wider community input is obtained.

Purpose of Public Exhibition:

· Feedback on the initiatives – agreement/disagreement, omissions etc.,

· Prioritisation of the initiatives,

· General feedback on the draft.

The communication and engagement plan for this project was written earlier this year, prior to the draft Plan being completed. It was, to some extent, unknown at that stage what the exact purpose of the public exhibition would be. The purpose, as above, has now been clarified and as such, the methods of engagement listed in the communication and engagement plan have been amended (see Attachment 2). The changes that have been made to the communication and engagement plan are tabled below.

Removed	Reasoning
Scheduled walking tours	Staff time, health and safety issues and resources do not justify the purpose of these meetings. These types of meetings will be better suited to the second stage when initiatives are being scoped.
Presence outside school at pick up time	Time not justified – parents and children are busy and pre-occupied at this time and not likely to stop. Ad in the school newsletter + parklet likely to be more effective
Postcard letterbox drop	Postcard too expensive - will do a letterbox drop of a fact sheet or flyer (developed in-house).
Amended	Reasoning
Half day workshops with Arakwal	Staff have been liaising with Arakwal representatives, who are currently reviewing the Plan.
Half day workshops with Ngulingah	A meeting was held with CEO to get their input.
Tweed/Byron LALC consultation	Staff have met with Tweed/Byron CEO and Chairman.

As outlined in the updated communication and engagement plan, it is recommended that a number of community engagement initiatives be undertaken over a 6 week period. In addition to the conventional public exhibition measures, examples of the engagement initiatives include:

· Wide distribution of project summary information throughout Bangalow;

· Parklets in the main street where staff will be available to talk with the community;

· Presence at Farmers Markets;

· Online survey; and

· Modern use of social media.

It is intended that members of the Guidance Group will be asked to take an active role is some of the engagement activities, to assist in disseminating their local knowledge and input.

Financial Implications

Funds have been allocated in the 2018/19 budget to finalise the development of the Bangalow Village Plan.

Funds are required to review the Plan of Management for the Bangalow Sportsfields. An allocation of $50,000 is addressed in a separate report to this Council meeting, associated with budget carryovers.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

The Draft Bangalow Village Plan – Vision and Initiatives is a non-statutory document, which has been initiated by Council in response to requests from community leaders.

It will provide impetus for the subsequent development of statutory documents and guidelines for future development in Bangalow.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.12

Report No. 13.12 PLANNING - Car Share Pilot Project, Byron Bay & Mullumbimby

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Jamie Van Iersel, Planner - Place Planner

File No: I2018/1377

Theme: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

At the Ordinary Meeting of 22 February 2018, Council considered a draft Car Share Policy and resolved to exhibit the draft Policy and support an expression of interest (EOI) from car share companies for a pilot project.

This report provides a status update on the projects public exhibition and EOI as well as an update on the selection of car share bay locations in Byron Bay.

The draft Car Share Policy was publicly exhibited until Monday, 17 September. As no submissions of objection were received the Policy is now adopted.

Five car share operators expressed an interest in operating a car share scheme.

Community engagement was carried out with neighbours nearby to the potential car share bays, and the Local Traffic Committee considered a report on the potential sites. From this engagement twelve car parking spaces are recommended for the trial.

Additionally, two landholders, with three sites, have indicated a willingness to take part in the 12 month pilot by allowing a number of their car parking spaces to be used by the selected car sharing operator.

Once the location of the car share bays has been endorsed, Council staff will move forward with the process and invite the car sharing operators to formally apply to lease the spaces. Once applications close, the details will be reported back to Council for a car share operator to be selected.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council endorse the following parking bay locations for the car share pilot:

a) Mullumbimby: four (4) spaces in the Station Street car park; and

b) Byron Bay: four (4) in Lawson Street, two (2) in Marvell Street east (subject to further consultation with nearby neighbours) and one (1) each in Browning and Shirley Streets.

Attachments:

1 Car Share Policy, E2018/76862 ⇨

2 Car Share Implementation Procedure, E2018/77388 ⇨

3 Car Share Bay Location Feedback as of Sept 18 2018, E2018/76870 ⇨

4 Car Share Bay Locations - Recommendations 18 Oct, E2018/77384 ⇨

5 Confidential - Car Share EOI – Responses pdf, E2018/68767

6 Car Share Potential Bay Locations - LTC, E2018/68877 ⇨

Report

Background

At the Ordinary Meeting of 22 February 2018, Council Resolved (18-115):

1. Endorse the principles of the report to develop a pilot project for car share;

2. Request staff to exhibit the draft Policy and the suggested DCP 2014 amendments together for a period of 28 days;

3. Note that, if no submissions are received, the amendments are to be adopted as at the date of the close of exhibition and notified accordingly;

4. Support progression of an expression of interest from car share companies for a pilot project in Byron and Mullumbimby, and that a further workshop and report to Council to occur following the EOI process.

Car Share Policy and Procedure

The draft Car Share Policy was exhibited until Monday, 17 September. During the exhibition the car sharing concept was introduced during recent community engagement activities relating to the Byron Bay Town Centre. There was overwhelming support among attendees at two community workshops, and from students at workshops undertaken at Byron Bay High School for the establishment of a car share pilot scheme.

No submissions of objection were received and therefore, in accordance with the resolution above, the Policy is now adopted, Attachment 1. One submission of support was received that read “I wish to register my support for the proposed Car Share scheme in Byron Bay”.

An internal Procedure (Attachment 2) has been developed to guide the delivery of the car share trial.

Expression of Interest – Car Share Operators (CSOs)

A presentation on the outcomes of the EOI was provided to the 9 August 2018 Strategic Planning Workshop.

Five CSOs responded to the EOI, refer to confidential Attachment 5:

· GoGet

· PopCar

· Green Share Car

· Flexi Car

· Car Next Door

All five CSOs expressed interest, to varying degrees, in potentially operating in Byron Shire. Green Share Car was only interested in a Strata Fleet Model, rather than the traditional scheme. The remaining four could all potentially be suitable for operation in Byron Shire.

Expression of Interest – Commercial Landowners

The purpose of this expression of interest was to learn from local commercial landowners of any potential interest they may have in allowing bays for car sharing within their development. By utilising commercial landowners to be involved in the pilot, a further reach and potentially more tactical and strategic placement of car share bays could be achieved.

Council would not be involved in the agreements of these bays; the landowner would lease their space directly to the CSO. Council would be available to introduce and support the relationship between the landowners and the CSO.

So far, two landholders, with three development sites (Koho Mullumbimby (future development), Koho Sunrise, and Habitat Sunrise), have identified willingness for one or more car share bays within their car parks.

Car Share Bay Locations

A number of potentially suitable car parking spaces were initially identified by Council staff to become exclusive car share bays. The locations were selected based on research regarding existing car sharing schemes around Australia.

Residents near the identified potential car share bays were contacted and a fact sheet and letter was sent out to residents in the immediate vicinity of a parking space that was identified as potentially suitable.

Staff subsequently discussed the proposal with 12 residents, receiving feedback on the location of the bays. All 12 respondents saw the pilot to be a positive contribution for the Shire, although most recommended minor changes to the locations suggested. Refer to Table 1 below which shows a summary of the residents’ feedback, see Attachment 3 for further detail.

The preferred locations, as well as additional alternatives, were reported to the Local Traffic Committee (LTC) at the 18 September 2018 meeting, seeking support for at least 10 bays (see Attachment 6).

The LTC Recommended:

That Council support the following locations for car share spaces: four (4) spaces in Station St, four (4) in Lawson St and one (1) space each in Massinger, Browning, Marvell and Shirley Streets, generally located where shown in red in the report.

Table 1: Summary of consultation with residents near proposed car share bays

Location	Summary
Shirley Street
Neighbour 1	Intersection too congested. Further east on Shirley Street would be better.
Neighbour 2	Great idea and location
Neighbour 3	Intersection too congested
Neighbour 4	Intersection too congested
Marvell Street
Neighbour 1	Commercial area of Marvell Street would be better. This is residential area.
Massinger Street
Neighbour 1	Intersection too busy, closer to beach or rec grounds better
Neighbour 2	Detrimental here: more illegal parking, more parking/congestion in short street
Neighbour 3	Location is fine.
Neighbour 4	Area is too busy, driveways often blocked as cars double park
Browning Street
Neighbour 1	People already park over driveway, will impact home occupation.
Lawson Street South
Neighbour 1	Not in South car park. North car park would be better. Two bays here would be detrimental to business.
Neighbour 1	Okay, but no more than 2. North would be better.

Based on this feedback, and the recommendations of the LTC, there are 12 car share bays recommended for endorsement , refer to Table 2 and Attachment 4 for mapping.

Table 2: Location of car share bays recommended for endorsement

*Location*	*Number*	*Comments/ Justification*
Lawson Street South Car Park, in the North-Western corner of the car park	Four (4)	· Supported by LTC. · Neighbour feedback split, some concerns over the impact on business · This location is easily accessible on foot to both town centre and Butler Street Reserve. The South carpark provides more direct and safer access to Butler Street Reserve and the Skennars Shoot area where people may be travelling to/ from.
Marvell Street (east)* * this site has been identified as a result of the consultation process and will require further consultation with the surrounding neighbours of this location	Two (2)	· Not sent to LTC, however LTC supported one bay in Massinger Street and one bay in Marvell Street (west). · It is recommended that these be combined · Feedback from neighbours highlighted the location originally identified in Massinger Street (i.e. near the Top Shop) is a very busy and congested area. · Provides pedestrian access to the cars from the surrounding residents/ tourism accommodation. · Provides pedestrian access to the town centre through the recreation grounds.
Browning Street	One (1)	· Supported by LTC · Information to neighbours included plans for two cars here, the amendment to only include one should ease the concerns heard from one resident · Provides pedestrian access to surrounding residents · Provides pedestrian access to the town centre
Shirley Street	One (1)	· Supported by LTC · Information to neighbours included plans for two cars here close to the corner of Kendall Street, the amendment to only include one car share bay, and for it to be located further from the corner should ease the safety concerns heard by the residents · Provides pedestrian access to residents/ tourism accommodation in Belongil, and surrounding areas · Provides pedestrian access to town centre.
Mullumbimby Car Park – Station Street	Four (4)	· Supported by LTC · Provides pedestrian access to surrounding residents · Provides pedestrian access to the town centre

Where to From Here

In the future, if Council determines it suitable, a similar application process could be used to designate additional car share bays to the same or additional car share operators.

Definitions

The traditional scheme of car sharing is where a private CSO owns and manages the fleet of cars and leases public car parking spaces from Council and/or private spaces from a land owner. This is the model being pursued for the pilot project in Byron Bay.

Other car share models include:

· “Strata-fleet”, where share cars are situated within and designated to specific developments, such as a university. The use of those car shares are specifically for the tenants of the ascribed development and not for the public. This gives the operator a security on the use of the vehicles as the developer will have to provide a guarantee and financially security; and

· “Peer to peer”, where cars are ‘leased’ from one community member directly to another. As this model does not need Council approval or support it is, most likely, already occurring informally and likely to occur on a larger and more organised scale without need for any Council action. The major peer to peer online platform, carnextdoor.com.au has already advised of their intention to begin marketing to Byron residents by the end of the year.

Financial Implications

The allocation of car parking spaces to become car sharing bays will result in some loss of revenue from the paid parking scheme. Not all car share spaces would be within paid parking areas. It is estimated that the designation of car share bays will result in a loss of 2 to 4 spaces from paid parking.

The fees and charges accrued from the CSO have been set to make up some of this revenue. As outlined in the Procedure, the fees and charges have been set after consideration of:

· Current business rates for car parking permit;

· Community benefit;

· Loss of paid parking revenue; and

· Value of car spaces

The recently adopted 2018/19 fees and charges provide for:

· An administration fee of $440 per application; and

· A permit fee of $110 per car share vehicle/bay

The $110 permit fee is equivalent to the cost of a permit for a worker/volunteer whose fixed place of employment or volunteer work is within the Pay Parking area but are not eligible for the Resident/Ratepayer Permit exemption.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Nil.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.13

Report No. 13.13 PLANNING - Development Application 10.2018.342.1 Secondary dwelling at 5 Luan Court Byron Bay

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Heidi Hutchinson, Planner

File No: I2018/1687

Theme: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Development and Certification

Proposal:

Proposal description:	Secondary Dwelling
Property description:	LOT: 56 DP: 863772
Property description:	5 Luan Court BYRON BAY
Parcel No/s:	211740
Applicant:	Mr K Gillespie
Owner:	Gillespie Bricks and Mortar Pty Ltd
Zoning:	2A – Residential Zone (deferred matter)
Date received:	10 July 2018
Integrated Development:	No
Public notification or exhibition:	- Level 1 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications - Exhibition period: 20/7/18 to 2/8/18 - Submissions received: 6
Planning Review Committee:	9 August 2018
Other approvals (S68/138):	Not applicable
Delegation to determination:	Council meeting
Issues:	· Tree removal – Moreton Bay Fig · Floor area

Summary:

The proposed development originally sought a consent for a secondary dwelling with a floor area in excess of the permitted 60m² and removal of two trees, one being a Moreton Bay Fig tree within the road reserve of Luan Court. This raised a number of objections during the exhibition period and the plans were amended with the fig tree no longer being proposed for removal.

In this regard the tree is an attractive element of the streetscape and it retention provides for visual screening of both the new dwelling and existing residence on the property. The design of the dwelling was also amended and the floor area brought into compliance with the 60m² maximum. The secondary dwelling comprises a ground floor living, dining, bathroom and laundry with an upper level mezzanine bedroom. The building is to be clad in fibro cement sheeting with a colorbond roof.

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

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

RECOMMENDATION:

Pursuant to Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Development Application no. 10.2018.342.1 for secondary dwelling, be granted consent subject to the conditions of approval attached with this report.

Attachments:

1 Final Plans for Approval DA342/2018, E2018/78830 ⇨

2 Conditions of consent DA342.2018.pdf, E2018/78831 ⇨

3 submission received, E2018/79803 ⇨

Assessment:

1.1. History/Background

The site was approved for a dwelling on 5^th March 1998 under DA6.1998.2043.1. Alterations and additions to the dwelling were approved 24^th February 2006 under DA10.2006.21. Use of unauthorised dwelling alterations was approved 10^th November 2009 under DA10.2009.506.1.

A secondary dwelling and tree removal was approved on the site on the 9^th January 2013 under DA10.2013.10.1 that included removal of the existing garage and construction of a 2 storey building including garage at the ground level and secondary dwelling above. Council records do not show that this approval was ever acted upon.

A secondary dwelling under DA10.2017.755.1 was refused on the 6^th June 2018 due to the requested variation to the 6.5m setback (down to 4.5m). The current application complies with councils setback requirements.

1.2. Description of the proposed development

This application seeks approval for a two (2) storey secondary dwelling on land currently zoned as 2(a) Residential zone under the Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988. The proposed secondary dwelling meets the requirements of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) (ARHSEPP) 2009.

The secondary dwelling is proposed to be constructed from rendered RFC sheeting with colorbond roofing to match the existing dwelling. The secondary dwelling will consist of:

Ground floor:

· Combined Kitchen/living and meals room;

· Combined bathroom and laundry

First floor:

· One (1) bedroom

The secondary dwelling would have a total height of 7.06m and a total GFA of 59.6m².

The applicant originally sought a secondary dwelling and tree removal however discussion with the applicant has determined no tree removal is proposed within this application. It is recommended that a condition of consent be included for an arborists report to be carried out and root barriers to be provided for tree protection for the fig (see proposed conditions 5, 6 & 8).

The areas of the site mapped as High Environmental Value are to the south of the site whilst the areas mapped as Koala Habitat are to the north east as shown below:

Ongoing discussion with the applicant regarding the bulk and scale of the design have occurred including amendments to the gross floor area of the proposed secondary dwelling to ensure it meets the 60 m2 requirements for secondary dwellings.

1.3. Description of the site

Land is legally described as	LOT: 56 DP: 863772
Property address is	5 Luan Court BYRON BAY
Land is zoned:	2A – Residential Zone
Land area is:	831.1 m²
Property is constrained by:	Bushfire prone land Acid Sulfate Soils, High Environmental Value Vegetation


Figure 1: Looking south east towards existing dwelling	Figure 2: Looking south towards back yard

Figure 3: Looking south towards entrance to principal dwelling	Figure 4: Looking north from the site to existing vegetation

The subject allotment is described as Lot 56 DP 863772 and is located at No. 5 Luan Court, Byron Bay. The allotment is located on land zoned 2(a) Residential Zone and has an area of approximately 831.1m². Adjoining the subject allotment to the east, south and west are similar residential allotments. To the north the subject allotment fronts Luan Court.

The site is generally flat. The allotment contains an existing single storey dwelling house and an attached carport.

There are no easements located on the subject allotment.

1. SUMMARY OF REFERRALS

Referral	Issue
S64 / Systems Planning Officer	No objections subject to conditions. Refer to Doc #A2018/22366
S94 / Contributions Officer	No objections. No contributions. Refer to Doc #A2018/22368
Essential Energy	No objections subject to conditions. Refer to Doc #E2018/76190

* Conditions provided in the above referral are included in the Recommendation of this Report below

2. SECTION 4.14 – BUSH FIRE PRONE LAND

Under section 4.14 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 on bush fire prone land.

Appropriate conditions of consent are recommended in relation to construction standards and the like to address the bushfire hazard.

3. SECTION 4.15C – MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION – DISCUSSION OF ISSUES

Having regard to the matters for consideration detailed in Section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), the following is a summary of the evaluation of the issues.

3.1 State Environmental Planning Instruments

	Satisfactory	Unsatisfactory
State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018	☒	☐
Consideration: The site is located wholly within the Coastal wetlands buffer area. · No public access to the coastal foreshore will be impeded or diminished as part of the proposal · No effluent is proposed to be disposed other than to Council’s sewerage system. · Stormwater is to be discharged to the existing discharge point and will not be directly into the coastal environment.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 44—Koala Habitat Protection	☒	☐
Consideration: The site is identified as Primary Koala Habitat however the SEPP 44 does not apply to the proposed development as the site does not contain an area of more than 1 ha.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land	☒	☐
Consideration: The property is considered suitable for residential development.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004	☒	☐
Consideration: A BASIX certificate has been supplied with the application. Amended plans have been provided showing the requirements of the BASIX.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009	☒	☐
Consideration: Clause 5 Interpretation – references to equivalent land use zones (1) A reference in this Policy to a land use zone that is equivalent to a named land use zone is a reference to a land use zone under an environmental planning instrument that is not made as provided by section 3.20 (2) of the Act: a) that the Director-General has determined under clause 1.6 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 is a land use zone in which equivalent land uses are permitted to those permitted in that named land use zone, or b) if no such determination has been made in respect of the particular zone, is a land use zone in which (in the opinion of the relevant authority) equivalent land uses are permitted to those permitted in that named land use zone. The site is located within a deferred matter area currently zoned 2(a) Residential Zone. The objectives of the zone are in keeping with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone within the standard instrument. Clause 19 *secondary dwelling* means a self-contained dwelling that: a) is established in conjunction with another dwelling (the *principal dwelling), and b) is on the same lot of land (not being an individual lot in a strata plan or community title scheme) as the principal dwelling, and c) is located within, or is attached to, or is separate from, the principal dwelling. The proposed development meets the criteria for definition “secondary dwelling”.* Clause 20 Secondary Dwellings are permissible in the following zones provided a dwelling house is permissible on the land: · Zone R1 General Residential, · Zone R2 Low Density Residential, · Zone R3 Medium Density Residential, · Zone R4 High Density Residential, · Zone R5 Large Lot Residential. The site is located in a Deferred Matter area as discussed above, however, the 2a Residential Zone is an equivalent zone and therefore Clause 20 may apply to the proposal. Clause 22 Development may be carried out with consent (3) Development is permissible provided: a) The total floor area of the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling is no more than the maximum floor area allowed for a dwelling house on the land under another environmental planning instrument; and b) The total floor area of the secondary dwelling is no more than 60m² or, if a greater floor area is permitted in respect of a secondary dwelling on the land under another environmental planning instrument, that greater floor area. (4) Development must not be refused on the following grounds: a) Site area if: i. the secondary dwelling is located within, or is attached to, the principal dwelling, or ii. the site area is at least 450 square metres, b) Parking if no additional parking is to be provided on the site. The current zoning of the site does not provide requirements for floor space ratio The proposed secondary dwelling has a gross floor area of 59.6m². The proposed secondary dwelling is detached from the principal dwelling and the site has an area of 831.1m². No additional parking is provided for the secondary dwelling. Two (2) spaces are existing for the principal dwelling.

4.2B 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 4.15(1) of the EP&A Act 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	☒15\| ☒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

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

(a) The proposed development is not defined in the LEP 1988 Dictionary, however is reverted to the ARHSEPP 2009 where it is defined as “Secondary Dwelling”;

(b) The land is within the LEP1988 2(a) Residential Zone according to the map under LEP 1988;

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

Zone Objective	Consideration
to make provision for certain suitable lands, both in existing urban areas and new release areas, to be used for the purposes of housing and associated neighbourhood facilities of high amenity and accessibility	The development will provide additional housing in a residential zone.
to encourage a range of housing types in appropriate locations	The development will provide a range of housing options in the locality.
to enable development for purposes other than residential purposes only if it is compatible with the character of the living area and has a domestic scale and character,	Not applicable.
to control by means of a development control plan the location, form, character and density of permissible development	The siting of the development is such that it meets the requirements of the Development Control Plan with only minor variation.

Clause 63 - Acid Sulfate Soils

The development is proposed on the portion of the site mapped as potentially supporting Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soils. The proposed Works are within 500 metres of adjacent mapped Class 2 Acid Sulfate Soils. However, it is not expected that works below 5 metres AHD will occur that are likely to lower the watertable below 1 metre AHD on the adjacent Class 2 land. The proposal is considered acceptable in this instance and an ASS Management Plan is not required.

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

No draft EPI’s affect the 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 4.15(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 D Chapters

☒D1

As there are no specific requirements for secondary dwellings in the Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2010, assessment against the requirements of Part D1.4. The proposal is considered acceptable having regard to those controls relating to open space, access and parking and siting design and character.

4.4B 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 4.15(1) of the EP& A Act 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\| ☒C\| ☒F\| ☒H\| ☒N
Chapters:	☒17\| ☒21

These checked Chapters/Parts have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 4.15(1) of the EP&A Act. The proposed development complies with all sections of these Chapters/Parts (in some cases subject to conditions and/or to the satisfaction of other assessing officers), except in relation to certain prescriptive measures which are considered further (having regard to the DCP 2010 Section A4 “How does this DCP work?” alternative assessment procedure) as follows:

What Section and prescriptive measure does the development not meet?

Does the proposed development meet the Element Objectives of this Section? Address.

Does the proposed development meet the Performance Criteria of this Section? Address.

C2.5 Element - Building Height Plane.

The proposed secondary dwelling encroaches the building height plane on the north western elevation by 600mm being the eaves only.

The proposed secondary dwelling encroaches the building height plane on the eaves only. Therefore, is not considered to impact on solar access and privacy noting that there would be no change to privacy on adjoining properties, and on views from adjacent existing buildings.

The occupants of existing and proposed buildings will enjoy the optimum use of winter sunlight and summer shade currently afforded to them.

The proposed secondary dwelling is set back progressively from the site boundary as height increases so that it does not adversely affect existing or future development on adjoining properties by way of overshadowing, impinging on privacy or obstructing views. Further, the second storey bedroom window is sited to mitigate potential overlooking and privacy impacts. Only the eaves encroach on the building height plane.

The proposed secondary dwelling will provide no change to windows of living areas (decks, living rooms, bedrooms, kitchens, etc.) of development on adjoining properties will, as a minimum, retain full solar access between the hours of 9.00am to 3.00pm on any day.

C3.1 Element - Visual Impact

The development proposes a two (2) storey secondary dwelling while the principle dwelling is single storey.

The DCP states:

There must be a reasonable degree of integration with the existing built and natural

environment, balanced with the need to provide variety in streetscapes

The element objective is to maximise the aesthetic character of the built environment, consistent with the subtropical character of Byron Shire. The surrounding streetscape boasts a mix of single and two (2) storey dwelling houses surrounded by trees. The proposed secondary dwelling does not contravene this objective.

The proposed secondary dwelling meets the height requirements, is proposed to be of similar colours to the principal dwelling and provides a variety in the streetscape that is softened into the streetscape by the large amount of vegetation provided in the front setback.

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 & Assessment Regulation 2000 Considerations

The proposal raises no issues under the relevant clauses in the Regulations.

4.7 Any coastal zone management plan?

	Satisfactory	Unsatisfactory	Not applicable
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	The proposal does not involve the removal of vegetation and 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. Conditions of consent to control hours of work, construction noise, builders waste and the like during the construction of the dwelling.
Social Environment	No. The proposal will not have a significant social impact on the locality.
Economic impact	No. The proposal will not have a significant economic impact on the locality.

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

Council Policy	Consideration
Building over pipelines and other underground structures Policy	A condition is recommended to ensure Councils infrastructure is protected

4.9 The suitability of the site for the development

The site is a serviced, unconstrained property and is suitable for the proposed development.

4.10 Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

The development application was publicly exhibited .

There were 6 submissions made against the development application:

Objection	Planners comment
Tree Removal	The applicant no longer seeks tree removal with this application. Conditions are recommended for protection of the Fig tree (conditions 5, 6 & 8) No further assessment is required regarding this objection.
Streetscape	The development meets the requirements for height, Floor Space Ratio and setbacks. The applicant has provided advice that five (5) dwellings within Luan Court provide two (2) storeys. The planner has attended the site twice with the final site inspection identifying that there are 13 dwellings within Luan Court, three (3) of which are not seen from the streetscape. Of the 10 visible dwellings from the streetscape it appears that Luan Court provides five (5) dwellings that are two (2) storeys. As this is half of the visible development on the street, the inclusion of a secondary dwelling of two (2) storeys is not considered out of character. Further, the site provides adequate screening. The request for a two (2) storey development is to provide affordable housing complying with the relevant Environmental Planning Instruments. In terms of visual amenity and impacts on the streetscape, the secondary dwelling will be screened in part by the fig tree to be retained in the Street.
Floor Space Ratio	Amended plans have been provided by the applicant that has reduced the floor space to meet the requirements of a maximum 60m². The proposal now complies with the Floor Space Ratio.
Assessment as dual occupancy	The Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988 does not include secondary dwellings. However, assessment of the secondary dwelling is provided under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) (ARHSEPP) 2009. The development meets the requirements of this part. See Division 2 of the ARHSEPP.
Car Parking	Although the Byron Shire Development Control Plan (BDCP) 2010 does not have specific controls in relation to Secondary dwellings, the Byron Shire Development Control Plan 2014 does advise that no car parking is required for secondary dwellings. Further, the ARHSEPP states that an application cannot be rejected due to no additional parking for the secondary dwelling (see clause 22 of ARHSEPP). The principal dwelling provides two (2) spaces. The development complies.
Environmental Impacts	The site is located within an area mapped as potentially supporting primary koala habitat. The zoning of the site is residential and the existing area contains low density housing. The proposal no longer requests removal of vegetation and it is considered the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the environment.
Setback of proposed secondary dwelling	Proposal complies with Councils setback requirements
Negative economic impact	The proposed secondary dwelling meets the requirements of the ARHSEPP and is within a residential zone. Residential development is an expected type of development within this zone and it is unlikely to have an adverse economic impact
Use of the secondary dwelling for tourist purposes	The owner has provided a signed letter advising that the development will not be used for tourist purposes. A condition is recommended (see Condition 25).

4.11 Public interest

The proposed development is unlikely to prejudice or compromise the public interest or create a dangerous precedent.

5. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

The proposed Secondary Dwelling does not generate the need for water and sewer Headworks charges or S94 Contributions.

6. 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

7. CONCLUSION

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy 13.14

Report No. 13.14 PLANNING - Railway Park Draft Plan of Management - Submissions Report

Directorate: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author: Rob Van Iersel, Major Projects Planner

File No: I2018/1701

Theme: Sustainable Environment and Economy

Planning Policy and Natural Environment

Summary:

Council resolved in November 2017 to prepare a Plan of Management for Railway Park in Byron Bay (17-575). In June 2018, Council resolved to publically exhibit the draft Plan of Management, and arrange an independently chaired Public Hearing prior to reporting back to Council (18-423).

This report provides information on submissions received during the public exhibition and provides the conclusions and recommendations from the Public Hearing. The report of the independent Chair of that Hearing is attached (Attachment 1).

Based on the assessment of submissions, and the conclusions of the independent report into the Public Hearing, it is recommended that Council adopt the Plan of Management, with two minor additions, being:

· the inclusion of information outlining the heritage status of the land and the adjacent railway corridor and the protections provided for those heritage values in current local and state legislation; and

· acknowledgement of the importance of the existing memorial pole, and provisions to ensure that it is retained and protected within the Park upgrades.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council adopt the Plan of Management for Railway Park, contained at Attachment 2 (#E2018/78998), categorising the site as General Community Use, noting the amendments to the Plan following public engagement associated with acknowledging the heritage value of the land and the adjoining railway corridor and the retention of the memorial pole.

Attachments:

1 Report on Public Hearing - Railway Park, E2018/78993 ⇨

2 Plan of Management - Railway Park, Byron Bay - Post Exhibition Version, E2018/78998 ⇨

Report

Council considered a report on Railway Park at the meeting of 23 November 2017.

The report noted that Railway Park was included within the ‘Generic Plan of Management – Parks’, adopted by Council in 1996, but that it was not included in the updated version of that Plan, adopted in the early 2000’s.

In accordance with the Council resolution at that meeting (15-757), a preliminary draft Plan of Management was prepared for Railway Park, consistent with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993.

Railway Park is classified as Community Land for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1993. Part 2 of that Act deals with the use and management of Community Land, requiring Council to adopt a Plan of Management for Community Land that, amongst other things, identified the category of the land.

The Act further specifies that land must be categorised as one or more of the following:

(a) a natural area;

(b) a sportsground

(c) a park;

(d) an area of cultural significance; or

(e) general community use.

In relation to Railway Park, the relevant choices are park or general community use.

The draft Plan of Management (dPOM) proposes to categorise the land as General Community Use.

Pursuant to Section 36I of the LGA, the core objectives for land categorised as general community use are:

to promote, encourage and provide for the use of the land, and to provide facilities on the land, to meet the current and future needs of the local community and of the wider public:

(a) in relation to public recreation and the physical, cultural, social and intellectual welfare or development of individual members of the public, and

(b) in relation to purposes for which a lease, licence or other estate may be granted in respect of the land (other than the provision of public utilities and works associated with or ancillary to public utilities).

The dPOM outlines how Council proposes to achieve these core objectives in relation to Railway Park.

The dPOM acknowledges and authorises existing leases, licences, and agreements, particularly in relation to the Artisans Market. It also provides that a lease/licence can be negotiated for the continued occupation and use of the rotunda, either in its current location or in an alternate mutually agreed location within the park, subject to demonstration of the structural adequacy of the facility.

A status update was provided to Councillors in June 2018, noting the preliminary consultation undertaken with representatives of the Byron Environment Centre regarding the rotunda.

At the Council meeting of 26 June 2018, Council resolved (18-243):

1. That a Strategic Planning Workshop be arranged to allow staff to brief Councillors on the recommended Plan of Management and the process for its adoption.

2. That, unless otherwise agreed at that Strategic Planning Workshop, staff arrange for the public exhibition of the draft Plan of Management, in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993; including arrangements for an independently chaired Public Hearing at the completion of the exhibition period.

3. That a post-exhibition report be brought to Council, including conclusions and recommendations from the Public Hearing, to allow the adoption of a Plan of Management for Railway Park by the end of the calendar year.

The SPW required by this resolution was undertaken in June 2018, and Councillors supported the public exhibition of the dPOM.

Exhibition Process:

The dPOM was publically exhibited from 19 July to 17 August 2018, with the closing date for submissions being 31 August 2018. A Public Hearing was also held at the Council Chambers on 21 August 2018.

Kate Singleton, Director and Town Planner from Planners North was engaged to act as the independent Chair for that meeting.

Submissions:

Seven written submissions were received in response to the public exhibition of the dPOM. The issues raised in these submissions are addressed below:

Proposed Categorisation

Issues Raised in Submissions:

Categorisation of General Community Use not supported. Railway Park should be categorised as Park – to be retained as ‘green space’ in centre of town.

General Community Use will allow a higher density of permanent commercial use and the construction of buildings and more concrete;

Various land uses are permissible under the Park’s RE1 zoning, and the General Community Use would allow them to be pursued.

The new draft plan does not provide clear reasons for a change in land categorisation from 'park’ to ‘general community use’.

Commercial leases should not be allowed. Any leases should be for non-profit groups only.

Strongly object to commercial use of the park.

The area containing the Memorial Pole should be categorised as Area of Cultural Significance.

Byron is currently facing that vexed question of whether to allow commercial pressures to overwhelm any sense of community and local traditions, or fight to keep the town's heritage ambience, of which a grassed and heavily treed Railway Park, together with its quirky Byron Environment Centre is an essential component, or sink beneath a sea of monocultural tourism.

Comment:

The core objectives for the park and general community use categories are set out in the Act and are:

Park:

(a) to encourage, promote and facilitate recreational, cultural, social and educational pastimes and activities, and

(b) to provide for passive recreational activities or pastimes and for the casual playing of games, and

(c) to improve the land in such a way as to promote and facilitate its use to achieve the other core objectives for its management.

General Community Use:

to promote, encourage and provide for the use of the land, and to provide facilities on the land, to meet the current and future needs of the local community and of the wider public:

(a) in relation to public recreation and the physical, cultural, social and intellectual welfare or development of individual members of the public, and

The key difference between the two categories is the emphasis in the core objectives of park on passive recreation. This is reinforced in the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, which, at clause 104, provides the following guidelines for categorisation of land as park:

Land should be categorised as a park under section 36 (4) of the Act if the land is, or is proposed to be, improved by landscaping, gardens or the provision of non-sporting equipment and facilities, for use mainly for passive or active recreational, social, educational and cultural pursuits that do not unduly intrude on the peaceful enjoyment of the land by others. (my emphasis added).

This guideline provides a restriction on the types of uses and activities that could be authorised within a Plan of Management that categorises land as park.

Conversely, clause 106 sets out guidelines for categorisation of land as general community use:

Land should be categorised as general community use under section 36 (4) of the Act if the land:

(a) may be made available for use for any purpose for which community land may be used, whether by the public at large or by specific sections of the public, and

(b) is not required to be categorised as a natural area under section 36A, 36B or 36C of the Act and does not satisfy the guidelines under clauses 102–105 for categorisation as a natural area, a sportsground, a park or an area of cultural significance.

This guideline is more flexible in the types of use that could be authorised on such land.

The submissions referred to above react to this flexibility with concern and a level of mistrust, suggesting that the categorisation itself opens the door to significant commercial development of Railway Park.

The dPOM, as exhibited, provides for a level of flexibility in how the core objectives of general community use might be achieved, although it clearly stipulates that use of the land for community of commercial purposes must deliver enhanced social, environmental, economic & civic leadership outcomes.

The dPOM further describes that the means of achieving the aims and performance targets relate to:

· maintaining the existing licence for Artisans markets; and

· providing for the use of the rotunda, in an appropriate location, through a lease/ licence with a preferred Community Group, to be determined through an expression of interest process.

In addition, the draft Plan specifically references Council’s adopted Railway Square Landscape Concept for the upgrade and improvement of the space.

It is important to note that there are no other uses or activities currently proposed by Council for Railway Park. Through the Byron Bay Town Centre Masterplan, Council has recognised the value of the park as the central meeting place and green space for the town. The work outlined in the Landscape Concept has been prepared to enhance those qualities and there are no plans, proposals or ideas to erect any buildings, commercial or otherwise, in the Park.

Based on the core objectives and guidelines outlined above, the key issue is that activities such as the Artisans Market, and activities that might be associated with a community group occupying and using the rotunda for community purposes are more than ‘passive recreation’ and could be seen to unduly intrude on the peaceful enjoyment of the land by others.

Accordingly, the categorisation of park would not recognise the important values and existing uses of the space as a central meeting place for community activities.

One submission suggests that the memorial pole within the park should be categorised as an Area of Cultural Significance.

The pole was erected in memory of a local Arakwal man and is certainly a very important item celebrating recent history of the Arakwal people in Byron Bay. The importance of the pole is recognised in the upgrade concepts, which specifically retain it as a feature. The interface between the central plaza and outer grassed area has, in part, been designed with the pole in mind, so that it remains a strong feature of the park.

It is appropriate that the cultural importance of the pole be recognised in the Plan of Management. It is recommended that the dPOM, as exhibited, be amended to recognise the Memorial Pole as an existing structure in the park (in section 3.2) and specifically provide for its ongoing protection, maintenance and celebration, by including specific strategies and performance targets to this effect in Section 4 of the Plan.

Further protection by way of a specific category of Area of Cultural Significance is not considered to be warranted, particularly as the pole occupies a very small space within the park.

The Rotunda

Issues Raised in Submissions:

The rotunda should be noted as an existing park structure in the PoM.

A licence/ lease or other instrument or arrangement for the Byron Environment Centre to occupy the rotunda should be noted in the PoM.

Comment:

The rotunda is noted in section 3.2 of the dPOM as an existing structure within the park, noting that it is used by Byron Environment Centre (BEC) for community information, education and as a community access point for various environmental programs, activities and protests.

In relation to its future use, the draft Plan specifies:

Undertake an Expression of Interest process for the use of the rotunda by community groups.

Negotiate licence/ lease arrangement with the preferred Community Group (Byron Environment Centre or similar) for continued occupation and use of the rotunda, including:

· establishing the structural adequacy of the existing facility;

· working with the preferred Community Group to determine an appropriate location within the Park;

· coordinating relocation (if required) and structural improvements (if required) to ensure the rotunda remains useable for the future.

Council has previously resolved that future use of the rotunda be determined by way of an Expression of Interest process. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for the Plan of Management to specify exclusive use of the structure by one particular community organisation.

At the meeting of 23 August 2018, Council resolved (18-540):

Seek approval from Crown Lands to relocate the Rotunda to Apex Park until agreement is reached as to the ownership, location and management of the facility until the redevelopment work of Railway Park is completed

Given that the resolution does not rule out the possibility of the rotunda returning to Railway Park, it is appropriate at this time to retain the provisions referred to above within the Plan.

Miscellaneous

Issue:

The areas of private land under Rail Track Corp management should be included in the PoM with regard to the Local Government Act requirements for a Council PoM over private lands.

Comment:

It is assumed that this refers to the adjoining rail corridor land and associated car park area, both of which are owned by Transport for NSW.

The provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 requiring the preparation of a Plan of Management relate to public land, which is land ‘vested in or under the control of the council’. Council has a license over the land, providing exclusive possession, but this is not the same as ‘under the control of’. The rail corridor land is therefore not public land, and the Local Government Act does not provide for Council developing a Plan of Management for land that is not public.

Issue:

That proposals for the Landscape Concept's concrete areas of the park, and proposal for the concrete park extension over present adjacent car parking/Station building forecourt, be reviewed to consider all proposed concrete areas, apart from paths, be developed with a grass surface instead of concrete.

Comment:

The Landscape Concept Plan was adopted by Council at its meeting of 14 December 2017. Detailed design of the project is continuing.

The dPoM facilitates the implementation of the adopted Concept Plan, but it is not an appropriate mechanism for Council to consider modifications to the landscape concepts.

Issue:

The Artisans market licence is invalid, and fresh expressions of interest should be called, should a licence for a park market be supported to be placed in the PoM.

Comment:

The suggestion is that the licence for the Market is not consistent with a Plan of Management. In regard to this, Council has previously provided written advice to the effect that:

The 'Byron Shire Council Plan of Management - Parks and Gardens' covers Railway Park. lt permits leases and licences which comply with the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). lf the PoM is changed in future, then new leases or licences issued after the change would have to comply with the provision of the PoM that applies at that time.

Issue:

A request that Council receive a report from Council’s park maintenance staff on the capacity to maintain a park grass surface with a weekly market.

And that if ground staff identify that a grass surface cannot be maintained, then requests Council consider moving the market to a hard surface (either the Jonson St roadway in front of the park, as per New Years Eve market, or to the top end of Jonson St, as per previous Council consideration of blocking off this section of Jonson St for a regular temporary plaza for a market and street performance space).

Comment:

This issue is not directly relevant to the dPoM. An existing license is in place for the Artisans Market and the draft Plan provides for the continuation of that arrangement. If the Plan of Management is adopted, an updated license arrangement will be considered.

Issue:

That the proposed loss of vegetated grass cover, and the embedded emissions in the production of proposed concrete areas, be assessed, publicly identified, and the actual impact on emissions considered and eliminated by retention of grass cover, and the adoption of grass cover for the construction of proposed park extension.

Comment:

The Landscape Concept Plan referred to in the dPoM has been adopted by Council and detailed design of the project is continuing.

Issue:

That Council identifies required maintenance of proposed redevelopment prior to construction, and identifies the increased maintenance budget required, for consideration of capacity of adopted park maintenance budgets to fulfil required maintenance.

Comment:

The Landscape Concept Plan referred to in the dPoM has been adopted by Council and detailed design of the project is continuing.

Issue:

The plan should identify that Railway Park is situated within a NSW State heritage listed precinct which includes the railway station, railway buildings and surrounding area.

Comment:

Railway Park is located adjacent to, but not within, the State heritage-listed precinct, which is shown in the figure below. It is, however, mapped within the Byron LEP 2104 as being within a local Heritage Conservation Area.

It is relevant to update the dPoM to reflect these heritage values, noting the heritage status of the Park and the adjacent corridor. It does not need to specify any actions in this regard, as existing legislation provides adequate levels protection for the heritage values, and there is nothing in the Plan that would ‘overwrite’ those provisions.

Issue:

A Plan of Management for community land under the LGA should be community driven. Why has the draft plan been prepared without community input? It is not sufficient to say that the draft will be placed on public exhibition with submissions invited. The community should be part of its construction irrespective of what was provided for in the over arching Masterplan.

Comment:

The dPoM has been prepared because Railway Park was previously omitted from Council’s generic Plan of Management.

Issue:

The Draft Plan is too generic. If Council considers that the park is important enough to warrant an individual plan at least give it the attention it deserves. Otherwise just list it in the generic plan which covers all of the other parks within the Shire.

Comment:

See above.

Issue:

I believe the best location for the toilets to be on the railway land adjacent to the railway station.

This location puts it in accessible location close to railway hotel, on the edge of park for street traffic... near the proposed pop up water spouts within the paved area.

Comment:

The Landscape Concept Plan, including proposals for the location of toilet facilities, has been adopted by Council and detailed design of the project is continuing.

Issue:

It would seem important to consider the impact of the railway corridor and make provisions to link railway park with this area by way of a path. Rather than take up valuable open space (RE1) with a boardwalk.....perhaps the old railway platform could be utilized to link up with the SP2 area (along side railway tracks and linking up with the car park and solar train railway station )

Comment:

The boardwalk referred to is shown in the Landscape Concept Plans and is located outside of Railway Park, within the rail corridor land owned by Transport for NSW. It therefore does not impact on RE1 land.

Public hearing

The Plan of Management proposes to change the category applied to the land, therefore, a formal Public Hearing was required pursuant to clause 40A of the Local Government Act 1993.

The Hearing was held on 21 August 2018. The hearing was presided over by an independent chair, Ms Kate Singleton of Planners North. A number of people provided verbal submissions to the hearing, as summarised in the report of the Hearing (Attachment 1).

As required by the Act, a report on the hearing, prepared by the independent chair, was provided to Council on 24 September, and published on Council’s website within 4 days of receipt. Those who made verbal submissions were notified on receipt of the report by email when it was published.

The report contains the chair’s consideration of all submission, and concludes by recommending that Council proceed with the dPOM, as exhibited, to categorise Railway Park as General Community Use.

Financial Implications

Finalisation of the Plan of Management will not incur costs in addition to staff time. Adoption of the Plan will provide the mechanism through which Council can negotiate leases or licences, within the requirements of the Act, for future uses authorised by the Plan.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Adoption of the Plan of Management provides the guidance for the future use and management of Railway Park, in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993.

Nothing in this plan alters or modifies the provisions of the Byron LEP 2014 regarding the site’s zoning or the permissible land uses associated with that zone.

Report

Council has previously considered issues at the South Golden Beach (SGB) Flood Pump and are aware of the pump failure which occurred during the March 2017 flood event.

This report further updates Council on the failure and offers a proposed way forward to minimise these risk in the future.

Pump Operations March 2017

A review of the SCADA operating data for the flood pump operations during March 2017 was carried out after the event. This data shows the following occurred.

At 11am Wednesday, 29March, water levels began to rise in SGB and the main flood pump automatically ran for a short period and stopped automatically. This automatic on/off continued until 12pm.

Between 12:00pm – 2:45pm nothing operated and the well level remained OK.

Between 2:45pm – 3:45pm a mixture of sump and main pump operation occurred on auto.

Between 3.45pm on 29 March – 10.30am on Thursday 30March the well levels remained OK and no pumping occurred.

Between 10:30am – 1:30pm a mixture of sump and main pump operation occurred on auto as the rain started to build.

Between 1:30pm – 10:00pm the sump pump appeared to handle all inflows on auto. Well levels can be seen to be acceptable during sump pump operations, despite the continued rain.

At 10:00pm the main pump runs for short time and then the sump pump takes over again until 11:00pm when the main pump runs for a longer period on auto.

Around midnight the pump operated for a longer period, this appears to be the manual intervention by Council staff via the telemetry system. The pump runs continuously for 2 hours. After 2 hours the pump stops. The pump stopped because it tripped out on thermal overload. The thermal overload occurred because the pump had been switched from auto to manual and this doesn’t allow the pump to turn off automatically when well levels lower, the pump then cavitates, overheats and trips. The main pump stopped operating between 2:00am and 6:00am. However, the sump pump continued to run, but couldn’t reduce well levels as it’s not big enough. Well levels were high throughout this time.

Operational staff advised that the community were pressuring them to run the pump on manual because it wasn’t running constantly and staff had previously done this in other floods. Staff eventually agreed to change the pump to manual via the telemetry system. It is understood that previous manual runs had occurred when staff were on site. This is the first time the pump has been run on manual during a flood using the telemetry system.

At 6:00am on Friday, 31 March, the pump trip was reset and the pump ran for 8-9 hours almost constantly, with a few short stops. It is unknown if this was on manual or auto, but it is likely to have been auto as the area was flooded and the pump had plenty of water being supplied to it. Management made the decision not to send staff out in the dark to reset the pump trip due to safety concerns, therefore, the trip was reset once it was safe to access the pump.

At 10:00pm on 31 March the well level drops to a level where the main pump is no longer required and the sump pump can handle the flows. This continues running on and off until the majority of the water is gone.

The data shown in the image below shows the pump operations from 8.00am 30 March to 1 April via Councils SCADA system. The red line is the sump pump running. The black line is the well water level. The blue line is the main pump running.

At all times the well levels seem to correspond with pumping operations, suggesting that the systems are reporting correctly.

Following the event community members advised that the pump was not running when Council’s telemetry shows it as running. Therefore the site was attended at 2:35pm on Tuesday, 4 April, to test the system. A call was made to operational staff at the works depot. Staff turned the pump on remotely via telemetry, it came on and switched off remotely. This run can be seen in the image below. This suggests the pumps telemetry systems and data reporting is working correctly and that the data which provided the above information is sound.

The following image is another report from Councils SCADA system. The red line shows the sump pump cycling on and off. The black line is the water level. The blue line is the main pump operating when the telemetry was tested at 2:35pm on Tuesday, 4 April.

The picture below is the pump inlet, taken 3 days after the flood. Clearly showing that blockage is an issue with the current inlet set-up, despite it being constructed as per the design from the consultant designing the system.

Previous investigations

Following construction of the flood pump in 2007 a number of years have been spent completing all the drainage works that the 2005 design report recommended in order to feed the pump with sufficient water flow. This included culvert upgrades and minor drain widening.

During the above years, the flood pump had operational problems. Mainly being too powerful and pumping the well dry too quickly. Various discussions were held with the designer and in late 2009 Council the flood pump designer provided two possible solutions:-

1. A variable speed drive for the main pump; and

2. A larger sump pump.

Option 2 was a cheaper solution and was proceeded with. This change made an improvement to the pump operations and no further changes were made. It is also noted that due to the pump design option 1 only had the ability to lower pumping volumes from 1100 L/s second to 750 L/s. This was not considered enough to make a significant improvement to the pumps operations.

The above modifications helped, but never fully resolved the problems. The pump continued to be used as best as possible once the alterations had been made.

The design consultant then further investigated what was built vs what was designed and confirmed it had been built and set up to design. The response letter recommended a 5 minute delay to pump restarts to resolve thermal overload issues when set to auto operation. It also approved removal of a weir in pump well.

Circa 2010 additional trash grates were installed by staff without the designers involvement, in an attempt to reduce trash blocking the pump inlet and impacting inlet flows. These achieved their function but didn’t improve pump run times.

This work was completed and made further improvements to the pump operations.

In 2013 Council constructed a box culvert at the inlet to the pump station to resolve community concerns around water ponding at the inlet. This installation resolved these community concerns, but did not make any difference to the pump operation. The box culvert was designed and constructed as per the original pump designs.

These are the last works that Council completed on the flood pump. Between 2013 and 2017 the pump received occasional use in minor flood events and worked with some degree of success, but it did not receive a real test until 2017 when the pump failed on thermal overload at the most critical time during the March 2017 flood event.

Original Flood Pump Concept Design 2003

The report for the original Flood Pump Concept Design proposed the construction of a 1,000L/s inside batter, vertically mounted, submersible axial flow pump station and stated:-

1. In a 100 year flood event four properties will receive above floor flooding. These properties have floor levels ranging between 1.99 and 2.24m AHD, the 5^th highest floor is 2.31m AHD, therefore, it can be deduced that in a 100 year event water levels should not go beyond 2.3m AHD with the flood pump installed.

2. In a 10 year event two properties will receive above floor flooding. These properties have floors levels ranging between 1.99 and 2.05m AHD, the 3rd highest floor is 2.22m AHD, therefore, it can deduced that in a 10 year event water levels will not go beyond 2.22m AHD.

3. A 3,000L/s pump is required to prevent all houses from flooding in a 100 year event. A pump of this size would not satisfy the constraints of cost, available space, noise and visual amenity. Therefore a 1,000L/sec pump station was recommended and installed.

Current investigations

Following this more recent failure staff discussed options to improve the flood pump operation and agreed the best option would be to obtain a 3^rd party peer review of the pump design instead of continuing discussions with the original pump design consultant. The peer review was contracted to Brisbane consultants Jacobs and the report is provided at attachment 1.

The key finding of this report is that the pump is operating at 20% over the design capacity and the inlet structure cannot keep up with the pumps water demand unless water levels are around RL2.20m. The following is text directly from the report.

Hydraulic analysis of the pumping station inlet drainage system was conducted for a number of cases, including the 1000L/sec design basis and the 1220L/sec actual flow to verify the assumed hydraulic constraints mentioned previously.

The analyses found that the change in head over the internal weir section at pump stop level is up to approximately 0.44m and the loss in the remaining upstream structures is approximately 0.76m. At a total system loss of 1.2m, the upstream channel water level would need to be RL 2.0m at the pump stop condition to achieve the pumped flow rate, i.e. once below RL 2.0m water is unable to enter the pumping station at the pumping flow rate.

At the pump start condition the upstream channel water level required to achieve the pumped flow rate would be approximately RL 2.26m; this being an unacceptable upstream flood level. The existing pumping station inlet hydraulic structures are incapable of delivering water to the pump at the required rate whilst the inlet channel is at the existing pump start level.

A number of issues have been found to contribute to the existing situation of the pump starting and stopping rapidly:

1. The pump is running beyond the design basis flow rate (up to approximately 1220L/sec)

2. The pump start and stop levels are only 700mm apart

3. There is no volume of still water available at the pump suction

4. Total intake system losses are approximately 1.2m at 1220L/sec

5. Upsurge from water flowing into the pumping station structure after pump stop is very likely to reach the pump start level; however, this is currently mitigated by a 5-minute pump start delay

6. The pumping station level transmitter is located in a high velocity, turbulent, vertical drop section with potential air entrainment. It is currently unknown if the transmitter is housed in a stilling tube, but inaccurate pump starts and stops are likely

7. Anecdotal evidence that the inlet screen blocks rapidly with debris during large storm events

A total of ten alteration options were considered by Jacobs as part of their review. The cost range of these alterations is $146,000 to $1,219,000 excl GST. Options 1, 2, 3 and 6 were considered for further investigation. See section 6.0 of Attachment 1 for more details.

Option 1 and 6 were then considered to be the best options for Council to move forward and provide an improved solution to the local community.

Option 1 essentially involves total reconstruction of the pump station well and installation of 3 staged pumps, plus an auxiliary pump. This design has built in redundancy should one pump fail and allows for pumping at numerous different rainfall event sizes. Therefore the community would likely see it constantly operating during heavy rain events. However, option 1 has the highest capital cost of $1,219,000 excl GST making it a long term option for Council.

Option 6 involves limiting the existing pumps maximum flow to 1,000L/sec via an outlet restrictor and adds a variable speed drive that allows the pump to be ramped down to 700L/sec for smaller events. Option 6 doesn’t have the built in redundancy or the lower flow pumping rates of option 1, however, it comes at a much lower capital cost of $146,000 and continues to make use of the existing infrastructure. Alteration to the inlet screen should also occur as part of option 6 to help reduce the blockage risks, as recommended by Jacobs - making option 6 at good short term option for Council.

Recommendation

The report states;

Regardless of the final solution implemented, there will always be a risk of blockage or restriction of the pumping station inlet due to large solids, and a maintenance regime is recommended to ensure the main channel leading to the pumping station is reasonably clear of debris.

Power failure is also an inherent risk of all pump stations without a back up generator; however this risk was known when Council committed to building the pump station originally.

Additionally option 8 within the report at attachment 1 involves a remote reset function to the flood pump. If this function was available in March 2017 the pump failure is unlikely to have occurred because it could have been reset remotely, therefore, it is recommended this option be implemented and used with caution as per the report.

The following is recommended:

1. Extend the existing station inlet screen to the full width of the existing channel headwall

(approx. 4 metres wide) to minimise intake velocities and reduce the risk of the screen blinding.

2. Implement a programed maintenance regime for the inlet area.

3. Implement option 6 as a short term solution as soon as practical, before the coming rainy season, if feasible.

4. Implement option 8 to further support option 6.

5. Option 1 is used as a long term solution when the pump becomes aged and is in need of replacement.

Financial Implications

The proposed works are currently unfunded. Council may either fund these works immediately or in the future.

Immediate funding would be through resolution or the quarterly budget review process and see completion of the work in the current financial year. This option would require other works to not go ahead in the current financial year.

Future funding would be through the standard budget process and with a plan to complete the works next financial year.

Budget estimates in the report are stated to be +/- 30% accuracy. Taking this into account, plus the addition of option 8 and the inlet screen works, a budget of $200,000 is recommended for this work to proceed.

Statutory and Policy Compliance Implications

Provision of stormwater infrastructure is a legitimate function of local government under the Local Government Act 1993. To the extent that the provision of stormwater infrastructure protects public roads, other infrastructure, Council land, Crown land, private land and the community. Council is also responsible for drainage under the Roads Act 1993.

Resolving as recommended demonstrates that Council is carrying out stormwater works to the extent that Council resources, capacities and competing priorities permit.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 13.19

Report No. 13.19 Tyagarah Clothes Optional Declaration - Results of the enhanced stakeholder safety initiatives of Res 17-499 and Res 17715.

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

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

Andrew Erskine, Open Space Technical Services Officer

Darren McAllister, Acting Open Space and Facilities Coordinator

Ralph James, Legal Counsel

File No: I2018/1707

Theme: Infrastructure Services

Open Space and Recreation

Summary:

This report is the result of actions prescribed by Council in resolutions 17-715 and 17-499 and discusses analysis of submissions from the Towards Safe Beaches Stakeholder group, NSW Police, and written submissions from the community.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. That Council revoke its “Clothes Optional Declaration” within the Tyagarah Reserve.

2. That staff remove all signage that relates to the trialled clothes optional area.

3. That staff further meet with the NSW Police, NPWS, and other stakeholders to discuss and implement additional measures that target reduction of lewd and offensive crime from this area.

4. That staff pursue the enabling of short-term licences specifically for clothing optional recreational events.

5. That Council also acknowledge and thank the efforts and commitment made from the Towards Safe Beaches in Byron stakeholder representatives in efforts to achieve safer beaches.

Attachments:

1 Res 17-715 Clothes Optional Signage at Tyagarah Beach Council December 2017, E2018/74266 ⇨

2 Res 18-165 Clothes Optional Signage at Tyagarah Beach Council March 2018, E2018/74268 ⇨

3 Confidential - Safe Beaches Stakeholder Group Minutes January 2018 - August 2018, E2018/78940

4 Confidential - Tyagarah Clothes Option Beach - 51 Submissions - Report to Council 18 October 2018, E2018/80189

5 Confidential - Safe Beaches Group summary of options for Byron Shire Council, E2018/80694

6 NSW Police Submission Tyagarah Clothes Option Beach, E2018/80693 ⇨

Report

The Safe Beaches Stakeholder group commenced discussions 9 August 2016 with the primary focus on achieving safe beaches.

A range of initiatives have been implemented in efforts to target lewd and offensive behaviour along and adjacent to the Council declared Clothes Optional area of Tyagarah Beach.

This declaration was made by Council 27 October 1998.

The Safe Beaches Stakeholder group has included and invited the following organisational representatives:

· NSW Police

· Council staff and Elected Councillors

· National Parks and Wildlife Staff

· Representatives from the Naturist Community

· Representative from The Gay Community

· Representatives and Staff from the North Byron Beach Resort and Elements of Byron

· A licenced commercial operator operating within the area

· Tyagarah Residents and

· Invited Guests

Some key points of discussions from initial meetings included;

1. Perceived under-reporting to authorities of lewd sexual behaviour incidents within and adjacent to the declared clothes optional area

2. Potential culture within the community not to report such behaviours in fear of losing the clothes optional area

3. Public confusion as to the defined area and a significant amount of misinformation as to the exact location of the clothes optional area (e.g. various websites containing conflicting, misleading and incorrect information)

4. The necessity of regulatory signage in enabling the empowerment of the Police to enforce the law primarily due to the historical notion that nudity is okay anywhere from Belongil to Tyagarah beach

5. The importance of reporting of inappropriate activities to enable the NSW Police to respond, gain an understanding of the extent of issues and to allocate the necessary resources and implement intelligence led policing strategies in the interest of public safety

Subsequent meetings identified the following perceived contributors to lewd sexual behaviour incidents at this location:

· The vast presence of inappropriate lewd social media sites promoting lewd sexual behaviour to this area

· The remote location of this area and its proximity to South East Queensland, noting that there are no legal clothes optional beaches in Queensland

· The absence of controlled use of the land (as apposed to a privately operated clothes optional facility)

· Remoteness and public nature of the area lending itself to poor passive surveillance

The following lists the key initiatives from enhanced stakeholder safety initiatives and Council and National Parks and Wildlife actions:

· Additional Police presence as a result of increased information from the community and committee resulting in a number of police actions. Actions in response to lewd and offensive behaviours ranging from move on directions to prosecutions

· Resolution 17-499 that redefined the clothes optional area 200m south of Grays Lane carpark for a distance of 800m

· Installation of regulatory signage at the Grays Lane carpark and at the start and finish of the current designated clothes optional area

· Installation of regulatory and advisory signage at Tea Tree Lakes and Grays Lane carpark

· Installation of additional advisory signage at Elements of Byron resort providing additional clarity of the area to bathers and beach users

· Gathering of data by the Police and members of the committee assisting in defining the problem

The following are advisory and regulatory signs that Council installed:

The following additional safety initiatives have been debated and supported within the stakeholder group:

· Consideration of personal protective devices such as the use of whistles

· Use of a code of conduct amongst the legitimate users on the Clothes Optional Area

In addition to above, the stakeholder group has debated consideration of alternative locations. These alternative locations have been rejected by the majority of stakeholder representatives on the basis of either:

· Lack of necessary supporting infrastructure and resources needed to support its safe use

· Actual or perceived existing use conflicts

The perception across the group is that the enhanced stakeholder safety initiatives implemented to date have reduced the frequency of lewd sexual behaviour and criminal offences.

At the Safe Beaches Stakeholder Group Meeting held Friday 31 August 2018, it was agreed that the NSW Police will provide two (2) years of data.

Police Data Sexual Assault & Street Offences 2016 to 2018 (12 September).

The below tables provided by the NSW Police provides as a comparison, lewd / offensive detected crime rates for the area from Ti Tree lakes to Belongil areas and First Sun through to Wategos Beach.

Tyagarah - Sexual Assault & Street Offences 2016 to 2018 (12 September)
Location	Incident Category	Incident Further Classification	2016	2017	2018 - 12/09	Total
Ti Tree Lake	Sexual Offence - Sexual Assault	Adult Victim (16+ Years Old)	0	1	0
Ti Tree Lake	Sexual Offence - Indecent Assault	Adult Victim (16+ Years Old)	0	1	0
Ti Tree Lake	Sexual Offence - Other	Act Of Indecency	0	2	0
Ti Tree Lake	Street Offence	Offensive Behaviour	1	12	11
Ti Tree Lake	Street Offence	Wilful And Obscene Exposure	1	2	1
Tyagarah Beach	Sexual Offence - Sexual Assault	Adult Victim (16+ Years Old)	0	1	0
Tyagarah Beach	Sexual Offence - Other	Act Of Indecency	0	0	1
Tyagarah Beach	Street Offence	Offensive Behaviour	0	13	28
Tyagarah Beach	Street Offence	Wilful And Obscene Exposure	0	4	2
Tyagarah Nature Reserve	Street Offence	Offensive Behaviour	6	6	4
		Total	8	42	47	97

Staff estimates these categorised areas to transverse approximately 1,800m linearly.

Byron Bay Beaches* - Sexual Assault & Street Offences 2016 to 2018 (25 September)
*Excluding Tyagarah & Belongil beaches
Location	Incident Category	Incident Further Classification	2016	2017	2018 - 25/09	Total
Main Beach	Sexual Offence - Sexual Assault	Adult Victim (16+ Years Old)	0	2	0
Clarkes Beach	Sexual Offence - Indecent Assault	Adult Victim (16+ Years Old)	1

Requested funds from funding bodies	13,869,743
Council cash contribution	4,814,356
Council in-kind Contribution	121,857
Other contributions	8,730,545
Funding applications submitted and awaiting notification (total project value)	27,536,501

Marvell Hall	2018/19 current fee	Proposed fee
Main Hall (Oodgeroo Room), Dining Room (Mackellar Room) and Meeting Room (Lawson Room)
Regular hirers, community groups, by donation events (per room, per hour)	$20	$20 (note description changes)
Casual hirers (per room, per hour)	$32	$32 (note description changes)
Main Hall (Oodgeroo Room), Dining Room (Mackellar Room) and Kitchen together (per hour)		$62
Kitchen (day or night, per hour, breakages must be paid for)	$20	$20
Bond	$400 weddings, parties, special events $100 all other users	Between $100 - $500 at the discretion of the Management Committee
Non return of key (after 24 hours)	$50 (late key return)	$50 (note description changes)
Extraordinary cleaning (includes removal of garbage)	At cost	At cost with a minimum charge of $77
Cancellation fees		· For other hirers cancellation with less than 2 weeks notice 50% of the total fee is forfeited · If the hirer cancels the booking with 2-4 weeks notice 30% of the deposit is forfeited. · If the hirer cancels the booking with 4 or more weeks notice 20% of the deposit is forfeited.
Equipment fees
Option A (audio only with 10 channel stereo mixer, mic and PA to be attached to computer)		$25 per day/ event plus $15 per hour for tech rehearsal
Option B (Projector, with or without audio)		$50 per day/ event plus $15 per hour for tech rehearsal
Option C (Projector, with or without audio, plus linked to NBN connection)		$60 per day/ event plus standard Optus fee for timed NBN downloads, vision or mixing or web-screening and $15 per hour for tech rehearsal

Suffolk Park Community Hall	2018/19 fee	Proposed fee
Meeting Room – standard fee, per hour		$20
Meeting Room – regulars fee, per hour		$15
Meeting Room – community fee, per hour		$10
Storage fee		POA between $10 - $20 per month
Cancellation fees	· Cancellation with less than 2 weeks notice 50% of the total fee is forfeited	· Cancellation with less than 2 weeks notice 50% of the total fee is forfeited · If the hirer cancels the booking with 2-4 weeks notice 20% of the deposit is forfeited.

DA No	10.2018.25.1
Development	Subdivision: Two (2) lots into three (3) lots
Property:	31 Blackwood Crescent Bangalow
Lot and DP:	Lot 1 DP 1233509
Zoning:	Part R2 Low Density Residential/Part R3 Medium Density Residential/Part DM Deferred Matter – 1(a) (General Rural) Zone
Development Standard being varied	Clause 11 - Subdivision in rural areas for agriculture (40 Ha min lot size)
Justification	Development consent granted for three lot subdivision at Bangalow with two residential lots of 801 m² each in the R2 Low Density Residential Zones and a larger residual lot of 4.376 ha partly zoned R3 Medium Density and 1(a) General Rural Zone under Byron LEP 1988. The residual lot containing the area zoned 1(a) General Rural is not affected by the subdivision to create the two residential lots and remains the same in shape and area of approximately 1.16 ha. A variation to the 40 Ha development standard was supported in this instance with the Department of Planning granting concurrence to the SEPP 1 Objection to vary the minimum lot size.
Extend of variation	97% (Approx.)
Concurrence	Council
Determination Date	21/06/2018

DA No.	10.2017.628.1
Development	60 x 1 & 2 bedroom apartments, plus subdivision to create 1 additional community lot
Property:	29 Parkes Avenue Byron Bay
Lot and DP:	Lot 1 & 7 DP 271119
Zoning:	B4 Mixed Use
Development Standard being varied:	BLEP 2014 Cl.4.3 9.0m building height limit
Justification	The units are proposed within four (4) buildings, each of which contains a "monitor roof" along part of the ridge of the main roof line. The monitor roof feature provides for natural ventilation and light to the mezzanine bedrooms of the upper floor. The roof form and building scale responds to the character of built form in the locality. The buildings will not overshadow or overlook any other development, as the land immediately to the west is retained for environmental purposes.
Extent of variation	Between 5% & 10%
Concurrence	Assumed concurrence
Determined Date	24/06/2018 (approved by JRPP)

DA No.	10.2017.160.1
Development	Residential flat building
Property:	21 Fawcett Street Brunswick Heads
Lot and DP:	Lot 1 DP 309925
Zoning:	R2 Low Density Residential
Development Standard being varied:	Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio
Justification	Proposed variation consistent with objectives of standard and zone.
Extent of variation	6%
Concurrence	Assumed concurrence
Determined Date	13/07/2018