Byron Shire Councildecorative image only, Byron Shire Council logoPhoto of the front entrance of the Council Administration Building in Mullumbimby

Agenda

Ordinary (Planning) Meeting

 Thursday, 5 August 2021

held at Council Chambers, Station Street, Mullumbimby

commencing at 9:00am

 

 

Public Access relating to items on this Agenda can be made between 9.00am and 10.30am on the day of the Meeting.  Requests for public access should be made to the General Manager or Mayor no later than 12.00 midday on the day prior to the Meeting.

Mark Arnold

General Manager


CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

What is a “Conflict of Interests” - A conflict of interests can be of two types:

Pecuniary - an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or another person with whom the person is associated.

Non-pecuniary – a private or personal interest that a Council official has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Code of Conduct for Councillors (eg. A friendship, membership of an association, society or trade union or involvement or interest in an activity and may include an interest of a financial nature).

Remoteness – a person does not have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence any decision the person might make in relation to a matter or if the interest is of a kind specified in the Code of Conduct for Councillors.

Who has a Pecuniary Interest? - a person has a pecuniary interest in a matter if the pecuniary interest is the interest of the person, or another person with whom the person is associated (see below).

Relatives, Partners - a person is taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter if:

·                The person’s spouse or de facto partner or a relative of the person has a pecuniary interest in the matter, or

·                The person, or a nominee, partners or employer of the person, is a member of a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.

N.B. “Relative”, in relation to a person means any of the following:

(a)  the parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descends or adopted child of the person or of the person’s spouse;

(b)  the spouse or de facto partners of the person or of a person referred to in paragraph (a)

No Interest in the Matter - however, a person is not taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter:

·                If the person is unaware of the relevant pecuniary interest of the spouse, de facto partner, relative or company or other body, or

·                Just because the person is a member of, or is employed by, the Council.

·                Just because the person is a member of, or a delegate of the Council to, a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter provided that the person has no beneficial interest in any shares of the company or body.

Disclosure and participation in meetings

·                A Councillor or a member of a Council Committee who has a pecuniary interest in any matter with which the Council is concerned and who is present at a meeting of the Council or Committee at which the matter is being considered must disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting as soon as practicable.

·                The Councillor or member must not be present at, or in sight of, the meeting of the Council or Committee:

(a)     at any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed by the Council or Committee, or

(b)     at any time during which the Council or Committee is voting on any question in relation to  the matter.

No Knowledge - a person does not breach this Clause if the person did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known that the matter under consideration at the meeting was a matter in which he or she had a pecuniary interest.

Non-pecuniary Interests - Must be disclosed in meetings.

There are a broad range of options available for managing conflicts & the option chosen will depend on an assessment of the circumstances of the matter, the nature of the interest and the significance of the issue being dealt with.  Non-pecuniary conflicts of interests must be dealt with in at least one of the following ways:

·                It may be appropriate that no action be taken where the potential for conflict is minimal.  However, Councillors should consider providing an explanation of why they consider a conflict does not exist.

·                Limit involvement if practical (eg. Participate in discussion but not in decision making or vice-versa).  Care needs to be taken when exercising this option.

·                Remove the source of the conflict (eg. Relinquishing or divesting the personal interest that creates the conflict)

·                Have no involvement by absenting yourself from and not taking part in any debate or voting on the issue as of the provisions in the Code of Conduct (particularly if you have a significant non-pecuniary interest)

RECORDING OF VOTING ON PLANNING MATTERS

Clause 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 – Recording of voting on planning matters

(1)  In this section, planning decision means a decision made in the exercise of a function of a council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

(a)  including a decision relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan or a development contribution plan under that Act, but

(b)  not including the making of an order under that Act.

(2)  The general manager is required to keep a register containing, for each planning decision made at a meeting of the council or a council committee, the names of the councillors who supported the decision and the names of any councillors who opposed (or are taken to have opposed) the decision.

(3)  For the purpose of maintaining the register, a division is required to be called whenever a motion for a planning decision is put at a meeting of the council or a council committee.

(4)  Each decision recorded in the register is to be described in the register or identified in a manner that enables the description to be obtained from another publicly available document, and is to include the information required by the regulations.

(5)  This section extends to a meeting that is closed to the public.


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

BUSINESS OF Ordinary (Planning) Meeting

1.    Public Access

2.    Apologies

3.    Requests for Leave of Absence

4.    Declarations of Interest – Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary

5.    Tabling of Pecuniary Interest Returns (Cl 4.9 Code of Conduct for Councillors)

6.    Adoption of Minutes from Previous Meetings

6.1       Ordinary (Planning) Meeting held on 10 June 2021

7.    Reservation of Items for Debate and Order of Business

8.    Mayoral Minute

9.    Notices of Motion

9.1       Rous Future Water......................................................................................................... 8

9.2       Emergency Housing.................................................................................................... 10

9.3       Rent Reduction for Bangalow Theatre Company Production - RENT................ 15

9.4       Mining and Mining Exploration in Clarence Valley Catchment............................. 17

9.5       MOs and CTs – pathway for secondary dwellings and dual occupancies......... 20

9.6       ICOLL Opening Strategy............................................................................................ 25

9.7       Naming Historical Site................................................................................................. 31

9.8       Pedestrian Access and Safety: Dalley/Tincogan Priority Change....................... 34

9.9       Tincogan Street Safe Movement and Access......................................................... 39

10.  Petitions

11.  Submissions and Grants

12.  Delegates' Reports

13.  Staff Reports

General Manager

13.1    Lease to Mercato on Byron Pty Ltd........................................................................... 47

13.2    Extension of market relocations - Byron Bay.......................................................... 53

Corporate and Community Services

13.3    Community Initiatives Program - Funding Round 2021/2022............................... 61

13.4    Postponement of the 2021 Local Government Election - Amendment to the 2021 Meeting Schedule........................................................................................................ 64

Sustainable Environment and Economy

13.5    PLANNING -  S4.55 Development Application 10.2020.97.2 Modify Weed Control Requirements, Engineering Construction Plan Requirements and Development Contribution Payments at  77 Tuckeroo Avenue Mullumbimby........................... 68

13.6    PLANNING - Development Application 10.2019.466.1 Community Title Subdivision Seventeen (17) Lots at 41 Bottlebrush Crescent Suffolk Park............................. 80

13.7    PLANNING - Development Application 10.2020.574.1 Farmstay Accommodation comprising Six (6) Cabins and a Central Facility at 219 The Saddle Road Brunswick Heads........................................................................................................................... 108

13.8    PLANNING - Report of the 3 June 2021 Planning Review Committee............ 136

13.9    PLANNING - DA 10.2019.343.1 - Tourist and visitor accommodation comprising four (4) one-bedroom cabins............................................................................................ 139

13.10  Climate Change Adaptation Plan............................................................................ 172

13.11  Preparing for Climate Active carbon neutral certification 2025/26 - establishing Council's emissions boundary................................................................................. 178

13.12  PLANNING - 26.2020.5.1 158 Jonson Street Planning Proposal Submissions Report...................................................................................................................................... 186

13.13  Final Coastal Management Program (CMP) Stage 1 Scoping Study for the Southern Byron Shire Coastline and Belongil Estuary - for adoption by Council............. 194

13.14  Federal Village Masterplan Progress Report........................................................ 211

13.15  PLANNING - Modification Application 10.2019.616.3 Mixed Use Development cnr Jonson & Browning Streets Byron Bay.................................................................. 217

13.16  PLANNING - 26.2016.6.1 Submissions Report, Planning Proposal for The Farm, Ewingsdale.................................................................................................................. 238

13.17  PLANNING - 24.2020.27.1- Bangalow DCP Updates......................................... 246

13.18  PLANNING - Letter of Offer and Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement for Affordable Housing - 68 Rankin Drive, Bangalow.................................................................... 251

13.19  PLANNING - NSW Flood Planning Reforms: Mandatory and Optional LEP clauses...................................................................................................................................... 260

13.20  Request for Owners Consent - "Bewilderness" - Cavanbah Centre................. 268

13.21  Housing above Council owned Car Parks............................................................. 274

13.22  Development Assessment eSymposium............................................................... 277

13.23  Update Resolution 21-062 Council’s role in Housing Delivery and Resolution 21-065 Byron Shire's Key Workers Issue Paper................................................................ 285

13.24  Responding to our Housing Crisis.......................................................................... 293

13.25  Prohibition on Compliance Levy Changes............................................................. 305

Infrastructure Services

13.26  Additional Flow Path Project - Budget Adjustment & Purchase of Easement Area on Lot 12........................................................................................................................... 311

13.27  Linda Vidler Park Masterplan................................................................................... 316

13.28  2021-0014 Provision of Surf Life Saving Services for Byron Shire Council..... 320

13.29  Tender 2021-0002 Truck, Plant and Equipment Hire.......................................... 325   

No table of contents entries found.

14Questions With Notice

Nil   

15.  Confidential Reports

General Manager

15.1    Confidential - Aboriginal Land Claims - Sandhills Reserve........................ 338

Infrastructure Services

15.2    Confidential - Land Acquisition Matters Myocum Road Widening and Reconstruction........................................................................................................... 340

 

Questions with Notice: A response to Questions with Notice will be provided at the meeting if possible, that response will be included in the meeting minutes.  If a response is unable to be provided the question will be taken on notice, with an answer to be provided to the person/organisation prior to the next Ordinary Meeting and placed on Councils website www.byron.nsw.gov.au/Council/Council-meetings/Questions-on-Notice

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

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                 9.1

Notices of Motion

 

Notice of Motion No. 9.1    Rous Future Water

File No:                                                    I2021/1181

 

  

 

I move that Council notes the outcome of the 21 July 2021 Extraordinary meeting of Rous County Council and:

a)      supports the traditional custodians including the Widjabul Wia-bal Native Title Claim Group’s aspirations with regard to the proposed Dunoon Dam project area

b)      acknowledges the role of Byron Shire Council to be part of securing our future water supply, both as members of Rous County Council and as responsible custodians of our region

c)      begins consultation with our community that

i)     assists them to reduce reliance on town water, and

ii)   strengthens community preparedness for climate extremes

d)      works to implement diverse supply modes and sources and deliver efficiency and water conservation by which Council and the Shire’s water supply can be more resilient.

Attachments:

 

1        Draft Regional Water Strategy - Far North Coast, E2021/93271  

2        Future Water Project 2060 IWCM - public-exhibition - March 2021, E2021/93272  

 

Signed:  Cr Cate Coorey

Councillor’s supporting information:

At the time of writing, the Rous Regional Water Supply – draft revised Integrated Water Cycle Management Strategy (Future Water Project 2060) had not been adopted.

Assuming that it has been adopted (in whatever form), the key to embedding resilience into the water supply is to have a diversified portfolio of sources. 

An over-reliance on a single catchment (Rous) should be avoided so that if things go wrong – such as a contaminated water source or a low dam in a severe drought – there are other options.

Byron is already looking at the supply side – Laverty’s Gap weir (or not), re-use of treated effluent from the STP and others.

Additionally, we need to be talking to our community about what they are prepared to do and finding ways to make significant changes to water management from the demand (consumer) side. 

Staff comments

by Dean Baulch, Principal Engineer – Systems Planning, Infrastructure Services:

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

Implementation of demand-side options (demand management, urban effluent reuse and private supplies) will form part of the long-term strategy through the implementation of parallel initiatives including the NSW government BASIX program, BSC’s recycled water strategy (currently being reviewed and updated), the Regional Demand Management Plan (including rainwater tank rebates, the Sustainable Water Partner Program, smart metering and community engagement and education) and Council’s water loss reduction measures. Increased drought restrictions are not proposed as part of the long-term strategy but may be required until water security is resolved.

Rous County Council is not a single catchment. It has diverse water sources and as a water utility, is looking into future water source options. All townships in the Shire are already supplied by Rous County Council (Mullumbimby has an emergency supply from Rous).

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

Implications will be dependent on options or strategy adopted by Council to address the issue of water supply security.

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

Yes

1.5.3.2 Implement recommendations from Mullumbimby water supply security investigations and upgrade

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                 9.2

Notice of Motion No. 9.2    Emergency Housing

File No:                                                    I2021/1155

 

  

 

I move that Council:

1.      Requests staff to prepare and submit a development application and any required supporting local approval applications for a “Transitional Supported Accommodation” development made under existing definitions in the Local Environmental Plan 2014, on that part of Lot 22 identified for Affordable Housing in the “Plan of Management Community Land Mullumbimby Sports Fields” that meets the following parameters:

          “Transitional Supported Accommodation” is temporary accommodation to bridge the gap from those in insecure housing or at risk of homelessness to permanent housing and is located as close as possible to existing residential facilities and social support services.

          “Temporary accommodation” is a residential use or development for a period of not more than 48 months from the date on which an occupation certificate is issued under the Act.

2.      Requests an update on the progress of the emergency accommodation for women that was requested by the Community Centre and advises the timeframe in which this may be delivered.

3.      Requests a report exploring the potential and highlighting the barriers for the Old Mullumbimby Hospital Site to be used for temporary accommodation until the permanent use of the site has been finalised.

4.      Provides a report on any Council land zoned RE1 which could conceivably under the current rules provide emergency accommodation as per 1. above.

 

 

Signed:  Cr Michael Lyon

Councillor’s supporting information:

The June 24 Council meeting reported back on the motion from March looking for ‘vanpacker accommodation’ saying that a recent review of Council land assets and land managed by Council had failed to locate a site within the Shire that has the required location, space and amenities to support the proposal. It also highlighted the need for any site to ensure appropriate space and amenities and be within permissible land use zones under the Byron LEP for Caravan Parks, Manufactured Home Estates or Low-Key Camping Grounds. This motion is moving on from ‘vanpacker accommodation’ and looking at ‘Transitional Supported Accommodation’ as defined above on Lot 22 as per the adopted Plan of Management.

It is important to clarify exactly who we are trying to help here and what we are trying to provide in this motion. We are not talking about social housing, as has been noted previously, we need to leave that to State and Federal Governments. Nor are we talking about those people whose circumstances allow for wrap-around services and interventions to occur, such as those in acute domestic violence situations. We are talking about a model which is underpinned by people who have the finance to pay for accommodation in a ‘normal’ market, including pensioners, key workers on minimum wage, single parents etc. that have the means to finance ‘affordable accommodation’ which until recently, was available in sufficient quantity for us to not be in a crisis.

What needs to be clearly understood here is not just the extent of the emergency we are currently in, but that we are not even close to the peak of this crisis. There are many landlords in Byron Shire who are still currently charging well below “market rent” and by this, I mean the rent that could be achieved. Inevitably, some of these landowners will raise their rents in the coming months to capitalise on the increase in the market, whilst others will sell and be replaced by landlords who will have much higher mortgages to cover, which translates to charging higher rents. I am very grateful to those landlords that do protect our community from the current market forces and seek to simply cover their costs and mortgage and provide affordable accommodation. What is clear, is that more of our community will be displaced and forced to live in sub-standard conditions as this crisis deepens. We need to be bold and innovative and keep pushing for change from a state government planning department which currently is not serving us. There needs to be a cultural change demanded of State planning staff from those who represent us in State Government. This Council has provided at least 6 separate pathways for short and long-term relief of this crisis and each of them is being held up due to a lack of urgency, understanding or will, to assist us in housing our displaced community. The time for talk and imposing barriers is over, we need to see a change of approach which is about enabling solutions and actions implemented on the ground. Our community is depending on it, our local economy is depending on it, and we simply cannot wait any longer.

Staff comments

by Shannon Burt, Director, Sustainable Environment and Economy:

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

Lot 22 Mullumbimby and the Former Mullumbimby Hospital site are projects that have been subject to reports to Council.

The current uses of both sites are otherwise limited to that which their land use zoning and land classification permits. Both sites also have environmental constraints that need to be considered as part of any future planning approval process, these have not been fully examined to date.

The Lot 22 Planning proposal project page can be viewed below:

Lot 22 Mullumbimby - Future housing - Byron Shire Council (nsw.gov.au)

Council owned land zoned RE1 Public Recreation is normally coupled with a community land classification which limits the use of the land to that in a Plan of Management.

Lot 22 has an RE1 zone and a community land classification under a Plan of Management. The Plan of Management however provides for proposed affordable housing on a portion of it. See plan below.

As such and as per the recommendation, a development application can be prepared and submitted for a “Transitional Supported Accommodation” development made under existing definitions in the Local Environmental Plan 2014 on Lot 22.

No other Council owned land zoned RE1 and classified community with a Plan of Management has this provision. This restricts the applicability of the above approval pathway to Lot 22 only, without a lengthy and difficult statutory process.

The Former Mullumbimby Hospital site is a Special Purposes zone which without a change to expand permissible land uses limits the use of the land to that of Health Care Services.

Details of the future uses identified by a stakeholder reference group for the site can be viewed at the report link below. Housing was one of the uses.

Report No. 13.9 Mullumbimby Hospital Site Project Reference Group Recommendations: future use of the site

Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 22 November 2018 (infocouncil.biz)

This project which has been delayed due to site contamination (now resolved), is to be recommenced this FY.

In relation to Resolution 21-122 Housing Crisis, an update was provided to Council at the meeting 24 June 2021 where Resolution 21-153 was adopted as follows:

21-253 Resolved that Council:

1. Notes the update provided by staff on Resolution 21-112.

2. Continues to work with the other member councils in the NRJO on potential housing solutions for our region.

3. Continues to work with relevant state government agencies, housing providers and local housing groups to deliver (on ground) safe, secure and location appropriate housing solutions for Byron Shire locals and key workers.

4. Continues to advocate and agitate for housing policy change and financial support from the state and commonwealth governments where opportunities arise.

5. Hosts a session with staff, interested property/land holders and key stakeholders to specifically look at quick short term options and sites. This could include local language schools, backpacker accommodation providers, and ‘meanwhile use’ options for vacant buildings, both private and public.

6. Explores the possibility of doing a public call out to land and property owners outlining the challenges we are facing in the shire in regard to this as per Bega Valley Shire Council’s recent move, calling on holiday homeowners to consider putting their vacant properties up for rent during the quieter winter months or transfer it to long term altogether. (Ndiaye/Lyon)

Work on this resolution is ongoing. Updates to Council will be provided in time.

In regard to item 2 of the NoM the proposal is being actively worked on. Encroachment issues have been resolved and a suitable model of cabin identified, however due to the impact of covid there are considerable delays in availability – on the order of months. Staff are investigating alternative suppliers, but the delivery delays appear to be common across the market. We have even considered overseas suppliers.

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

Staff and resources required to implement resolutions are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

4.2 Support housing diversity in appropriate locations across the Shire

2.2 Support access to a wide range of services and activities that contribute to the wellbeing of all members of the Byron Shire community

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                 9.3

Notice of Motion No. 9.3    Rent Reduction for Bangalow Theatre Company Production - RENT

File No:                                                    I2021/1174

 

  

 

I move that Council agrees to waive the rent payable by the Bangalow Theatre Company to Bangalow A & I Hall S355 Committee in respect of its recent production to enable the Company to recoup costs.

 

 

Signed:  Cr Michael Lyon

Councillor’s supporting information:

The Bangalow Theatre Company is a non-profit incorporated association with no corporate sponsors. Covid has severely impacted the company with its main fundraising event, BanGala, cancelled and the current restrictions also impacting RENT, a recent production at Bangalow A & I Hall. This production had been postponed from 2020.

The current outbreak and reimposition of 4sq m social distancing requirements, meant the seating capacity of the Hall was considerably curtailed, and the (already reduced) rent of $5,000 was unable to be recouped through ticket sales. This threatens the viability of the company and its ability to continue to play an active role in the local arts culture.

Bangalow Theatre Company productions has a name for professionalism and quality entertainment and tickets sell rapidly. The company received a standing ovation on the evening of 14 July. Now by the time the latest restrictions came into force it was too late for the production to be cancelled, the right to RENT already having been purchased and further costs incurred in preparing the production.

The Bangalow A & I Hall Committee is conscious of the risk to the company’s future and had already agreed some rate reductions, however it now supports a full fee waiver.

Staff comments

by Vanessa Adams, Director Corporate and Community Services:

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

If Council resolves to support this NoM staff will advise the Company and Committee accordingly.

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

There are no significant financial implications in this proposal.

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

Yes - 2.1.1 Support a range of inclusive events that encourage broad community participation and promote social inclusion.


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                 9.4

Notice of Motion No. 9.4    Mining and Mining Exploration in Clarence Valley Catchment

File No:                                                    I2021/1156

 

  

 

I move that Council:

1.      Supports the Clarence Valley Council community in seeking a moratorium on future mining and mining exploration in the Clarence Valley Catchment.

2.      Advocates to the Premier Gladys Berejiklian MP, Deputy Premier John Barilaro MP and the Minister for Energy & Environment Matt Kean MP.

Attachments:

 

1        Confidential - Background to Clarence Valley NOM - CCA LOCAL STAKEHOLDER STATEMENTS, E2021/93263  

 

Signed:  Cr Michael Lyon

Councillor’s supporting information:

I have been contacted by the Clarence Catchment Alliance (CVC) on behalf of Clarence Valley ratepayers and visitors, 10,000 of whom who have signed a hard copy petition opposing mining exploration in the Clarence Valley Catchment. The Clarence Valley LGA, whilst not bordering Byron Shire, is only two shires to the south along the coastline and water from the Clarence River flows out to our beaches.

The Clarence Valley Council has voted to oppose mineral mining in the Clarence Valley. The CVC has recently written to neighbouring water catchment Councils to ask for support on their decision and to ask for those councils to act likewise.

The CCA is writing to Byron Shire Council as many of the signatories on the petition, and many of their followers on social media are from our LGA, with particular support from the surfing community (and surfing internationally).

They have asked for Byron Shire to join with CVC and CCA to oppose mineral mining in our water catchment area. Other Councils to have declared besides Clarence Valley include Bellingen and Glen Innes.

The petition of over 10,000 signatures has been sent to the New South Wales Legislative Assembly for debate.

Attached is a list of stakeholder statements that highlight the concerns.

Staff comments

by Shannon Burt, Director, Sustainable Environment and Economy:

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

The Clarence Valley Council considered a Notice of Motion Mining in the Clarence Valley at its ordinary meeting 27 April 2021 and resolved as follows:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION – 07.21.006

That Council:

1.      Note that at the Council meeting on November 24 Council resolved inter alia to “oppose mining in the Clarence River Catchment and to seek the support of both state and federal governments to impose a moratorium on further mining exploration licences and to cancel existing licences.”

2.      Acknowledge that this motion does not affect existing mines or quarrying operations;

3.      Thank the Hon. John Barilaro for his response on behalf of the Minister for Energy and Environment, Hon. Matt Kean MP and advising that Council was not seeking an explanation of the process of developing mining in the Clarence River Catchment but was advising the state government of its strong opposition to mining in the Clarence River Catchment;

4.      Advise Hon. John Barilaro that the council, representing the community’s strong opposition to such mining, is asking for the Clarence River Catchment to be scheduled in the relevant environmental, planning and mining legislation as a no-go zone for minerals mining due to the Catchment’s almost unique natural and cultural values, many of which depend on the Clarence River and its tributaries, and which support essential and valuable industries which contribute to the local economy as well as providing drinking water for the Clarence Valley (51,000+ residents) and Coffs Harbour City Council (76,000+ residents) and water for local agricultural industries;

5.      Write to the Premier of New South Wales, the Hon. Gladys Berejiklian advising her of Council’s resolution and seeking her support for a moratorium on mining in the Clarence River Catchment;

6.      Write to the adjoining councils that have responsibility for areas draining into the Clarence River Catchment requesting that they support council’s stand and ask them to pass resolutions to oppose mining in areas affecting the Clarence River Catchment.

A link to the Council agenda can be found here: 07.21.006-NOM-Response-to-John-Barilaro-MP-re-MIning

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

Not applicable

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

Not applicable.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                 9.5

Notice of Motion No. 9.5    MOs and CTs – pathway for secondary dwellings and dual occupancies

File No:                                                    I2021/1175

 

  

 

I move that Council investigates how to enable a workable pathway to facilitate secondary dwellings on Multiple Occupancies and to facilitate secondary dwellings and/or dual occupancies on Community Titles.

 

 

Signed:  Cr Michael Lyon

Councillor’s supporting information:

It is in Council’s interest to find innovative ways to expand the stock of affordable housing destined for locals, family members and essential workers without delay.

Council can investigate the introduction of contemporary provisions that allow for secondary dwellings and/or dual occupancies on community titles that can demonstrate their site’s capability for additional houses. This would put them in the same position as other rural properties, which require site suitability and all the requisites through the normal DA process. For multiple occupancies, only secondary dwellings are potentially permissible. Though there is already a theoretical pathway for the attainment of the above, it has proven to be almost impossible to satisfy.

MOs and CTs present a desirable source of potential extra housing in the shire. With associated measures ensuring positive social, ecological and food growing outcomes, existing communities can contribute to creating, in the short term, sustainable, permanent housing stock at no cost to the public. Allowing communities to demonstrate the environmental, social and local economic feasibility of secondary dwelling and/or dual occupancy developments via the DA process can contribute to the provision of diverse and affordable housing in the Shire’s rural areas.

 

As almost all other rural lots are permitted secondary dwellings or dual occupancies on DA merit, prohibiting them on communities is on the face of it unjust and discriminatory.

Individual lots on communities are often larger than or similar to small acreage lots on rural estate subdivisions. Communities are also responsible for the maintenance of the common assets, usually land of high conservation value. They are subject to strenuous environmental rehabilitation and maintenance measures so it is worth asking if we should be applying this selective prohibition that ignores these facts.

Claims have been made that the number of dwellings on approved Multiple Occupancies (MOs), and the number of Lots in Multiple Occupancies converted to Community Title (MO to CT) properties were originally determined by an analysis of environmental capacity, presumably having regard to the natural, social, and economic environment. That claim may not be true.

The following contentions have been provided to me in support of this Notice of Motion and are worthy of debate:

1.    Formal planning recognition for rural MOs in NSW arose originally from pressure for formation of Intentional Communities, largely in the NSW Northern Rivers area. After extensive investigation (and some hand wringing) the NSW Government in 1988 published State Environmental Planning Policy No. 15 (Multiple Occupancy of Rural Land) (SEPP 15). That Policy determined maximum dwelling and population densities in MO communities by an arbitrary method that used a series of equations based on various land areas, together with a cap on the resultant maximum yield of 4 persons per dwelling.

2.    When Byron LEP 1988 introduced its own Multiple Occupancy provisions via Clause 17A and Schedule 10, it once again applied arbitrary limits on dwelling house numbers to ‘amendment No. 67 land’, and again an arbitrary maximum number of dwelling houses for ‘Schedule 10’ land, determined largely by the number of houses existing on the site.

3.    More recently the number of Dwelling house Lots in MO to CT properties was again based primarily on the number of existing houses on the site.

4.    Over the decades since SEPP 15 first came into effect environmental assessment processes have advanced, social norms have changed, population pressures have grown, diversification of our communities has occurred, and now a serious Housing Crisis has been declared in our Shire and far wider. In many cases times have moved on, and environmental assessment techniques have changed since the original approvals. There is a strong need for planning authorities to understand and work positively with contemporary changes in community structure and needs.

 

Enforcement of a prohibition of STRA on secondary dwellings:

Intentional communities have expressed their will to impose and comply by legally binding mechanisms to prohibit short-term holiday lettings in their potential extra dwellings.

Communities' internal governance bodies can provide a mechanism for prohibiting short-term holiday-letting to ensure additional housing would be destined for long-term residency.

These, as an added measure to any consent conditions, are considerably more enforceable than a restricting consent condition alone.

On a strata property (CT) the by-laws in section 5 (By-laws required by Public Authorities) can be amended/updated to restrict STRA including application of fines.

In case of infringement an application to enforce can be made to the NCAT (NSW Administrative Tribunal). Alternatively the CJCs (Community Justice Centres) can be asked to conduct mediations to resolve STRA disputes.

On MOs such regulatory provisions need to be embedded in company constitutions and co-owners Deeds. For such regulations to be inserted in existing legal arrangements, in the case of tenants in common, all owners must agree and in the case of companies, there must be a sufficient majority of shareholders to pass a special resolution, or some other type of resolution provided for in the constitution.

MOs and CT’s may offer better ability to ensure compliance than other privately owned lots for issues such as secondary dwellings not being used for STRA.

CTs are the better equipped as fines can be applied (more easily done by CTs managed by ‘Strata Companies)

MOs are a bit weaker on enforcement but are still much better positioned than other rural private lots. 

Staff comments

by Shannon Burt, Director, Sustainable Environment and Economy:

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

MO/CTs

The complexities, historic and current around the mapped MO/CT sites, and the approval pathways for new development of, or on MO/CT sites have been the subject of a recent Notice of Motion and staff report.

Notice of Motion No. 9.2 Multiple Occupancies and Rural Workers Cottages

Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - Thursday, 24 June 2021 (infocouncil.biz)

21-221 Resolved that Council:

1.    Prepares a report exploring the possibilities, hurdles, and opportunities for continuing Multiple Occupancies and Community Title as a pathway to providing more options for accessible and affordable housing in the Byron Shire.

2.    Prepares a report on pathways to encourage the use of rural workers’ cottages to provide accommodation for farmers wanting to live and work on the land.

3.    Progress points 1 and 2 as part of the review of the RLUS to commence FY21/22. Noting this review will enable a fresh dialogue with relevant state government agencies on the current needs of our rural community five years on from the original RLUS adoption. (Ndiaye/Lyon).

Report No. 13.1 PLANNING - Housekeeping planning proposal exhibition outcomes 26.2020.6.1

Item 1: Controlling secondary dwellings and dual occupancies on multiple occupancy and rural community title developments

Agenda of Ordinary (Planning) Meeting - Thursday, 10 June 2021 (infocouncil.biz)

Secondary dwellings and dual occupancy dwellings

The interplay between Council planning controls, the Short-Term Rental Accommodation (STRA) State Environmental Planning Policy and Strata Titles legislation with a proposed restriction on STRA use of secondary dwellings or dual occupancy dwellings approved on any MO/CT would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) Amendment (Short-term Rental Accommodation) 2021

Secondary dwellings and dual occupancy dwellings are not residential accommodation types excepted from STRA use (exempt development) under the SEPP.

Strata Schemes and By Laws

By-laws in your strata scheme | NSW Fair Trading

Owners’ corporations can adopt by-laws that limit short-term rental accommodation in their strata scheme, by banning it in lots that are not the host’s principal place of residence.

However, if someone lives in a strata property as their principal place of residence, they will still be able to rent out their home or rooms while they live there, or while they are temporarily away.

Residential tenancy laws have been changed to clarify that short-term rental accommodation arrangements of 3 months or less are not covered by the residential tenancy laws.

As Council is aware, multiple reports have been presented on agendas over the past few years to advise of the work that staff are progressing to address the current housing crisis in Byron Shire. This work is ongoing. 

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

Not applicable.

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

4.1.3.15 Provide action implementation update on the RLUS.

This update will enable a fresh dialogue to commence with relevant state government agencies on the current needs of our rural community five years on from the original RLUS adoption, including a review of the current MO/CT controls.


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                 9.6

Notice of Motion No. 9.6    ICOLL Opening Strategy

File No:                                                    I2021/1182

 

  

 

I move that Council:

 1.     Undertakes a review of the current Opening Strategy for the Belongil ICOLL to determine whether it is impacting adversely on upstream lands within the Drainage Union catchment and/or flooding issues within the Byron Bay township.

2.      Reviews its performance in comparison to the earlier 2001 Opening Strategy (Belongil Estuary Management Plan – Parker and Pont 2001).

3.      Supports that this review should also address the likely impacts of the new Overland Flow Route on the ICOLL and from increased effluent flows proposed from the Byron Bay Sewage Treatment Plant (BBSTP), both upstream on Drainage Union lands and downstream at the mouth opening.

 

 

Signed:  Cr Michael Lyon

Councillor’s supporting information:

Councillors will have received complaints from the Belongil Drainage Union Board regarding the perceived adverse impacts from the current Opening Strategy for the Belongil ICOLL. A site inspection was conducted on Thursday, July 15 and some Councillors have also inspected both the Vidal and Flick lands.

The Belongil System ICOLL is unique in that it acts as a critical part of the town stormwater scheme whilst also acting as the major receiver for treated effluent flows from the BBSTP. These flows also include the now-closed South Byron STP. 

It is critical for the future good health of the relationship between the Drainage Board and Council that the Council respond proactively and expeditiously to these complaints. Council and the Board are inextricably linked in the management of the catchment, primarily by the Water Management Act 2000 and more importantly, because of the explicit Conditions of Approval for the BBSTP.

Staff comments

by James Flockton, Infrastructure Planning Coordinator, Infrastructure Services:

by Chloe Dowsett, Coast, Biodiversity and Sustainability Coordinator, Sustainable Environment and Economy:

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

The Belongil Estuary is a highly valued and unique part of Byron’s iconic coastal zone known for its abundant biodiversity and diverse ecosystems and is an integral part of the Cape Byron Marine Park. The Belongil Creek catchment interacts with almost all facets of the Byron Bay community.

As determined by community consultation (recently and over the years) preservation of the natural environment is a primary concern with the key values of the Belongil Estuary including (but not limited to):

·        Healthy vegetation in estuaries, littoral rainforest and dunes providing habitat for wildlife and sand/soil erosion protection

·        Functioning ecosystems with high flora and fauna biodiversity

·        Natural systems are maintained to the greatest extent possible, allowing natural coastal and estuarine processes to occur

·        Good water quality in the estuaries and open ocean that can support functioning ecosystems with high biodiversity and recreational opportunities

·        Supported and environmentally sustainable agricultural and industrial businesses

The estuary is a complex ecosystem in its hydrodynamic and environmental processes and has been impacted over the previous century by significant urban and industrial development within the catchment resulting in a variety of threats. A detailed summary of the Belongil Estuary is outlined in the draft Scoping Study for the Southern Shire Coastline recently out for public comment on Council’s website.

Belongil Estuary has variable entrance conditions and is termed as Intermittently Closed and Open Lakes and Lagoons (ICOLL), dominated by oceanic processes and remaining predominately in a ‘closed’ state.

The main reason for artificially opening the Belongil ICOLL entrance is to mitigate and reduce the impacts of flooding, with the role and responsibility landing with Council under floodplain management. In February 2020, Council adopted a sustainable, long-term Entrance Opening Strategy (EOS) (Res 20-040). The adopted EOS seeks to minimise the impact of entrance activities on natural littoral processes and the fragile ecosystems which exist within the Belongil Creek catchment, while also protecting the community and existing built assets from flooding.

There are a variety of agencies, authorities, land managers and stakeholders with an interest or role in entrance management, resulting in varying management objectives for the Belongil Estuary. An overview of the key values and objectives identified for the estuary opening strategy is provided in the EOS. However, some of these management objectives are conflicting and a degree of compromise is required.

For example, to Maintain as natural as possible entrance opening regime’ conflicts with ‘Limit any increases in the duration of inundation event on agricultural land’.

Overall, the EOS adopted by Council aims to provide a balanced and sustainable approach to entrance management of Belongil Estuary.

Strategic Context

In 2016, the NSW government established an integrated coastal management framework to respond to existing and future coastal management challenges and opportunities. The development of Coastal Management Programs (CMPs) aim to set the long-term strategy for the coordinated management of the coast with a focus on achieving the objects of the Coastal Management Act 2016. CMPs identify coastal management issues and the actions required to address these issues in a strategic and integrated way. In 2019/20 DPIE strongly advised Council to include the catchment in the CMP process rather than do a separate catchment management plan.

 

As such, Council has embarked on developing CMPs for its coastline and just recently completed the first stage (of the four-stage process of CMP development) for the Southern Byron Shire Coastline (Cape Byron to south LGA border) including the Tallow and Belongil Estuaries. In a policy sense, estuary opening strategies and environmental management plans sit within a CMP and are developed and/or implemented as an action in a CMP.

 

A variety of other legislation and policies apply to entrance opening including the Fisheries Management Act; Marine Estate Management Act; Water Management Act which have various objects and goals.

EOS Reviews

1. EOS Review (minor)

The EOS was adopted in February 2020 and since this time new information regarding ICOLL form, function and management has been developed by the State. New research and information regarding the risk of fish kills in estuaries from entrance management is also known, along with lessons learnt on the methodology of opening from a Council perspective. A minor review of the adopted EOS is intended to be undertaken by the end of 2021.

In June 2021 staff started preparing a report to Council on this subject in preparation for Operational Plan action 3.3.1.10. The report will likely be presented to Council’s November meeting.

The intention of the report is to present minor amendments to the adopted Entrance Opening Strategy (EOS) to Council for endorsement. This is proposed prior to submitting a new permit application to the Marine Parks Authority and licence renewal application to Crown Lands to ensure Council has suitable approvals moving forward.

As outlined above it is proposed that the report will incorporate new information on ‘best practice’ ICOLL management and suggested improvements on the operational aspects of the EOS. The main areas include (noting that some of these issues will be considered through the full technical review of the EOS as part of Stage 2 of the CMP):

·     Flooding of agricultural land

·     Flooding of Council infrastructure – footpaths, etc

·     Acid Sulphate Soils

·     Sewage Treatment Plant outflows (including additional flow path)

·     Water Quality

·     Native Vegetation

·     Fish Kill and Existing EOS Decision Support Tool

·     Existing EOS Excavation Controls

·     Existing EOS maximum water level Trigger

Further internal group discussion is required before staff can collectively present recommendations on the above.

2. EOS – Review (full technical under CMP process)

The minor review precedes a full technical review identified as a Stage 2 CMP investigation as part of the CMP process. This full technical review is pending adoption of the draft Scoping Study for the Southern Shire Coastline at the 5 August 2021 meeting and completion of preceding Stage 2 studies which are required to inform the review (i.e. the Coastal Hazard Assessment Study - 2021).

Wetland Health

The perceived adverse impacts and assertions by the Drainage Board regarding the destruction of wetlands due to Council operations/current EOS remain unsubstantiated. Preliminary comments regarding the Melaleuca wetland dieback include:

-        The assertion that too much water is causing dieback is not based on any scientific historical assessment or impact study (that staff are aware of).

-        Existing monitoring and assessment reports provide no basis that BBSTP water and estuary inundation (high water levels) are the cause of this dieback. The dieback is in a discrete location and not reported to be occurring on a larger spatial extent in the catchment (which would be expected if due to prolonged inundation).

-        If anything, monitoring is reporting more Melaleuca recruitment.

-        This is not the first time that wetland vegetation in the vicinity has experienced dieback, as evident on historic photogrammetry records, with recovery also seen over the years.

-        Whilst the latest imagery (2021) appears to show more dieback, there is a variety of possible causes not limited to salinity, heat stress/drought, pathogens, land management (e.g., grazing, drainage changes) and inputs (fertilizer etc.,) that also need to be considered.

 

Staff acknowledge the dieback at this location and complaints made by the Drainage Board and have engaged local consultant Australian Wetlands to prepare a report on the issue and possible causes.

Engagement with the Drainage Board

The Drainage Board is already identified by Council as a stakeholder and has been engaged throughout the Coastal Management Program (CMP) process to date (via email to: belongildrainageboard@gmail.com and also via emails to members of the FRM Advisory Committee, some of whom are also members of the Drainage Board).

Whilst the Drainage Board is not specifically listed as an entity in the CMP Scoping Study Appendix A -Engagement Strategy, (and is not a public authority with a higher level of engagement) it is implied through engagement with “Private organisations…listed on contact list” (the Drainage Board email being on that contact list).

This engagement strategy may be updated in the next stage (Stage 2) of the CMP process in which case, the Drainage Board can be explicitly referenced. The Belongil Catchment Drainage Board will continue to be engaged as a stakeholder throughout future stages of development of Council’s Coastal Management Program(s), estuary management and other related projects.

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

Council has limited budget for ICOLL management, the current budget is operational and essentially only covers opening operations and environmental monitoring.

Internal staff resourcing could complete the minor Entrance Opening Strategy review suggested above. Additional budget allocation would be required for a more in-depth or peer review. A more in-depth review is planned as part of Operational Plan action item 3.3.1.4 detailed below and the preparation of the CMP.

Under the NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2005, Councils are responsible for floodplain management, therefore, it is important that Council continues to manage the mouth of Belongil Creek from a flood risk management perspective.

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

Yes, three Operational Plan actions are consistent with the proposal as below:

Code

Action

Measure

3.3.1.4

Continue preparing a Coastal Management Program (CMP) in accordance with the staged process for Cape Byron Southern Coastline (including Tallow and Belongil Creek Catchment)

Stage 1 scoping study complete
Stage 2 of the CMP process commenced

3.3.1.10

Belongil Creek Entrance Opening Strategy Review

Review and update the Belongil Creek Entrance Opening Strategy to ensure fish kill risk is appropriately considered. Report updated EOS to Council for endorsement.

3.3.1.11

Belongil Creek Entrance Opening Approvals

Crown Land and Marine Parks Authority applications submitted.

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                 9.7

Notice of Motion No. 9.7    Naming Historical Site

File No:                                                    I2021/1162

 

  

 

I move that the ‘dirt road / parking bay / pedestrian pathway / viewing point and beach access’, leading from Childe Street to Belongil Beach opposite East on Byron and The Treehouse, be named the ‘New Jetty Track’

 

 

Signed:  Cr Jan Hackett

Councillor’s supporting information:

The Byron Bay Historical Society would like to see the history of The Bay (and the Shire) kept alive for future generations.

To this end they have been picture / signposting significant sites around The Bay and linking further audio information for each site signposted to an app.

In this process they noticed that the primary beach access, site of the second jetty built in the Bay at Belongil Beach, remains unnamed to this day.

Byron Bay had two jetties in its history and they were traditionally called the “old jetty”, for the original shipping jetty at Main Beach, and the “new jetty” for the second jetty built at Belongil Beach.

In 1955 the new jetty at Belongil became the off-loading site for a short-lived, fledging whaling industry (7 years of operation).

To mark this significant site, the Byron Bay Historical Society asks that this beach entrance, currently used as a drive-in parking spot and major pedestrian access for the beach, be named the “New Jetty Track”.

Staff comments

by James Flockton, Infrastructure Planning Coordinator, Infrastructure Services:

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

Anyone can apply to the Geographic Names Board (GNB) to name a place and information on the process is available on GNB’s website at Place naming - Geographical Names Board of NSW

If Council wants to make an application the area to be named will need to be clarified.

Staff have assumed the area highlighted red below is the proposed area to be named.

If this is the area, it is Crown Land managed by the Department of Planning Industry and Environment – Crown Lands (DPIE-CL). The Bundjalung of Byron Bay (Arakwal) are recognised as traditional custodians and owners of Native Title Rights and Interests in this land. Part of the land and the beach in front of it are the subject of an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) between the Arakwal and the NSW Government, so advice would be needed from DPIE-CL on whether naming would be consistent with the requirements of the ILUA. An Aboriginal Land Claim is also outstanding over part the area, which DPIE-CL is responsible for determining prior to having any dealings with the land. Key stakeholders that would need to be consulted about potential future names for this area include the Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal), NSW and Tweed Byron Local Aboriginal Land Councils and DPIE-CL.

In terms of process, place naming is different to road naming. The Geographical Names Board is responsible for naming places. For proposals by councils, the Geographical Names Board’s recommended process still applies. That requires consultation with key stakeholders and includes a 28-day public submissions process.

If Council is to make the application, it is recommended that Council confirms the area to be named and authorises staff to start initial consultation with key stakeholders, and if appropriate, to seek feedback from those stakeholders on potential names for reporting back to Council for further consideration. Alternatively, Council should confirm its preferred name for 28-days public exhibition and consultation with key stakeholders, with outcomes to be reported back to Council.

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

This is not a current Operational Plan priority and staff resources would have to be reassigned to it.

Any person can apply to the Geographic Names Board (GNB) to name a place – see information available on the Geographic Names Board website at www.gnb.nsw.gov.au  The Geographical Names Act 1966 (NSW) applies to the naming of places and GNB requirements and processes will need to be followed. In addition, under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) the ILUA applying to the name will need to be complied with.

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

No


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                 9.8

Notice of Motion No. 9.8    Pedestrian Access and Safety: Dalley/Tincogan Priority Change


File No:                                                    I2021/1167

 

  

 

I move that Council:

1.      Seeks a variation to grant funding for the change of priority project at Tincogan and Dalley Streets Mullumbimby to be able to complete identified pedestrian safety and access upgrades at the intersection.

 

2.      In the event that a variation is not forthcoming or if any variation does not provide sufficient funding to complete the pedestrian safety and access upgrades, approves funding from the Infrastructure Renewal Reserve to be able to complete the pedestrian safety and access upgrades.

3.      Only undertakes priority change at the same time that pedestrian safety infrastructure and systems are implemented (Res 21-043).

Attachments:

 

1        24.2020.19.1 - 20210709 OSK5378-TINCOGAN STREET 90% CONSTRUCTION, E2021/94655  

 

Signed:  Cr Basil Cameron

Councillor’s supporting information:

This Notice of Motion is about ensuring that we deliver on commitments we have made to the Community through extensive engagement and consultation. 

Background is the Our Mullumbimby Masterplan where existing pedestrian access and safety issues were identified at the intersection of Dalley and Tincogan Streets Mullumbimby, in particular, pedestrian movement crossing Tincogan Street from the northern end of Dalley Street to access the town centre. Accordingly, the Masterplan identified the need to ‘strengthen pedestrian connections’ with ‘intersection treatment’ to improve access and safety.

The Masterplan also proposed a change of priority for traffic on Tincogan Street with give way signs removed and relocated to Dalley Street where traffic would no longer have priority. This would have a further negative impact on the pedestrian access and safety issues and as such the two issues have been linked. Safety and access upgrades are required now and must be completed before a priority change is made.

On 13 July, over 60 residents gathered at the intersection to advocate for pedestrian safety and access upgrades, concerned that the priority change may occur without these upgrades. Many residents present were older and using various mobility aids. Also present were three blind people who live in Dalley Street.  A key message from the group is that the intersection is not currently safe. 

The need to improve access and safety at this location has been discussed and acknowledged as follows.

•      Identified at site visit and subsequent workshops with dozens of community representatives during development of the Masterplan

•      Adopted Masterplan - principles and project actions

•      Local Traffic Committee

•      Place Planning Collective

•      Council resolution, Res 21-043

•      Engagement with Residents Association

 

Despite this clear direction and advice, a grant funded project has gone forward for the priority change only. These grant funds are time limited, and the project must be signed off by the end of August.

 

Following discussions with Staff, it may be possible to seek a variation to the funding agreement, however at the time of writing, it is not guaranteed.

The purpose of this Notice of Motion is to identify an alternative funding source for the pedestrian safety and access upgrades should a variation not be forthcoming and to ensure the project can proceed in accordance with Res 21-043.

1. That Council implement the priority changes to give way signs on Tincogan Street at the intersections of the Dalley Street and Stuart Street, Mullumbimby in order to provide priority to east-west traffic movements in Tincogan Street as amended by Committee comments.

2. That Council note the pedestrian safety issues raised by the Mullumbimby Residents Association and discussed in the Our Mullumbimby Masterplan.

3. That Council only undertake priority change at the same time that pedestrian safety infrastructure and systems are implemented.

4. That Council proceed with a speed zone review request to reduce the speed along Tincogan Street between Dalley Street and Station Street. (Cameron/Lyon)

 

Recommended priority relative to other Delivery Plan tasks:

 

As described above

 

Definition of the project/task:

 

Provide funding certainty so that pedestrian access and safety upgrades can be completed, and a traffic priority change can be made at Tincogan and Dalley Streets intersection.

 

Source of Funds (if applicable):

 

Infrastructure Renewal Fund

 

Staff comments

by James Flockton, Infrastructure Planning Coordinator, Infrastructure Planning:

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

The absence of Zebra Crossings from the proposed intersection priority change works on Tincogan Street was not a consequence of funding constraints.  Rather, Zebra crossings were not proposed at these locations due to the following considerations:

·       During the design stage of the project, the site did not meet the TfNSW warrants for Zebra Crossings.  Since the design stage was completed, TfNSW has revised its guidelines. Staff have confirmed with TfNSW that Zebra crossings may now be installed on local roads (but not arterial roads) without regard to the warrants.  However, if a Zebra crossing is to be installed it must still be reviewed by LTC for recommendations to approve or not.

·       Staff submitted the current design to the LTC proposing 2m wide pedestrian refuges on all sides of each intersection. This was to provide a parent with a pram safe passage across all roads as a 2m wide refuge provides a wide protected place to stop while crossing, if required. The location and design of these refuges and footpath links were reviewed and amended by the LTC to provide improved safety for pedestrians and address the agreed action from the Mullumbimby Masterplan to strengthen pedestrian connections’ with ‘intersection treatment’ to improve access and safety.

The Mullumbimby Master Plan also identifies the need to formalise alternative vehicular travel routes away from Burringbar Street and along Fern Street and Tincogan Street and identified Tincogan Street as a preferred primary route through Mullumbimby which potentially changes its road hierarchy status.  Installing Zebra Crossings in Tincogan Street may have a negative impact on traffic flow and increase the potential for additional traffic congestion in Mullumbimby.

Upgrading the project from the Pedestrian Refuges currently approved and supported by LTC to Zebra Crossings may increase the lighting requirements for the project and this could have implications for the construction program and on the project budget. Additional lighting may also create a nuisance for residents adjacent to the intersections.

The community’s desires for Zebra Pedestrian Crossings over Tincogan Street at the intersections is noted and if supported by Council, must be reviewed by LTC to ensure that:

·       Tincogan Street is not considered an arterial road or a road where warrants must be applied in relation to Zebra Pedestrian Crossings,

·       Line marking and signage are appropriate and approved,

·       Council takes on board the LTC recommendations prior to implementing works for Zebra Pedestrian Crossings if supported by LTC.

Council has a current grant deadline to meet for this project.  Construction was to be completed by the end of August which requires the priority changes to be in place.  Subject to further Council resolution and obtaining LTC recommendations on this project, it is extremely unlikely this deadline will be achieved and accordingly, Council will need to negotiate a new deadline.  Should an alternative deadline not be approved by the grant provider, Council may be obliged to complete the works as per the current LTC approved drawings that include pedestrian refuges without pedestrian crossings or abandon this project and replace with another project that can be completed within the current deadline.

Should LTC support the installation of Zebra Crossings without the need to meet warrants and Tincogan Street is not considered to be arterial road, Council will need to review intersection lighting requirements and update design drawings to include line marking and signage for the crossings prior to commencing any construction activities.  This will require an extension of time and budget amendment to the grant or an alternative funding source to cover any existing approved budget shortfall noting that it is not possible to quantify the extent of any shortfall at this time pending additional design investigation and estimation.

The current drawing set is provided at attachment 1.

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

Council is obliged to work within TfNSW guidelines and warrants, where required. Not working within TfNSW guidelines and warrants will risk legal implications to Council.

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

Yes

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Notices of Motion                                                                                                                 9.9

Notice of Motion No. 9.9    Tincogan Street Safe Movement and Access

File No:                                                    I2021/1173

 

  

I move that Council:

1.      Notes the concerns expressed by residents regarding safety, access and mobility issues for pedestrians and cyclists along Tincogan Street.

 

2.      Notes the Councillor background notes attached to this Notice of Motion.

 

3.      Supports a pedestrian (zebra) crossing on Tincogan Street between Dalley and Stuart Streets as a priority action.

 

4.      Undertakes an outcomes focussed Safe Movement and Access Options Assessment (‘Assessment’) for Tincogan Street between Main Arm Road and Station Street with the following expected outcomes:

 

a)     Identify infrastructure, regulatory and other (e.g., education) improvements that can be made to improve safe access and mobility for pedestrians and cyclists at the ‘key locations’ referred to in the background notes.

 

b)     Strengthen north-south pedestrian connections over Tincogan Street as identified in the Our Mullumbimby Masterplan.

 

c)     Make application for a consistent speed of 40 kph along Tincogan Street from Main Arm Road to Station Street.

 

d)     Provide advice on a possible maximum speed of 40kph for a) town centre precinct, or b) town centre and residential precincts.

 

e)     Ensure the Access Panel, TIAC and other key stakeholders (e.g., Disability Service) have opportunities to inform the Assessment and to consider identified improvements.

 

5.      Provides a report to Council detailing these outcomes and a delivery plan.

 

 

 

Signed:  Cr Basil Cameron

Councillor’s supporting information:

Councillors

 

As elsewhere, Mullumbimby is facing ongoing challenges as vehicle numbers moving through the town continue to increase.  In particular Tincogan Street, the key route to the north-west, is also the only town crossing of the Brunswick River at Federation bridge. It is the effective town centre bypass link to the M1 and thus in peak times has concentrated traffic flows.  Pedestrian access between the town centre and both the northern and western residential precincts is currently hazardous at a number of crossing points and needs to be ‘strengthened’ as identified in the Our Mullumbimby Masterplan.

 

This motion tackles a number of access and safety issues along Tincogan Street from the intersection of Main Arm Road to Station Street.  It is divided into two parts addressing a priority need for a pedestrian crossing between Dalley Street and Stuart Street and a Safe Movement and Access Options Assessment (‘Assessment’) aimed at significant improvements at a number of key locations along Tincogan Street.

 

Tincogan Street - key locations

 

Intersection Main Arm Road

 

As named, Tincogan Street/Murwillumbah Road begins at the ’T’ intersection where Main Arm Road comes in from the west. Continuing north from this point, Tincogan becomes Coolamon Scenic Drive (CSD)/Murwillumbah Road and links to the Brunswick Valley Way at Ocean Shores.  At peak times there is often traffic queued back to the Showgrounds on Main Arm Road waiting to turn right into Tincogan Street towards town.  Sight lines to the left (CSD) are constrained. Pedestrian access is limited to the south side of Tincogan. Speed limit is 50 kph.

 

School Zone St Johns

 

Zone begins just past the Main Arm Road intersection with a current 40Kph during active zone periods.  It continues to the eastern side of Federation Bridge.  There is a marked pedestrian (zebra) crossing adjacent to St Johns in the middle of the school zone.  It is important to note that this crossing is vital at all times, not just school zone periods, as pedestrian access via Federation Bridge to the western residential precinct requires crossing from the north side of Tincogan to the south side at this sole crossing point.

 

Federation Bridge

 

A traffic choke point as it is the only town crossing of the Brunswick River.  Travel lanes are narrow and there is a curved approach on both ends that reduces sight lines and leaves virtually no margin of error, especially if encountering a large vehicle such as bus or truck at the turn on/off points of the bridge.

 

Pedestrian access is provided on the northern side only.  As such it means that the existing pedestrian route from town centre to Main Arm Road requires safe crossing of Tincogan Street at various points.

 

There is no formalised cycleway or infrastructure.  Understandably given the narrow travel lanes and approaches, most cyclists can be observed using the pedestrian access.

 

Speed is either 50kph or 40kph during active school zone periods.

 

Intersection - Brunswick Terrace

 

At the foot of the eastern approach to Federation Bridge the intersection is at the midpoint of an ’S’ bend with traffic sweeping on and off the bridge to the west and around a tight bend on Tincogan to the east.  This point is highlighted by the community as of particular concern due to the wide field of vision required for any attempted crossing and the speed of traffic that inhibits safe crossing.  It is poorly signed and largely unprotected.

 

An alternative pedestrian route from the south-western part of town is the shared path running along the riverside of Brunswick Terrace and terminating at the Tincogan Street intersection.  At this point walkers and cyclists must negotiate this hazardous crossing to the north side of Tincogan to access the pedestrian pathway over Federation Bridge.

 

This connecting point of two key pedestrian routes is a significant location, however its potential amenity is locked up due to the conditions described.  During AM peak and other busy times, it can be too difficult to attempt any crossing.

 

The school zone (40kph) ends between the east end of Federation Bridge and the intersection (50kph) which means that peak vehicles are often accelerating off the bridge through the intersection and into the S bend.

 

Brunswick Terrace to Dalley Street and Childcare Centre

 

Rapidly changed conditions from the bend moving from predominately residential character to town centre periphery with tree lined shady light and increased roadside parking on gravel shoulders.  There is a childcare centre on the corner of Gordon Street and a pedestrian refuge is provided at this point, however this can sometimes be harder to see under dappled light and also crosses to the south side where there is no formed pedestrian access.

 

The old Civic Centre housing the Neighbourhood Centre is located on the south-west corner of the intersection. The Neighbourhood Centre coordinates a number of services including disability services, to clients who largely do not drive and have to access by foot.  Pedestrian conditions for crossing on the western side of the intersection remain poor and will require further improvement, particularly if there is a change of priority.

 

Speed thorough this section is 50kph.

 

The problematic conditions along this section and at Brunswick Terrace intersection make the crossing of Tincogan at Dalley and Stuart Streets critical pedestrian pathways.

 

Dalley Street to Stuart Street to Station Street

 

The ‘town bypass’ providing access to the M1 via Station and Argyle Streets. 

 

Conditions between Dalley and Stuart Street are difficult.  The poor access and safety of crossing at Dalley Street is addressed in another Notice of Motion at this meeting, however conditions are made more challenging as there is a turn in to the service station virtually at the intersection of Dalley where cars cut across the road to access.  Formed access is limited along part of the southern side, however it is very narrow with a great deal of clutter from businesses operating in the road reserve and angled parking.  The result is that there is no real pedestrian access provided other than walking on the road.  There is a disability service operating at the midpoint along the northern side of this section with a need for better access and disabled parking.

 

Strengthened connections over the Dalley and Stuart intersections are vital, however with the concentrated traffic flows and the conditions described above there will continue to be times when crossing at these points is not a realistic option. As such there is a need for a formal pedestrian crossing along this section.

 

A speed reduction to 40kph has been approved for this section.

 

Between Stuart and Station Street the road narrows with no pedestrian access on the south side where there is also an intersection with busy McGougans Lane. Sight lines are poor and turning tight for vehicles exiting the lane. Current priority at Station Street is give way. Despite the narrowing and constraints, speed through this section is 50Kph.

 

Pedestrian Crossing

 

As noted, there is a critical need for crossing points over Tincogan Street as part of existing pedestrian pathways and to improve access and safety.  The most pressing need is between Stuart and Dalley Streets as the main connector of residential areas to the town centre as well as identified existing issues and the presence of the disability service. The need for strengthening pedestrian connections has been identified in the Masterplan and a formal pedestrian crossing should proceed as a matter of urgency.

 

Safe Movement and Access Options Assessment

 

The above description of challenging conditions faced by pedestrians and cyclists identifies a number of key locations where improvements need to be made.  These are best addressed holistically through an outcomes focussed assessment as they are interconnected.  Expected outcomes of the Assessment include

 

     Identifying infrastructure, regulatory and other (eg. education) improvements that can be made to improve safe access and mobility for pedestrians and cyclists at the ‘key locations’ referred to above.

 

     Strengthen north-south pedestrian connections over Tincogan Street as identified in the Masterplan

 

     Making application for a consistent speed of 40 kph along Tincogan Street from Main Arm Road to Station Street.

 

     Providing advice on a maximum speed of 40kph for a) town centre precinct, or b) town centre and residential precincts.

 

     Ensuring the Access Panel, TIAC and other key stakeholders (eg Disability Service) have opportunities to inform the Assessment and to consider identified improvements.

 

     Providing a report to Council detailing these outcomes and a delivery plan.

 

The Assessment is not intended to be a major study to identify known issues.  It is intended to identify options for improvement. Conditions are apparent and there is substantial information provided in these notes and within the Community. Local Traffic Committee has discussed many of the issues at ‘key locations’ in recent times and provided advice to Council. The Our Mullumbimby Masterplan/Access and Movement has already identified consistent principles and actions applicable to this precinct. The key task of the Assessment should be to step through the ‘expected outcomes’, identify further solutions and report to Council.

 

Our Mullumbimby Masterplan

 

Excerpts from the Mullumbimby Masterplan

 

Access and movement Pg 22.

 

In addition, an ageing population will mean that Mullumbimby will have to look for more ways to become truly accessible, for people of all abilities. This will involve embedding inclusivity into any development in the public realm.

 

Principle 3: Ensure Mullumbimby is accessible and well connected Pg 28.

 

The town will also need to ensure an inclusive environment for all people through design that chooses to think of the experience of people living with a disability.

 

Walkable Town Centre Pg 28.

 

There is great potential to integrate more active transport infrastructure and improve upon the existing network to expand it to other areas. In addition, the accessibility for people with a disability could be improved by utilising the existing benefits of the natural environment, and a relatively flat town centre.

 

Precinct 1 - Town Centre Pg 35.

 

Upgrade intersections to increase safety, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists. 

Re-align the intersections at Stuart and Dalley Streets to improve safety and traffic flow. 

Improve the intersection safety along Tincogan Street for pedestrians and cyclists. 

Include traffic calming devices to minimise noise and speed.

 

Precinct 2 - North and South Heritage Areas Pg 40.

 

•       Make crossing Tincogan Street safer for pedestrians.

•       Prioritise pedestrians and cyclists to encourage active transport.

•       Undertake a traffic study to test the feasibility of this action.

•       Consult with local community to understand the long-term implications of any such action.

 

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)

 

Definition of direct disability discrimination - S.5

 

Direct disability discrimination

(1)  For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator ) discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person) on the ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if, because of the disability, the discriminator treats, or proposes to treat, the aggrieved person less favourably than the discriminator would treat a person without the disability in circumstances that are not materially different.

 

 (2) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator ) also discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person ) on the ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if:

 (a) the discriminator does not make, or proposes not to make, reasonable adjustments for the person; and

(b)  the failure to make the reasonable adjustments has, or would have, the effect that the aggrieved person is, because of the disability, treated less favourably than a person without the disability would be treated in circumstances that are not materially different.

 

Recommended priority relative to other Delivery Plan tasks:

 

Our Mullumbimby Masterplan actions, principles and priorities.

NoM actions are required for safe delivery of current capital works projects.

 

Definition of the project/task:

 

1.    Council approval for a pedestrian crossing on Tincogan Street between Dalley and Stuart Streets.

2.    Speed review for consistent speed of 40kph on Tincogan Street from Main Arm Road to Station Street.

3.    Provide a report to Council detailing options assessment at key locations in Tincogan Street with a delivery plan.

 

Source of Funds (if applicable):

 

Operational

 

Signed:  Cr Basil Cameron

 

Staff comments

by James Flockton, Infrastructure Planning Coordinator, Infrastructure Planning:

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

Councillor comments are noted and staff will need to complete further investigations into the issues raised in this area prior to providing suitably detailed advice.

A further report following further investigations is supported. This would be a report to the new Council in November 2021.

It is noted that the proposed Zebra Crossing over Tincogan Street between Dalley and Stuart Streets is being covered by a separate NOM and separate project.

A further report to Council would look to address the various issues on Tincogan that are outside the scope of the existing Tincogan Street intersection priority projects, being:

·    Potential future options for the Intersection of Tincogan and Station Street

·    Current and alternative speed limit options for the length of Tincogan Street and Brunswick Terrace

·    Safe Movement and Access for Tincogan Street between Main Arm Road and Station Street, including costs for any further investigation that would be required to support the design and construction of any solutions.

·    Identify infrastructure options at key locations that could improve safe access and mobility for pedestrians and cyclists along and over Tincogan Street

·    Potential future options for the Intersection of Main Arm Road and Brunswick Terrace*

·    Potential improvements to the school zone outside St Johns

·    Access and speed adjacent the child care centre on Tincogan Street

·    How the above fit with the Mullumbimby Master Plan, PAMP and Bike Plan actions that Council have previously endorsed

·    All processes required to achieve any recommended solutions.

*It is noted that Council is currently designing minor improvements to the Intersection of Main Arm Road and Brunswick Terrace as part of the Main Road – Road Safety Program. The works are minimal as the main constraint and choke point is the bridge over Chinbible Creek.  A widening in this area would likely require a new or altered bridge.

Federation Bridge is not a Council asset, the bridge is owned and maintained by TfNSW. Any changes to this bridge would need to be supported and completed by TfNSW.

Financial/Resource/Legal Implications:

The actions and works proposed in this NOM are currently unfunded and not planned for this financial year. A further report can be provided by current staff resources. However, detail design and construction will require a funding source.

Further details on financial, resources and legal implications will be provided in detail when reporting back to Council.

Is the proposal consistent with any Delivery Program tasks?

No


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - General Manager                                                                           13.1

Staff Reports - General Manager

 

Report No. 13.1     Lease to Mercato on Byron Pty Ltd

Directorate:                         General Manager

Report Author:                   Paula Telford, Leasing and Licensing Coordinator

File No:                                 I2021/949

Summary:

Mercato on Byron Pty Ltd (ACN 607 110 430) is required by a development consent condition to obtain an airspace lease with Council for the occupation of two balconies that overhang the Jonson Street road reserve being Council owned land. 

Independent market rent valuation reports were obtained by Mercato on Byron Pty Ltd and Council.  The value of the base rent established by the reports vary by a value greater than ten percent. As a result, the elected Council must determine the value of the base rent for the airspace lease with Mercato on Byron Pty Ltd.

The Director of Wingate being a partner of Mercato on Byron Pty Ltd requests consent from Council to assign the airspace lease, once executed, following the sale of Mercato on Byron at 98 – 116 Jonson Street Byron Bay.

  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.      That Council notes the market rent valuation reports from:

a)      CBRE Valuation and Advisory Services that establishes base rent for the airspace lease to Mercato on Byron Pty Ltd at $6,200 (exclusive GST) per annum; and

b)      Valuers Australia Pty Ltd that establishes base rent for the airspace lease to Mercato on Byron Pty Ltd at $23,300 (exclusive of GST) per annuum. 

2.      That Council resolves the value of base rent under for the airspace lease to Mercato on Byron Pty Ltd at $23,300 (exclusive of GST) per annum;

3.      That Council authorises the General Manager, under delegation, to grant an airspace lease to Mercato on Byron Pty Ltd, subject to consent from the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment, on the following conditions:

a)      fixed term of 20 years;

b)      at a base rent established in point 2 of this recommendation, with the base rent increased annually thereafter by Consumer Price Index All Groups Sydney for the fixed term; and

c)      the Lessee be responsible, at its cost, for required insurance, maintenance and upkeep of the encroachment structures that overhang the airspace above the Jonson Street road reserve;

d)      the Lessee, at its cost, demolish and remove the encroachment structures that overhang the airspace above the Jonson Street road reserve at the end of the lease, unless the Lessee has entered into a new lease with Council to commence on the day immediately after the end date its current lease.

4.      That Council authorise the General Manager, under delegation, to consent to the assignment of the executed airspace lease between Byron Shire Council and Mercato Pty Ltd to coincide with settlement of the sale of Mercato on Byron at 98-116 Jonson Street Byron Bay.

Attachments:

 

1        Confidential - CBRE Valuation and Advisory Services Report, E2021/35807  

2        Confidential - Valuers Australia Current Market Rental Assessment Report, E2021/81920  

 


 

Report

Council resolved (21-259) at its 27 May 2021 meeting:

1.      That Council defers a decision on this matter and request staff to obtain a further valuation.

2.      If the further valuation is less than 10% greater than the current valuation then Council authorises the General Manager, under delegations, to grant an airspace lease to Mercato on Byron Pty Ltd, subject to consent from the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment, on the following conditions:

a)      fixed term of 20 years;

b)      initial rent of $6,200 per annum (inclusive GST) with rent annually increased thereafter by Consumer Price Index All Groups Sydney for the term; and

c)      the Lessee is responsible for all maintenance and upkeep of the encroachment structure at its cost;

d)      the Lessee must, at its cost, demolish and remove the structure in the airspace above the Jonson Street road reserve at the end of the lease, unless the Lessee has entered into a new lease with Council to commence on the day immediately after the end date its current lease; and

3.      All lease preparation fees to be met by the Lessee.                                                          

Background:

Mercato on Byron Pty Ltd (‘Mercato’) holds development consent (10.2013.587.1) for the construction of two balconies that overhang the airspace above the Jonson Street road reserve.  A condition of consent requires that Mercato obtain an airspace lease from Council to occupy the two constructed balconies.

Council has authority under section 149 of the Road Act 1993 (NSW), with approval of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment, to grant an airspace lease.

Council staff and agents for Mercato have been negotiating for a new airspace lease since April 2019. The value of base rent payable under the airspace lease is the final essential term of the lease requiring resolution.

Market rent valuations:

An independent market valuation report provided by an accredited valuer must set the value of base rent for the airspace lease and must be provided at the Lessee’s cost.  It is an accepted Council practice to offer the Lessee the choice of obtaining its own valuation report or to pay the cost of Council obtaining a valuation report.

Mercato elected to obtain its own market rent valuation report from CBRE Valuation and Advisory Services (‘the CBRE Report’), refer to Confidential Attachment 1.  The CBRE Report establishes the base rent at $44 per square metre at a total of $6,200 (exclusive GST) per annum being a value derived from the following considerations:

a)      the notional freehold land value as set by the New South Wales Valuer General discounted by fifty percent for the first-floor position being $800 per square metre for valuation purposes,

b)      Government legislation setting commercial leased rent at six percent of the land value; and

c)      an investment yield of 5.50% derived from the sale of comparable commercial properties in Byron over four years.

In accordance with resolution (21-259) Council staff obtained a second market rent valuation report from Valuers Australia Pty Ltd, (‘Valuers Report’) refer to Confidential Attachment 2.  The Valuers Report sets the base rent for the airspace lease at $23,300 (exclusive GST) per annum being a value derived from the following considerations:

a)      a valuation methodology based on Statutory Land Value determined under the Land Act 1916 for adjoining lands was found to be significantly lower than the current market value of the land resulting in the following methodologies being considered:

i)       Methodology 1 Percentage of Adjoining Tenancy Rates was not adopted due to rentals paid for adjoining premises in Mercato on Byron appearing to be high for rate/m² compared to other market rents in Byron Bay;

ii)      Methodology 2 Percentage (%) Return Against the Current Market Value of the Land in the Location being an evaluation of current market sales in the location to derive a current market value discounted by 50% to reflect the ‘air space’ nature of the lease. This approach was adopted in determining base rent for the airspace lease;

iii)     Methodology 3 Direct Comparison determines rent by comparison to rents per rate/m² for other similar premises used for a similar purpose however due to limited comparable rental information this approach was not adopted.

The difference between the base rent as established by the CBRE Report compared to the base rent established by the Valuers Report is greater than 10% and therefore requires the elected Council to resolve the value of base rent in the airspace lease.

Request to assign executed airspace lease:

A director of Wingate has disclosed the property known as Mercato on Byron located at 98-116 Jonson Street Byron Bay has been sold with a deferred settlement.  The director requests consent from Council to assign the airspace lease to the new owner following execution of the lease.  The purchaser of Mercato on Byron has yet to be disclosed to Council.

Strategic Considerations

Community Strategic Plan and Operational Plan

 

CSP Objective

L2

CSP Strategy

L3

DP Action

L4

OP Activity

Community Objective 1:  We have infrastructure, transport and services which meet our expectations

1.2

Provide essential services and reliable infrastructure which meet an acceptable community standard

1.2.8

Develop capital upgrades, renewal and enhancements works program for buildings- including community buildings, public toilets, emergency services, sports club facilities and Council operations buildings (SP)

1.2.8.1

Consult with user groups to establish user agreements, leases, licenses and Plans of Management

Recent Resolutions

·        Resolution (21-259).

Legal/Statutory/Policy Considerations

149   Leasing of land above or below public road

(1)     A roads authority may lease the air space above, or land below the surface of, any public road (other than a Crown road) that is owned by the authority.

(2)     Such a lease may not be granted by a roads authority other than Transport for NSW except with the approval of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment.

(3)     The Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment must not approve a lease in respect of a public road if the granting of the lease would be inconsistent with the rights of passage and access that exist with respect to the road.

(4)     The term of a lease, together with any option to renew, must not exceed 99 years.

Byron Shire Council Policy Road Airspace 2019 provides a list of principles of a roads airspace lease being:

a.   The owner of the property adjacent to the subject airspace structure is responsible for the maintenance of the structure in a safe and secure condition. Council may require of the landowner at any time that a structural engineer’s certificate be provided that the subject airspace structure is safe.

b.   The owner of the property adjacent to the airspace structure shall maintain the subject airspace structure in an attractive and well-maintained condition.

c.   Council reserves the right to require the maintenance is carried out if, in Council’s opinion, maintenance is necessary for aesthetic or safety purposes.

d.   The owner of the property adjacent to the subject airspace structure is to indemnify Council through public risk insurance to a minimum value that is consistent with Councils insurance practices.

e.   Where the proposed structure comprises commercial floor space, rather than awning only. Council will levy and collect fees in accordance with Councils Fees and Charges adopted annually

Clause 5.6 Where the proposed structure incorporates floor area but is proposed in order to benefit streetscape, heritage or some other public interest, Council may elect to not levy a rental fee. A rental fee will be charges for such uses as restaurant, commercial or similar and the fee will be based on a market valuation.

Financial Considerations

This report recommends that rent commence at $23,300 (exclusive GST) per annum and thereafter increased annually by CPI for the term.

Consultation and Engagement.

Consultation was had with Mercato. No public consultation required


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - General Manager                                                                           13.2

Report No. 13.2     Extension of market relocations - Byron Bay

Directorate:                         General Manager

Report Author:                   Claire McGarry, Place Manager - Byron Bay

File No:                                 I2021/1040

Summary:

The Byron Farmers Markets and Byron Community Markets have been operating on temporary sites (Cavanbah Centre and Byron foreshore) since July 2019, when Butler Street Reserve was closed for the construction of the Byron Bay bypass. There is a licence in place for the markets to operate at these locations until 31 October 2021.

During the period of closure of Butler Street Reserve, Council completed a detailed site contamination report in response to a formal investigation order from the NSW Environmental Planning Authority (EPA). These investigations are ongoing under the advice of the EPA and are unlikely to be completed by October 2021.

As such, this report recommends an extension of the markets’ tenure at their respective sites until such time as relocation to their permanent sites is possible.

  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.      That Council:

 

a)    extend the Byron Farmers Market tenure at the Cavanbah Centre until such time as Butler Street Reserve becomes available; and

b) prioritise the Farmers Markets’ tenure at the Cavanbah Centre ahead of any other proposals received for use of the same space during their tenure.

2.      That Council:

a)   extend the Byron Community Market tenure at the Byron foreshore until development consent for their relocation to the town centre has been granted; and

b)   note that unauthorised vehicle parking on Dening Park will be dealt with in new market licences to be granted from 1 November 2021 with the mechanisms detailed in this report.

 

3.      That the licence fees for the markets’ tenure at their respective sites be fully subsidised from the Waste Fund.

4.      That a proposal be submitted to the NSW EPA for a staged return of community use of Butler Street Reserve.

 

 


 

 

Report

Background

Council resolved (19-062) at its 28 February 2019 meeting:

1.      That Butler Street Reserve be closed to the public after the 7 July Community Market for a period of 6 months while the section of the Byron Bay Bypass (including the Somerset Street Roundabout and its western and southern legs and the area of works within Butler Street north of the roundabout) is constructed.

2.      That lockable steel gates be installed at the entry points to the Reserve to restrict vehicle access during the closure period and during the ‘no parking’ periods overnight.

3.      That staffs provide market managers with any information available regarding viability of other potential relocation sites identified by the markets, including planning approvals required.

4.      That staff ensure The Cav has all relevant approvals in place to host markets during the closure period, should that be required, and provide details to market managers regarding power and water access, amenities and traffic management plans for the site.

5.      That the Butler Street Reserve be made available as a site compound for the Contractor for the duration of the closure and one (1) week after this section is constructed and open to traffic, to allow relocation of the site compound.

6.      That staff continue to liaise with market managers to facilitate the return of markets to Butler Street Reserve once relocation of the site compound has occurred.

Subsequent investigations resulted in the relocation of the Byron Farmers market to community land at the Cavanbah Centre by resolution (19-175). The monthly Community markets were relocated to the Byron Bay beachside by resolution (19-235). Temporary markets licences were executed with the Byron Farmers’ Market Inc and Byron Bay Community Association Inc with licences commencing in July and August 2019 respectively.

Unforeseen delays to the bypass project and subsequent Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) investigation order resulted in an extension of these licences until 31 October 2021.

This report proposes another extension until such time as the future sites for the markets are available.

Butler Street Reserve

During the period of closure of Butler Street Reserve, Council completed a detailed site contamination report in response to a formal Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) investigation order. Subsequently, the EPA requested further testing with specific reference to polyfluoroalkyl substances (‘PFAS’).

Council engaged Cavanbah Consulting to undertake these investigation works and reported the results to the EPA in September 2020. On 17 November 2020 staff met with the EPA case officer and stressed the strategic value of this site for the community and the importance of a clear way forward – both in terms of further investigations / monitoring, and planning for future use of the site.

The EPA have required further detailed off site assessment of PFAS and the associated investigative reports prepared by Cavanbah Consulting have been submitted to the EPA in July. According to the outcomes of the most recent report, “no PFAS exceedances of public open space health-based criteria were reported in all the samples collected from the former site surface and/or landfill material. The site is considered suitable for the proposed community use for open space, market place and car parking.” 

This report has been sent to the EPA for their review and advice on next steps.

At the 24 June 2021 meeting, it was resolved (part 21-236) that Council:

Receives a report on Butler Street Reserve addressing issues raised in public access, including contamination investigation status update from the EPA, and outlining options and approval pathways for future use of the Reserve.

This report is being developed by staff alongside advice from the EPA.

Timeframes

Byron Farmers Market

Staff are developing a proposal to the EPA for a staged approach to returning community use of Butler Street Reserve.

Stage 1: A return of the weekly farmers markets to a small section of the Reserve, on the existing grassed surface with no interventions in place.

Stage 2: A return of the Reserve to community use for a mix of markets, parking and green recreation space, factoring in any constraints or exclusion zones required by the EPA.

The timeframes on both these stages are unknown and will be based on feedback from the EPA, but by separating them the intention is to fast track the Farmers Markets return if at all possible.

Byron Community Market

A Development Application is underway for the relocation of the Byron Community Market to the middle of town, centred around the railway precinct. It is anticipated that this will be lodged in August 2021 and the project team have allowed for a 90-day DA assessment period, which would mean if granted, approval would likely be December 2021.

It is acknowledged that there is a strong community desire to relocate the markets from the foreshore as soon as possible and it is hoped that this extension of time beyond October 2021 would be no more than a matter of a few months, dependent on the outcome of the DA.

New market licences will be granted in accordance with resolution (21-147) to commence 1 November 2021.  The new licence will permit the community markets to remain in Dening Park until the market relocation is finalised.  Terms of the new licence will create a framework for stall holder parking in Dening Park.

The licence will:

a)    Define what is an integral vehicle permitted to park in Dening Park based on the relationship between the vehicle to the operation of the stall. For example, a mobile cool room is an integral vehicle. Integral vehicles will be required to park adjacent to the relevant stall. No other vehicles will be permitted to park on Dening Park, and

 

b)    Introduce new parking permit for integral vehicles at a cost of $10 per day to be managed by the market manager as per Council’s adopted fees and charges.

Council staff will work with the market manager to ensure the new parking framework is in place to commence 1 November 2021. The new parking framework will remain active for the duration that the monthly community market is to remain in Dening Park.

The market managers would like to note that they strongly oppose the proposed introduction of a new parking fee on the foreshore, and intend to put in a submission with alternative solutions.

It is important to note that a return of the Community Market to Butler Street Reserve would only be a potential possibility at Stage 2 of the proposed EPA process above and may inevitably be ruled out due to site constraints. Stage 2, if agreed to by the EPA, is a medium to long term solution and in no way a possibility for the timeframes required for relocation of the Byron Community Market from the foreshore.

Other Considerations

Concurrent to this report, Council is considering a request for an activity at the Cavanbah Centre (Event Application – Bewilderness; file number I2021/1040) which, as proposed, would conflict with the proposed extension of the Farmers Markets in this space.

It is recommended that priority be given to the extension of the Farmers Markets in the first instance, and that approval to move forward with any other proposals at the Cavanbah Centre during this time be subject to mutual agreement between the Byron Farmers Market, Cavanbah Centre staff and any additional proponents.

Strategic Considerations

Community Strategic Plan and Operational Plan

Community Objective 2: We cultivate and celebrate our diverse cultures, lifestyle and sense of community

2.1

Support and encourage our vibrant culture and creativity

2.1.1

Support a range of inclusive events that encourage broad community  participation and promote social inclusion

2.1.1.1

Support innovative and flexible delivery of community events and initiatives

Recent Resolutions

·        19-062

·        19-175

·        19-235

·        20-695

·        21-230

·        21-236

Legal/Statutory/Policy Considerations

Local Government Act 1993 (NSW)

s47 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.

s47A Leases, licences and other estates in respect of community land—terms of 5 years or less

(1)      This section applies to a lease, licence or other estate in respect of community land granted for a period that (including any period for which the lease, licence or other estate could be renewed by the exercise of an option) does not exceed 5 years, other than a lease, licence or other estate exempted by the regulations.

(2)      If a council proposes to grant a lease, licence or other estate to which this section applies—

(a)      the proposal must be notified and exhibited in the manner prescribed by section 47, and

(b)      the provisions of section 47(3) and (4) apply to the proposal, and

(c)      on receipt by the council of a written request from the Minister, the proposal is to be referred to the Minister, who is to determine whether or not the provisions of section 47(5)–(9) are to apply to the proposal.

(3)      If the Minister, under subsection (2)(c), determines that the provisions of section 47(5)–(9) are to apply to the proposal—

(a)      the council, the Minister and the Director of Planning are to deal with the proposal in accordance with the provisions of section 47(1)–(8), and

(b)      section 47(9) has effect with respect to the Minister’s consent.

 

Crown Land Management Act 2016 (NSW)

s2.20  Short-term licences over dedicated or reserved Crown land

(1)      The regulations may make provision for or with respect to the following concerning short-term licences over dedicated or reserved Crown land—

(a)      any purposes for which the licences may be granted (prescribed purpose),

(b)       any conditions to which the licences are subject (prescribed condition),

(c)      the maximum term for which licences may be granted (prescribed maximum term).

(2)      The Minister may grant a short-term licence over dedicated or reserved Crown land for any prescribed purpose.

(3)      A short-term licence may be granted even if the purpose for which it is granted is inconsistent with the purposes for which the Crown land is dedicated or reserved.

(4)      A short-term licence may be granted subject to conditions specified by the Minister and is also subject to any prescribed conditions.

 

Crown Land Management Regulations 2018 (NSW)

cl31   Short-term licences over dedicated or reserved Crown land

(1)      Each of the following purposes is prescribed as a purpose for which a short-term licence may be granted under section 2.20 of the Act:

          (p)      markets

 

(2)      In addition to any other condition to which a short-term licence granted under section 2.20 of the Act is subject, the condition that the relationship of landlord and tenant is not created between the parties is also prescribed.

(3)      The period of one year is prescribed as the maximum term for which a short-term licence may be granted under section 2.20 of the Act (including any further term available under an option or holding over provision).

 

cl70   Exemption from operation of section 3.22 of Act for granting short-term licences during initial period

(1)      This clause applies to a council manager of dedicated or reserved Crown land during the initial period referred to in section 3.23 of the Act (the pre-POM Crown land) until whichever of the following occurs first:

(a)   the council adopts its first plan of management for the land for the purposes of section 3.23 of the Act,

(b)   the land is classified as operational land with Minister’s consent under section 3.22 of the Act.

(2)      The council manager is exempt from the operation of section 3.22 of the Act in respect of:

(a)  the granting of short-term licences over the pre-POM Crown land of a kind that can be granted by a Crown land manager under section 2.20 of the Act, and

Financial Considerations

The proposed extension of market relocations is as a direct result of the legacy issues caused by Butler Street Reserve’s history as a former uncontrolled landfill site.

As such, it is recommended that Council provides fully subsidised rent to the markets on their temporary sites out of the Waste Fund. The monthly amount for this would be:

1.    Byron Farmers Market $198 (inc GST) per market to 1 July 2022.

2.    Byron Community Market $463 (inc GST) per market to 1July 2022.

Consultation and Engagement

This proposed extension, and the inter-dependencies it has with other live projects for Byron, has required extensive internal and external consultation, engagement and negotiation.

This includes, but is not limited to:

·     Byron Farmers Market Management

·     Byron Community Market Management

·     Cavanbah Centre operational staff

·     Open Spaces staff

·     External environmental consultants

·     NSW EPA

·     Byron Masterplan Guidance Group

·     External event proponents

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                  13.3

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services

 

Report No. 13.3     Community Initiatives Program - Funding Round 2021/2022

Directorate:                         Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:                   Emily Fajerman, Community & Cultural Development Coordinator

File No:                                 I2021/1142

Summary:

The Community Initiatives Program supports initiatives and projects that address a specific local need, build a sense of community, and align with Council priorities.

14 eligible applications were received. This report recommends that 10 community projects are funded to the value of $44,200 for the 2021/2022 financial year.

  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.      That Council approves the recommendations for the Community Initiatives Program as per Attachment 1 (E2021/77738).

2.      That Council notes the applications not recommended as per Attachment 1 (E2021/77738).

Attachments:

 

1        Confidential - Community Initiatives Program 2021-2022 - Assessment Panel Summary and Recommendations for Funding - for Council, E2021/77738  

 


 

Report

Background

Byron Shire Council values the many community, cultural, environmental, sporting, and other organisations contributing significant, often voluntary, resources to enhance the quality of life in our community.

Through the provision of grants, sponsorships and funding, Council can work in collaboration with community groups to further the aims identified in the four-year Delivery Program and annual Operational Plan to achieve positive change.

Each year, Council offers the Community Initiatives Program to support community organisations, deliver projects and initiatives that address a specific need, build a sense of community, and align with Council priorities. Incorporated not-for-profit organisations and community groups are eligible to apply for grants of up to $5,000.

On 10 May 2021, Council announced the Community Initiatives Program for 2021/2022 as being open for applications via Council’s website, with applications closing on 11 June 2021.

Information about the Community Initiatives Program such as application dates, guidelines, eligibility, and criteria were made available on Council’s website and Facebook page. Email campaigns were also utilised to target interested stakeholders and networks.

14 eligible applications were received. Applications were assessed against the Community Initiatives Guidelines and against Council objectives and plans.

An internal assessment panel reviewed the applications and recommended that Council funds 10 of the community projects, detailed in Attachment 1 (E2021/77738).

The assessment panel included:

·        Sustainability Officer

·        Events and Economy Team Leader

·        Grants Coordinator

 

All recipients will be required to sign a contract, share project outcomes, and acquit their funding by June 2022.

Community Initiatives Application Process

Until now, the Community Initiatives Program application process has been paper-based.

 

Prior to this year’s launch, staff redesigned the process to a new online format, making it easier for applicants. This involved redeveloping the application form, guidelines, assessment guides and criteria. Early feedback about the updated process and documents from this year’s applicants and assessment panel members is positive.

 

Next steps

Contracts will be entered into with all successful applicants, pending Council approval by resolution.

The contract management process will involve staff in the Community and Cultural Development team setting contract conditions for each approved project, establishing communications and information management, meeting with community stakeholders and reviewing project acquittals.

In early 2022, the Community Initiatives Policy is due for review and will include community feedback to improve program aims and objectives.

Strategic Considerations

Community Strategic Plan and Operational Plan

CSP Objective

L2

CSP Strategy

L3

DP Action

L4

OP Activity

Community Objective 5:  We have community led decision making which is open and inclusive

5.2

Create a culture of trust with the community by being open, genuine and transparent

5.2.2

Incorporate wellbeing framework within organisation to inform decision making

5.2.2.2

Deliver annual Community Donations Program

Legal/Statutory/Policy Considerations

Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that a council may, in accordance with a resolution of the council, contribute money or otherwise grant financial assistance to persons for the purpose of exercising its functions.

The provisions of section 356 (2) have been complied with.

The Community Initiatives Program (Section 356) Policy details the process and approach for delivering the funding.  

Financial Considerations

A total value of $44,200 is recommended in this report and is provided in the 2021/2022 budget.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                  13.4

Report No. 13.4     Postponement of the 2021 Local Government Election - Amendment to the 2021 Meeting Schedule

Directorate:                         Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:                   Heather Sills, Corporate Planning and Improvement Coordinator

File No:                                 I2021/1166

Summary:

Clause 3.2 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice states that “The council shall, by resolution, set the frequency, time, date and place of its Ordinary meetings.”

This report seeks Council’s endorsement for amendments to the 2021 Meeting Schedule that was previously adopted by Council (Resolution 20-675). The amendments are required following the receipt of advice from the Office of Local Government (OLG) that the Local Government Elections have been postponed until 4 December 2021.

  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.      That the 2021 Meeting Schedule be amended such that:

a)      A Planning Meeting on 16 September 2021 be scheduled

b)      An Ordinary Meeting on 23 September 2021 be scheduled

c)      The Planning Meeting on 11 November is rescheduled to 4 November 2021

d)      The Planning Meeting on 9 December 2021 is cancelled

e)      The Ordinary Meeting on 16 December 2021 is cancelled

f)       The Audit Risk and Improvement Committee and Finance Committee meetings on 18 November are rescheduled to 11 November

g)      The following committee and panel meetings scheduled during caretaker period are cancelled:

i)       15 November - Communications Panel

ii)      17 November - Community Round Table

iii)     18 November - Biodiversity Advisory Committee and Arakwal Memorandum of Understanding Advisory Committee

          and that notice be given on Council’s website of the change of meeting schedule.

2.      That Council extends the term for Advisory Committees, Panels and Section 355 Committees until the end of the current term of Council and notifies the committee members of this decision.

Attachments:

 

1        Revised Council Meeting Matrix - 2021, E2021/95150  

 

 


 

 

Report

On resolving the 2021 Meeting Schedule (resolution 20-675), Council included meeting dates following the 4 September Local Government Election. Council has subsequently been advised that the Local Government Election has been postponed until 4 December 2021. Caretaker period will now commence on 5 November 2021.

As a result, the previously resolved meeting schedule needs to be amended as outlined below:

·     Schedule a Planning Meeting on 16 September 2021 and an Ordinary Meeting on 23 September 2021

·     Cancel the Planning Meeting on 11 November and reschedule to 4 November 2021 to allow matters to be considered prior to the caretaker period commencing on 5 November 2021

·     Cancel the Planning Meeting on 9 December 2021 and the Ordinary Meeting on 16 December 2021

·     Reschedule the Audit Risk and Improvement Committee and Finance Committee meetings on 18 November, to 11 November 2021

·     Cancel the following committee and panel meetings during caretaker period:

15 November - Communications Panel

17 November - Community Round Table

18 November - Biodiversity Advisory Committee and Arakwal Memorandum of Understanding Advisory Committee

A resolution of Council is required to endorse the proposed changes to the 2021 Meeting Schedule, in accordance with clause 3.2 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice which states that “The council shall, by resolution, set the frequency, time, date and place of its Ordinary meetings”

Further, the committee and panel appointments had previously been extended to September 2021 in accordance with the deferral of the 2020 Local Government elections. This recommendation seeks endorsement of the continuation of existing committee arrangements until the election of the new Council.

Should the statutory meeting to swear in the new Council need to be held in January 2022 a report will be brought to a September or October meeting for resolution.

A separate report will be presented to Council for consideration of the 2022 Meeting Schedule, at the first meeting of the new term of Council.

Strategic Considerations

Community Strategic Plan and Operational Plan

CSP Objective

L2

CSP Strategy

L3

DP Action

L4

OP Activity

Community Objective 5:  We have community led decision making which is open and inclusive

5.2

Create a culture of trust with the community by being open, genuine and transparent

5.2.4

Support Councillors to carry out their civic duties

5.2.4.2

Deliver Council meeting secretariat – including agenda preparation, minutes and council resolutions monitoring

Recent Resolutions

·     20-675 - Adoption of the 2021 Meeting Schedule

Legal/Statutory/Policy Considerations

Clause 3.2 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice states that “The council shall, by resolution, set the frequency, time, date and place of its Ordinary meetings.”

This change to the meeting schedule has no effect on Council’s compliance with its obligations under the various sections of the Local Government Act 1993 that apply to meeting dates, namely:

·     Section 9 notes that a council must give notice to the public of the times and places of its meetings

·     Section 365 notes that Council is required to meet at least 10 times each year, each in a different month

·     Section 367 outlines the required notice period of business papers for Councillors.

Financial Considerations

There are no financial implications.

Consultation and Engagement

Notice of the changed meeting schedule will be given to the public on Council’s website.


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                          13.5

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy

 

Report No. 13.5     PLANNING -  S4.55 Development Application 10.2020.97.2 Modify Weed Control Requirements, Engineering Construction Plan Requirements and Development Contribution Payments at  77 Tuckeroo Avenue Mullumbimby

Directorate:                         Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:                   Ivan Holland, Planner

File No:                                 I2021/756

Proposal:

Proposal description:

S4.55 to Modify Stage 8 Tallowood Ridge Estate Subdivision Weed Control Requirements, Engineering Construction Plan Requirements and Development Contribution Payments

Property description:

LOT: 147 DP: 1265934, LOT: 162 DP: 1251169

77 Tuckeroo Avenue MULLUMBIMBY

Parcel No/s:

270323, 269619

Applicant:

Bayview Land Development Pty Ltd

Owner:

Gainsplay Pty Ltd

Zoning:

RU2 Rural Landscape / PART R2 Low Density Residential

Date received:

24 March 2021

Integrated / Designated Development:

    Integrated

    Designated

    Not applicable

Public notification or exhibition:

-    Level 1 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications

-    Exhibition period: 31/3/21 to 13/4/21

-    Submissions received: Nil (0)

-    Submissions acknowledged: N/A

Delegation to determine

Council

Issues:

·      Timing of weed management

·      Offsetting of contributions with works in-kind for road upgrades to Clays road and Coral Avenue.

Summary:

The Applicant is seeking to modify conditions of the Stage 8 Tallowood Ridge Estate Subdivision consent (DA 10.2020.97.1) relating to:

·     Weed control requirements in the Biodiversity Conservation Management Plan (BCMP);

·     Engineering Construction Plan Requirements (road upgrades and lot frontage – correct a typographical error); and

·     Development contribution payments.

No submissions were received by Council on the modification application.

The proposed amendment of the conditions relating to weed control (condition 17) and the upgrade of Clays Road and Coral Avenue (condition 19a) to defer the works are not supported. However, it is not unreasonable to offset road contributions against the works carried out in Clays Road and Coral Avenue, considering the material public benefit to Council and the public. Condition 65 and the accompanying Schedule of Contributions is recommended to be amended accordingly.

The applicant has also requested that condition 19b be amended to correct a typographical error in terms of the wrong lot number which is supported.

The proposed modification does not raise any planning matters that have not already been considered in the assessment of the original application and the development is substantially the same as approved in terms of Section 4.55 of the EPA Act 1979. The application is recommended for approval subject to amended conditions of consent.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

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

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That pursuant to Section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, that Application No. 10.2020.97.2 be approved by amending conditions 19 b), 65 and the development contributions in Schedule 5 of Development Consent No. 10.2020.97.1 in accordance with the modified conditions in Attachment 2 (E2021/93593).

Attachments:

 

1        10.2020.97.1 - Notice of determination - Stage 8 Tallowood Ridge Estate subdivision, E2020/102556  

2        10.2020.97.2 - Recommended modification to conditions, E2021/93593  

 


 

Assessment:

1.      INTRODUCTION

The stage 8 subdivision (DA 10.2020.97.1) was approved by Council on 17 December 2020 by way of resolution 20-734 that resolved:

pursuant to Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Development Application No. 10.2020.97.1 for Stage 8 Tallowood Ridge Estate subdivision to create forty-six (46) residential lots, be granted consent subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 1 (#E2020/97750)

Note: Sections 1.1-1.4 are taken from the assessment report for the original DA (10.2020.97.1).

1.1.   History/Background

Development Application No. 10.2009.314.1 (Tallowood Ridge) was approved by the NSW Land & Environment Court which included the 29 residential allotments as Stage 1 and a concept approval for a total of seven stages comprising approximately 240 residential lots, roads, open space, rehabilitation areas and associated infrastructure over seven stages (see Figure 1).

Since that initial approval Stages 1 to 6 have been approved by Council; with bulk earthworks and civil works for Stage 7 currently under construction.

20032019140129-0001

Figure 1: Staging plan for the Concept Approval as approved under DA10.2009.314.1.

The current application will subdivide the newly zoned residential land as part of Stage 8 which lays to the west of Stage 7.

1.2.   Previous Development Applications Relating to the Site

Separate development applications for each stage have been approved and modified as follows:

Development Application 10.2009.314.1

Stage 1 Tallowood Ridge Estate including Future Stages Concept and 29 residential lots -  Approved 14 September 2010 (Land Environment Court)

Development Application 10.2011.117.1

Stage 2 Tallowood Ridge Estate for urban subdivision comprising 28 residential allotments – Approved 4 April 2012.

Development Application 10.2013.549.1

Stage 3 Tallowood Ridge Estate for subdivision to create thirty-one (31) residential allotments - Approved 6 February 2014.

Development Application 10.2015.79.1

Stage 4A Tallowood Ridge Estate for subdivision to create thirteen (13) residential allotments – Approved 26 November 2015.

Development Application 10.2015.686.1

Stage 5 Tallowood Ridge Estate for Subdivision to create twenty-four (24) residential allotments - Approved 25 August 2016.

Development Application 10.2016.161.1

Stage 4B Tallowood Ridge Estate for Subdivision to create fifteen (15) residential lots - Approved 31 August 2017.

Development Application 10.2017.402.1

Stage 6 Tallowood Ridge Estate for subdivision to create eighteen (18) residential Lots – Approved 26 July 2017.

Development Application 10.2018.305.1

Stage 7 Tallowood Ridge Estate for subdivision to create thirty-two (32) residential lots – Approved 11 April 2019.

1.3.   Tallowood Ridge Rezoning and Future Stages

On 22 September 2017, an amendment to Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 was gazetted that rezoned an additional 12 hectares of rural land to the west of Tallowood Ridge to R2 Low Density Residential. It also back-zoned existing R2 land into the RU2 Rural Landscape zone to protect forested areas near the southern ridgeline and a riparian corridor that traverses the site. Other changes included rezoning the sports fields to RE1 Public Recreation zone and the introduction of a 400m2 minimum subdivision lot size for the western part of the estate.

The current application will subdivide the newly zoned residential land as part of Stage 8. The current application and future stages are not bound by the original Concept Approval although the existing consent conditions for environmental restoration works associated with earlier stages and the Biodiversity Conservation Management Plan remain in force.   

1.4.   Site and surrounds

The site has an area of approximately 35.45 hectares (residual lot) and is located between Tuckeroo Avenue and Clays Road (see Figure 2). The land is within the R2 Low Density Residential zone and RU2 Rural Landscape zone under LEP 2014. A portion of the southwestern corner of the existing residual lot is a deferred matter and fall within the 1(a) (General Rural Zone) under Byron LEP 1988, however this portion of the site falls outside the proposed development area for Stage 8. The southern ridgeline is forested but most of the site is cleared except for grass cover. The site contains bushfire prone land.

Surrounding land uses consist of rural-residential lots to the south and rural land to the north and west.

Figure 2: Site Plan (Stage 8 highlighted in Yellow)

1.5.   Description of the proposed development

The current application seeks to modify the approval of DA 10.2020.97.1 as follows:

2.      SECTION 4.15 – MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION – DISCUSSION OF ISSUES

Condition 17

The current condition reads:

17.

Weed control

Primary Weed control as required by the amended BCMP to be carried out in Management Zones 7a, 7b and 10 prior to the issue of the Construction certificate.

Consideration of proposed amendment:

The application provided the following basis for amending this condition to require substantial commencement (at least 30% of the total area) of primary weed control rather than completion:

"There is no substantive reason that all Primary Weed control must be completed for the whole of Management Zones 7a, 7b and 10 prior to issue of Construction Certificate. It is reasonable to require that all Primary Weed control be completed prior to issue of a Subdivision Certificate."

Council’s Ecologist has reviewed the proposed change to this condition and in summary states (Refer doc#A2021/10164):

As discussed in the ecological referral for the original DA (see A2020/7997), the condition was included to rectify works that were supposed to have commenced during older stages of the subdivision but were never undertaken. Primary weed control, was supposed to have been undertaken in Management Zones (MZs) 7a, 7b and 10 concurrently with Stage 7 of the subdivision. Therefore, the requirement to undertake primary weed control in the listed Management Zones prior to issuing of a Construction Certificate for Stage 8 already results in the works being carried out years later than they were required to. It is therefore considered that Condition 17 should be retained as it is worded on the original consent.

 

Condition 19 a) and b)

The current condition reads:

19.

Engineering Construction Plans

Three (3) copies of engineering construction plans and specifications must accompany the Construction Certificate application demonstrating compliance with Council's standards for the required engineering works.

Each set of drawings must be accompanied by a Certification Report which must be signed by a suitably qualified Civil Engineer or Registered Surveyor. The Certification Report will comprise the certificate and check lists set out in Annexure DQS-A of the Northern Rivers Local Government Development & Design Manuals.

The information shown on the drawings must be logically collected on discrete sheets generally in accordance with Annexure DQS-B and the Sample Drawings of the Northern Rivers Local Government Development & Designs. The drawings are to provide for the following works:

a)      Clays Road and Coral Avenue upgrade

Clays Road and Coral Avenue must be upgraded from the intersection with Plover Parkway up the existing seal in Coral Avenue. The upgrade shall also include the Plover Parkway/Clays Road intersection and Clays Road/Coral Avenue intersection and associated drainage. The full section of the Clays Road and Coral Road upgrade must be in accordance with a rural residential standard road in Table T1.27 of Chapter D1.0 of Northern Rivers Local Government Guidelines and Construction Manual.

The finish surface level of the road must be at or minimally above the existing natural ground surface level.

b)      Battle-axe handle width/frontage of Lot 239

A minimum 6.0m wide frontage width to extend for the full length of the battle-axe handle shall be provided in accordance with prescriptive measures 4 and 6 of section D6.4.1 of Council’s DCP.

Provision must be made to provide for services and landscaping in accordance with prescriptive measures 4 and 5 of section D6.4.1 of Council’s DCP.

 

 

Consideration of proposed amendment:

The application provided the following basis for the amendments to this condition:

·     19 a) – “…roadworks on roads owned by Council are to be constructed by Council under an amended Contributions Plan … with the Applicant to pay its pro-rata share of the costs of these works to Council.”

·     19 b) – “The lot with the battle-axe handle is Lot 238. Lot 239 does not have a battle-axe handle.”

The requirement in condition 19 a) stems from the assessment of the original development by Council’s Development Engineer and as such Council’s Development Engineer has advised the condition should remain as drafted.

Council’s Development Contributions Planning Officer has reviewed the proposed change to this condition and in summary states that it is reasonable to reduce the roadworks contributions by the value of the works required by condition 19 a). This is discussed further under condition 65.

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the requested change to condition 19 b) to reflect the correct Lot number. It is recommended that this condition be amended accordingly.

Condition 65

The current condition reads:

65.

Developer Contributions to be paid

Contributions set out in the schedule below are to be paid to Council prior to the release of a subdivision certificate.  Contributions are levied in accordance with the Byron Shire Developer Contributions Plan 2012 (as amended).  The Plan may be viewed on line or during office hours at the Council Offices located at Station Street, Mullumbimby.  These contributions are to fund public amenities and services as listed in the schedule.  Additional details on the specific amenities are to be found in the Byron Shire Developer Contributions Plan 2012 (as amended). 

 

The local open space and shire wide open may be reduced by the value embellishment works undertaken on the sports fields for DA 10.2015.686.1 and on lot 130 for DA 10.2017.402.3. Council will offset up to the full value of these contributions based on the contract price for the works or a statement from a quantity surveyor. 

 

The contributions as set out in the schedule may either be paid in full or they may be paid in stages on a proportional basis dependent on the number of lots to be released in the subdivision certificate.

 

The contributions in the schedule are current at the date of this consent.  The contributions payable will be adjusted in accordance with the relevant plan and the amount payable will be calculated on the basis of the contribution rates that are applicable at the time of payment.  The schedule contains a date for which the schedule remains valid, after this date you will have to contact Council for an updated schedule.

 

Consideration of proposed amendment:

The application provided the following basis for the amendments to this condition:

Contributions … have been paid by way of works in kind.

Council’s Development Contributions Planning Officer has reviewed the proposed change to this condition and states:

Item 4 (a) and 4 (b) agreed the contribution for open space should be reduced to zero as the developer still has credit for past land dedications and works in kind.  The developer has provided up to date quantity surveyors reports for the additional works that had not previously been available to Council.

Item 4 (c) partly approved in a different form. The value of the footpath on lot 93 is incorporated into the value of the open space works in kind for future credit.  This is because the bikeways plan does not identify this work and it is not part of the contributions plan.  It is more appropriate to offset this value against the open space components.

Council’s Development Contributions Planning Officer also supports the roadworks contributions being amended to reflect the value of the works in Clays Road and Coral Avenue.

It is recommended that condition 65 and the associated schedule be amended accordingly.

NSW Rural Fire Service Referral

It is noted the proposal was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service who have re-issued their General Terms of Approval under Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 as originally issued. No changes have been made to any of their conditions of approval other than the date has been changed to 3 May 2021.   

Section 4.55 of the EPA Act 1979

The development is substantially the same as approved and satisfies the provisions under Section 4.55 of the EPA Act 1979. Having regard for the matters for consideration detailed in Section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, the proposed modification does not raise any issues under relevant environmental planning instruments, the regulations, Council’s local environment plan and development control plan that have not been previously considered.  The proposed amendments do not affect the site suitability and are unlikely to prejudice or compromise the public interest.

3.      CONCLUSION

The proposed amendment of the conditions relating to weed control (condition 17) and the proposed deletion or deferment of the upgrade of Clays Road and Coral Avenue (condition 19 a) are not supported.  The proposed amendment of the conditions relating to lot frontage (condition 19 b), and development contributions (Condition 65) are supported as discussed in the body of this report. The application is recommended for approval subject to amended conditions of consent. 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                          13.6

Report No. 13.6     PLANNING - Development Application 10.2019.466.1 Community Title Subdivision Seventeen (17) Lots at 41 Bottlebrush Crescent Suffolk Park

Directorate:                         Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:                   Ivan Holland, Planner

Noreen Scott, EA Sustainable Environment and Economy

File No:                                 I2021/1029

Proposal:

DA No:

10.2019.466.1

Proposal description:

Community Title Subdivision Seventeen (17) Lots

Property description:

LOT: 282 DP: 1018663

41 Bottlebrush Crescent SUFFOLK PARK

Parcel No/s:

234200

Applicant:

Tain Investments Pty Ltd

Owner:

Tain Investments Pty Ltd

Zoning:

R2 Low Density Residential / PART DM Deferred Matter involving 2(a) Residential Zone, 7(d) Scenic/Escarpment Zone, & 7(k) Habitat Zone

Date received:

10 September 2019

Integrated / Designated Development:

    Integrated

    Designated

    Not applicable

Concurrence required

Yes – DPIE

Public notification or exhibition:

-    Level 2 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications

-    Exhibition period: 3/10/19 to 16/10/19

-    Submissions received: four (4) in opposition

Variation request

    Clause 4.6

    SEPP 1

    Not applicable

Issues:

·      Inconsistency with previous consents for subdivision of the property – requirement for these consents to be surrendered.

·      SEPP No.1 Objection submitted for non-compliance with minimum Lot sizes specified within Clause 11 of Byron LEP 1988 (Variation >10%).

·      Submissions in opposition.

Summary:

 

The application seeks development consent for subdivision of 41 Bottlebrush Crescent, Suffolk Park (Lot 282 DP 1018663) into seventeen (17) community title lots comprising sixteen (16) neighbourhood lots (Lots 2- 17) and one (1) neighbourhood property lot (Lot 1).  The sixteen (16) neighbourhood lots are proposed within the eastern portion of the site directly adjacent to the Bottlebrush Crescent.

The subject site is identified as containing bushfire prone land and the NSW Rural Fire Service has issued a Bush Fire Safety Authority pursuant to Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 for the proposed development.

Some of the lots contain land within zone 7(d) and/or 7(k) and are less than the minimum required lot size of 40ha.  A SEPP No.1 objection to the minimum lot size development standard (clause 11) was submitted with the application, DPIE issued concurrence and it is considered that strict compliance with the development standard is not warranted for the reasons set out in this report.  The requested variation to the minimum lot size development standard is significantly greater than 10%.

The application is otherwise able to satisfy relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, Council’s plans

The application was publicly notified, and four (4) submissions were received. The matters raised in the submissions have been addressed in the body of this report.

The application appropriately addresses the relevant constraints applying to the site and is recommended for approval subject to the conditions listed in the Recommendation of this Report below.

Summary:

The application seeks development consent for subdivision of 41 Bottlebrush Crescent, Suffolk Park (Lot 282 DP 1018663) into seventeen (17) community title lots comprising sixteen (16) neighbourhood lots (Lots 2- 17) and one (1) neighbourhood property lot (Lot 1).  The sixteen (16) neighbourhood lots are proposed within the eastern portion of the site directly adjacent to the Bottlebrush Crescent.

The subject site is identified as containing bushfire prone land and the NSW Rural Fire Service has issued a Bush Fire Safety Authority pursuant to Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 for the proposed development.

Some of the lots contain land within zone 7(d) and/or 7(k) and are less than the minimum required lot size of 40ha.  A SEPP No.1 objection to the minimum lot size development standard (clause 11) was submitted with the application, DPIE issued concurrence and it is considered that strict compliance with the development standard is not warranted for the reasons set out in this report.  The requested variation to the minimum lot size development standard is significantly greater than 10% and for this reason the application has been referred to Council for determination.

The application is otherwise able to satisfy relevant State Environmental Planning Policies, Council’s plans

The application was publicly notified, and four (4) submissions were received, all in opposition to the development. The matters raised in the submissions have been addressed in the body of this report.

The application appropriately addresses the relevant constraints applying to the site and is recommended for approval subject to the conditions listed in the Recommendation of this Report below.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

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

 

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That pursuant to Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Development Application No. 10.2019.466.1 for Community Title Subdivision Seventeen (17) Lots, be granted consent subject to the conditions of approval at the end of this report

Attachments:

 

1        Subdivision layout plan - DA 10.2019.466.1, E2021/85153  

2        Stormwater Management Plan - DA 10.2019.466.1, E2021/85157  

3        DPIE concurrence - DA 10.2019.466.1, E2021/85161  

4        Consolidated submissions - DA 10.2019.466.1, E2021/85198  

5        Recommended conditions for DA 10.2019.466.1, E2021/85149  

 


 

Assessment:

1.         INTRODUCTION

1.1.     History/Background

Background

Council’s records indicate the following development approval history for this property:

Details of relevant past development applications are as follows:

10.2005.730.1

·        Consent orders issued by the NSW Land & Environment Court on 7 May 2010 approved consent for the “subdivision of land into nine (9) community title allotments (comprising eight residential lots and one (1) Community Lot) and one (1) Torrens title allotment on the land known as Lot 282 DP 1018663, Bottlebrush Crescent, Suffolk Park subject to conditions.

·        The proposed residential lot layout approved by this consent conflicts with the layout proposed by the current development application.

·        The conditions of this consent include, among other things, requirements for significant drainage and earthworks to be completed by the applicant including the following works:

o Construction of the new box culverts across Broken Head Road in the vicinity of Beech Drive/Clifford Street and remediation/upgrade works to the drainage system downstream of Broken Head Road.

o Removal of the existing Coogera Circuit Basin within the site and replace with the construction of open drainage channels/watercourses across the site, which link up with the existing upstream watercourse, and flows to and then beneath Bottlebrush Crescent into the existing Beech Drive Detention Basin.

o Installation and construction of new box culverts under Bottlebrush Crescent.

o The modification and re-profiling of the Beech Drive detention basin (down Stream of Bottlebrush Crescent) to provide additional flood storage and improved outlet capacity.

o The installation and construction of new culverts across Beech Drive downstream of the detention basin.

10.2011.193.1

·        Consent for “Subdivision (Community Title) to create five (5) neighbourhood lots and one (1) neighbourhood property” on Lot 282 DP 1018663, Bottlebrush Crescent, Suffolk Park was granted on 27 May 2013.

·        The proposed residential lot layout approved by this consent conflicts with the layout proposed by the current development application and by consent 10.2005.730.1.

·        Condition 5 of this consent includes the requirement to amendment consent 10.2005.730.1, prior to the issue of a construction certificate, as follows:

with Lots 10-14 to be an extension of the approved 9 Lot Community Title Subdivision. The plan shall also reconfigure Lots 1 & 2 to allow for the drainage swale required by the preliminary stormwater design "FLOOD MITIGATION STUDY FOR BYRON HILLS AND THE BOTTLEBRUSH CRESCENT DEVELOPMENT" dated February 2012 prepared by "WRM - Water & Environment Pty Ltd" for DA 10.2011.193.1.”

Evidence of the commencement of these two consents (10.2005.730.1 and 10.2011.193.1) was provided to Council on 13/11/2018 (E2018/107841) and it appears that in response Council confirmed commencement only of consent 10.2005.730.1 (A2018/37026).  These consents conflict with the current proposal and will need to be surrendered: a condition has been recommended to require this.

An aboriginal cultural heritage assessment (J Collins, August 2003) for the site was provided by the applicant. Recommendations from this assessment have been included in the conditions.

Processing history

Council requested further information regarding the ecological impacts and assessment and the aboriginal cultural heritage assessment on 7 July 2020 (E2020/76385). An amended biodiversity development assessment report (BDAR) was provided to Council on 8 September 2020 (E2020/17530).  Council provided review comments on the revised BDAR on 9 October 2020 (E2020/81408). The most recent BDAR provided to Council is Revision E dated 22/10/2020 (E2020/89260).

An updated land contamination assessment was provided on 28 May 2020 (E2020/39803) and an updated stormwater management plan on 26 June 2020 (E2020/76387).

Amended subdivision layout plans were provided on 27 November 2020 (E2021/59705).

1.2.          Description of the proposed development

This application seeks approval for subdivision of Lot 282 DP 1018663 into sixteen (16) neighbourhood lots (Lots 2- 17) and one (1) neighbourhood property lot (Lot 1) (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 – Proposed subdivision layout.

The 16 neighbourhood lots are proposed to be located within the eastern portion of the property adjacent to Bottlebrush Crescent.  Proposed lot areas are as follows:

The proposal also includes construction of an access road from Bottlebrush Drive between 4 and 8m in width and services for the neighbourhood lots and associated earthworks.  Construction of the subdivision will require removal of trees and vegetation.

1.3.          Description of the site

Land is legally described as

LOT: 282 DP: 1018663

Property address is

41 Bottlebrush Crescent SUFFOLK PARK

Land is zoned:

R2 Low Density Residential / PART DM Deferred Matter involving 2(a) Residential Zone, 7(d) Scenic/Escarpment Zone, & 7(k) Habitat Zone (see Figure 2)

Land area is:

6.9 ha

Property is constrained by:

 

·    Bushfire prone land

·    Flood Liable Land

·    High Environmental Value vegetation (subtropical rainforest, coastal swamp forest)

·    Biodiversity values

·    Contaminated land parcel

·    Flying fox known camp

Is a BDAR required due to the location of the proposed development?

Yes  No

Are there any easements in favour of Council affecting the site?

Yes  No

Is there a Vegetation Management Plan which might affect the proposal?

Yes  No

Is there a Voluntary Planning Agreement which might affect the proposal?

Yes  No

Figure 2 – Aerial photo with subject property identified as yellow polygon.

 

Photo 1 – view west from eastern end of Bottlebrush Crescent frontage of property

Photo 2 – view south over property from just south of Tea Tree Court cul-de-sac

 

“The site is heavily vegetated and includes littoral and subtropical rainforest as well as relatively smaller patches of coastal swamp forest.” (Refer Doc # A2019/30153).

The following site description is taken from the assessment report for DA 10.2005.730.1 (DM568415):

The lot has an area of 6.905 hectares, is irregular in shape and fronts Bottlebrush Crescent, Suffolk Park. The lot extends westwards over a distance of approximately 492 metres from its frontage to Bottlebrush Crescent at a contour of 12 m to a contour of 86m at the top of the escarpment. The eastern part is relatively undulating with the grade increasing to the west.

A water course flows west to east from the lower slopes of the escarpment through the centre of the site and at the eastern end flows into a large unapproved detention basin.

The eastern end the site is primarily grasslands with closed fernland along the water course. Paperbark forest is located along the southern boundary in the eastern part of the site with a pocket of same in central northern part. The higher western slope contains rainforest and an endangered ecological community.

The property does is currently undeveloped in relation to roads and buildings.

2.         SUMMARY OF REFERRALS

Referral

Issue

Environmental Health Officer

No objections subject to conditions.

Development Engineer

No objections subject to conditions.

Ecologist

No objections subject to conditions.

Rural Fire Service (100B/4.14/4.14)

An updated Bushfire Safety Authority/general terms of approval were issued on 5/5/2021. Refer to Doc #E2021/64152

Jali Local Aboriginal Land Council

No response received.

Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corp (Arakwal)

No response received.

Department of Planning, Industry & Environment

The request for concurrence regarding variation to development standards proposed in relation to minimum lot sizes was granted on 10 June 2021.

Office of Environment & Heritage – Heritage

In relation to aboriginal cultural heritage, DPIE made the following recommendation in response to Council’s referral for advice:

The applicant provided an “Aboriginal Heritage Assessment” (Jacqueline Collins, August 2003).  A condition requiring adherence to management recommendations in this report has been recommended.

3.         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’. The site is bush fire prone land. The development application is for integrated development and was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service under sections 4.46 and 4.47 of the Act.  The NSW Rural Fire Service provided a bush fire safety authority and general terms of approval for the revised development on 5/5/2021

4.         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.

4.1       State Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards

Consideration: Although now repealed, this policy still applies to this application due to the date of lodgement and the savings provision (clause 7) of SEPP (Concurrences and Consents) 2018.

The applicant provided a written objection (clause 6) to the development standard within the SEE (pages 10 – 14) which is considered in detail below.  Consent may be granted where the consent authority is satisfied that the objection is well founded, is consistent with the aims of this Policy and concurrence has been issued (clause 7).  See: Summary of referrals above and consideration of objection below.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land

Consideration: In relation to site contamination, Council’s Environmental Officer noted that:

SEPP55 was considered for previous development applications.  The proposed subdivision configuration lies within previous investigation areas (refer to Subdivision Layout Option 2 with APZ; Drawing No. 0720-TD2 prepared by Tricend P/L dated 27.05.2020).  No further site soil investigations are considered to be warranted. 

During routine site inspections council officers observed an old car body dumped on site.  It is recommended that a ‘car body removal and disposal plan’ be prepared and submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of Construction Certificate. 

Given the possible dumping of other wastes on site it is recommended that an Unexpected Findings Protocol (UFP) be prepared and submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of Construction Certificate.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Koala Habitat Protection) 2020

Consideration: Council’s Ecologist has reviewed the proposal and subject property and although over 1ha in area considers that the subject land is not “potential koala habitat” and as such Council is not prevented, because of this Policy, from granting consent to the development application.

4.2A Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP 2014)

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

(a)     The proposed development is defined in clause 6.2 of the EP&A Act as “subdivision of land”;

(b)     The land is within the R2 Low Density Residential zone / PART DM Deferred Matter (see LEP 1988 assessment below) according to the Land Zoning Map;

(c)     The proposed development is permissible with consent (clause 2.6); and

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

R2 Low Density Residential

Zone Objective

Consideration

To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

The proposal will provide 16 new residential lots adjoining the Suffolk Park residential area.  The lots have the potential to provide for the housing needs of the community.

To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size

The minimum lot size for the R2 zoned section of the property is 600m2.  Only part of Lot 1 (5.71ha), part of Lot 2 (632m2) and part of Lot 4 (1054m2) are within the R2 zoned section.  Each of these lots is greater than the relevant minimum lot size.  In any event, minimum lot sizes do not apply to community title subdivisions.

6.2 Earthworks

The SEE states that all earthworks will be limited to a depth of less than 1m (pg38).  No further information on earthworks (i.e., a cut and fill plan) or management of runoff during construction (i.e., and erosion and sediment control plan) was provided with the application but for some generic specifications (see drawing 0619-T10, T11 and T12).  Council’s Development Engineer is satisfied that the proposed earthworks and construction-phase stormwater can be adequately managed through conditions of consent.

6.3 Flood planning

Council’s Development Engineer is satisfied that the proposed development will meet flood planning requirements, subject to recommended conditions.

6.6 Essential Services

Council’s Development Engineer is satisfied essential services are available, or can be made available when required, for the subdivision, subject to recommended conditions.

6.7 Affordable housing in residential and business zones

The application does not propose affordable housing and this clause wasn’t considered in the SEE.

The remaining underlined clauses have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act. The proposed development complies with all clauses of LEP 2014 (in some cases subject to conditions and/or to the satisfaction of other assessing officers).

4.2B Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988 (LEP 1988)

Note regarding proposed lot zones:

·        Lot 1 (Community lot) - part 2(a), 7(d), 7(k) and R2 LEP 2014

·        Lot 2 - 2(a) and R2 LEP 2014

·        Lots 3, 5 to 11 and 17 - 2(a)

·        Lot 4 - 2(a) and R2 LEP 2014

·        Lot 12 –2(a) and 7(d)

·        Lot 13 – 2(a) and 7(d)

·        Lot 14 – 2(a) and 7(d)

·        Lot 15 – 2(a) and 7(d)

·        Lot 16 – 2(a) and 7(d)

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

10| 11| 14| 30| 31| 38A| 45| 64A

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

(a)     The proposed development is defined in the in clause 6.2 of the EP&A Act as “subdivision of land”;

(b)     The land is within the 2(a) Residential, 7(d) Scenic/Escarpment and 7(k) Habitat Zones according to the land zones under LEP1988;

(c)     The proposed development is permissible with consent (clause 10); and

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

2(a) Residential Zone

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 proposed lots within the 2(a) zone are not inconsistent with the objectives of the zone.

As detailed in the body of this report the proposed subdivision is generally able to satisfy the requirements of Council’s DCP 2010 for residential subdivision within the 2(a) Zone.

to encourage a range of housing types in appropriate locations,

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, and

to control by means of a development control plan the location, form, character and density of permissible development.

7(d) Scenic/Escarpment Zone

Zone Objective

Consideration

to protect and enhance the scenic qualities of the Shire of Byron which enhance the visual amenity by controlling the choice and colour of building materials, position and bulk of buildings, access roads and landscaping,

Lots 1 and Lots 12-16 are partially within zone 7(d).

These lots have adequate space for a residential dwelling outside of the 7(d) zoned land. 

The majority of the 7(d) zoned land will be contained within the community lot and will be subject to environmental management commitments.

to prohibit development within the zone that is likely to have a visually disruptive effect on the scenic quality and visual amenity of the Shire,

to enable development for certain purposes where such development would not have a detrimental effect on the scenic quality and visual amenity of the Shire,

to minimise soil erosion from escarpment areas and prevent development in geologically hazardous zones, and

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

7(k) Habitat Zone

Zone Objective

Consideration

to identify and protect significant vegetation and wildlife habitats for conservation purposes,

The entire area of zone 7(k) land will be within the community lot and will be subject to environmental management commitments as detailed in the recommended conditions. Consequently, the proposal is not considered to compromise the objectives of the 7(k) zone.

to prohibit development within the zone that is likely to have a detrimental effect on the wildlife habitats which exist,

to enable the carrying out of development which would not have a significant detrimental effect on the wildlife habitats, and

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

11 Subdivision in rural areas for agriculture etc

The relevant minimum lot sizes for the subdivision of land are as follows:

·        Environmental Protection 7 (d) Scenic/Escarpment Zone – 40ha

·        Environmental Protection 7 (k) Habitat Zone – 40ha

There is no minimum lot size specified for zone 2 (a) land.  Several of the proposed neighbourhood lots are partially within zone 7(d) and are also below the minimum lot size (Lots 1 and Lots 12-16). Lot 1 is also partially within zone 7(k) and is also below the minimum lot size for this zone.  The applicant seeks a variation to the development standard for the minimum allotment size for subdivision within 7(d) Scenic Escarpment Zone and 7(k) Habitat Zone and provided a written objection with the development application asserting that compliance with the minimum 40 hectare lot size standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance (see consideration below).

14 Residential area and rural villages

The subject property is at least partially within the land in West Suffolk Park as shown on the map marked “Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988 (Amendment No 2)” as identified in sub-clause (3).  Council’s Development Engineer is satisfied adequate drainage works have been constructed for the subdivision to be approved.  The subject property does not appear to be within the hatched area on the “Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988 (Amendment No 19)” map (sub-clause (6)).

30 Development within Zone No 7(d) (Scenic)

This clause applies only to buildings on land and not to subdivisions.

31 Development on ridgetops

All proposed neighbourhood lots are well below the ridgeline.

38A Development of land shown cross-hatched within Zones 1(a), 1(b1), 1(d) and 7(k) adjacent to Environmental Protection Zones 7(a), 7(b), 7(k) and 7(j)

The subject land is not within a cross-hatched area of zone 7(k).

45 Provisions of services

As noted above, Council’s Development Engineer is satisfied essential services are available, or can be made available when required, for the subdivision, subject to recommended conditions.

Clause 64A Exceptions to development standards

This clause has not been added to LEP 1988 at the time the application was lodged and as such State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards (SEPP1) continues to apply to this application (see above).

The remaining checked clauses have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act. The proposed development complies with all of these clauses (in some cases subject to conditions and/or to the satisfaction of other assessing officers), except in relation to which  considered further as follows:

What clause does the development not comply with and what is the nature of the non-compliance?

Further consideration, including whether the development application is recommended for approval or refusal accordingly

11 Subdivision in rural areas for agriculture etc

As noted above, several of the proposed neighbourhood lots are partially within zone 7(d) and are also below the minimum lot size (Lots 1 and Lots 12-16). Lot 1 is also partially within zone 7(k) and is also below the minimum lot size for this zone.

See consideration below

 

SEPP1 Objection to Clause 11 of LEP 1988 – Minimum lot sizes

The applicant seeks a variation to the development standard for the minimum allotment size for subdivision within 7(d) Scenic Escarpment Zone and 7(k) Habitat Zone. Clause 11 of LEP 1988 provides that Council shall not consent to the subdivision of land within this zone unless both allotments achieve the size of 40 hectares.

 

A written objection was submitted with the development application (pages 10 -14 of the SEE) asserting that compliance with the minimum 40 hectare lot size standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance as:

·    the areas of land zoned 7(d) and 7(k) within the property are currently “well below” the minimum lot size; and

·    the proposed subdivision includes commitment to “significant environmental repair and management” (pg. 11 of SEE).

 

Clause 3 of SEPP1 specifies the following aims and objectives:

“This Policy provides flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act.”

Section 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 provides that the objects of the

Act relevant to SEPP1 are:

“(a)   to encourage:

(i)      the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, 35 towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,

(ii)     the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land,”

Clause 7 of SEPP1 specifies that consent may be granted:

Where the consent authority is satisfied that the objection is well founded and is also of the opinion that granting of consent to that development application is consistent with the aims of this Policy as set out in clause 3, it may, with the concurrence of the Director, grant consent to that development application notwithstanding the development standard the subject of the objection referred to in clause 6.

The submitted SEPP1 Objection is considered to be well founded and compliance with the 40 hectare minimum lot size in this instance is considered unreasonable and unnecessary in view of the following:

·    The existing Lot 282 has an area of approximately 7ha and is already significantly less than the minimum Lot size of 40ha for the 7(d) and 7(k) zones (see Note);

·    The proposal does not fragment the land within the 7(d) and 7(k) zones with the majority of that land to be within a single Neighbourhood Lot which, in combination with the biodiversity conservation management plan for this area, should allow for improved environmental protection and management of these areas; and

·    The proposed subdivision is otherwise consistent with the relevant provisions, aims and objectives of LEP 1988; and

·    There are no objectives provided with the minimum lot size requirement (clause 11).

Note: The requested variation to the minimum lot size development standard is significantly greater than 10%.

Compliance with the development standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case and the SEPP No.1 objection is therefore supported.

In correspondence dated 10 June 2021 NSW Department of Planning, Industry & Environment granted concurrence and advised, in part:

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

No proposed instruments were identified that are applicable to this application.

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

B1: Biodiversity

The subject property has a number of identified environmental attributes including biodiversity values mapping and a BDAR was provided with the application (the BDAR underwent a number of revisions prior to the final version).  Council’s Ecologist is satisfied with the proposed biodiversity impact management, subject to recommended conditions.

B3: Services and B4: Traffic Planning, Vehicle Parking, Circulation and Access

Council’s Development Engineer is satisfied with the proposed servicing and vehicular management for the subdivision, subject to recommended conditions.  Water and wastewater from the subdivision can be connected to Council’s reticulated systems.

B5: Providing for Cycling

Provision of cycling was not considered in the SEE and no cycling infrastructure appears to have been identified on the subdivision plans. There is currently no cycleway on Bottlebrush Crescent and traffic numbers on the subdivision road will be minimal allowing the road to be shared with cyclist relatively safely. Contributions to apply in relation to cycleways.

B9: Landscaping

A landscape plan was not provided with the application and as such a condition has been recommended requiring provision of a landscape plan prior to the issue of a subdivision works certificate.

B14: Excavation and fill

The SEE states that all earthworks will be less than 1m in depth.  Road long and cross-sections were provided but no other detail on earthworks was included in the application (i.e., a cut and fill plan) and conditions have been recommended accordingly. Concept erosion and sediment controls were submitted, and Council’s Development Engineer has recommended conditions requiring a detailed management plan for construction phase stormwater.

C2: Areas Affected by Flood

As noted above, Council’s Development Engineer is satisfied that the proposed development will meet flood planning requirements, subject to recommended conditions.

D6: Subdivision

None of the development lots are within land zoned under LEP 2014.  The proposed subdivision layout is generally consistent with the design guidelines (D6.2.1) with some exceptions including:

·    The absence of a site context analysis plan;

·    Some lots with less desirable aspect (i.e., NW-SE or NE-SW axis); and

·    Requirement to remove native vegetation.

E1: Suffolk Park

Only the easternmost portion of the property is within the “Suffolk Park Urban Area”.  There are no provisions in this chapter that apply specifically to this development.

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

Where relevant the following chapters and parts of DCP 2010 apply, with comments provided below.

Chapter 1 Parts:

A| B| F| G| H| N

Chapters:

9| 17

The proposed subdivision is generally consistent with the relevant design guidelines (B2) and development guidelines (B3) noting comments made under DCP 2014 above.

But for lot 13 (556m2), all proposed lots are at least 600m2 in area (B5.1).  Proposed allotments layouts are generally consistent with prescriptive measures (B5.2) noting that:

·    Some lots with less desirable aspect (i.e., NW-SE or NE-SW axis);

·    Some lots have double street frontages (i.e., front and rear); and

·    Requirement to remove native vegetation.

The subdivision layout plans show indicative building envelopes of varying sizes and shapes that do not have annotated dimensions.  A condition has been recommended requiring confirmation of the required building envelopes. But for the absence of a landscaping plan, the subdivision is consistent with allotment design requirements (B5.3).

Council’s Development Engineer has assessed (a) the proposed road design and construction, (b) vehicle circulation and parking of the subdivision and (c) stormwater management and considers it to be satisfactory subject to recommended conditions (B6, G, N).

Council’s Development Engineer and Environmental Officer have assessed the proposed servicing of the subdivision and consider it to be satisfactory subject to recommended conditions (B7).

As noted above, a landscape plan was not provided with the application and a condition has been recommended requiring provision of a landscape plan prior to the issue of a subdivision works certificate (H).

Chapter 9 - Suffolk Park

Development Control Provision

Development Control Requirement

Comment

3.0 – Density

A minimum 25% of small lots shall be dispersed through new release areas.

The proposed subdivision does not include small lots but is not located in a “new release area”.

The subject site is not within a designated cluster area.

4.1 – Micro-climate control

To conserve the vegetated areas not protected by a habitat zone in Suffolk Park as indicated on the DCP map (Habitat-Vegetation-Open Space Systems).

To create vegetation buffers to the habitat area as indicated on the DCP map (Habitat-Vegetation-Open Space Systems).

The areas on the site containing vegetation within the 7(k) Zone are located within the common property allotment with a buffer provided to the access road.

4.2 – Aspect

Refer to Part C of DCP 2010.

Part C applies to residential development rather than subdivisions however, the proposed allotments are of sufficient size to allow dwellings to achieve reasonable solar access.

4.3 – Drainage

The location of drainage easements and retardation basins must be in accordance with those shown on the DCP map or as agreed by the Council’s Works and Services Director.  The design and construction of the drainage facilities must perform to the specific standards for the Council’s Works and Services Division as detailed in Specification for Engineering Works.

Detailed site drainage plans have been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer and the latest plans are considered to be acceptable subject to recommended conditions.

 

Drainage easements must be 30m wide unless otherwise agreed by the Council’s Works and Services Director.  Where wider this area will be calculated as being part of the developers open space contributions.

Conditions where necessary have been included in the recommendation to require appropriate easements to be created in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Development Engineer.

 

4.4 – Tree Preservation

Subdivision and housing development will not disturb any habitat zoned lands, littoral rainforest areas of SEPP No. 14 wetlands without the consent of the Council

The proposed subdivision does not seek to disturb land or vegetation within the 7(k) habitat zone.

 

Pipelines to carry water, sewerage or gas should avoid treed areas and the habitat protection zones wherever possible.  Constructing, operations and maintaining water, sewerage or gas pipelines within such zones and within treed areas should only be carried out with the consent of Council.

The subject site requires substantial site drainage works where possible these have been located to minimise impacts on existing vegetation to the satisfaction of Council’s Ecologist.

 

The construction of roads through treed areas or through habitat protection zones should only be carried out with the consent of Council and wherever possible should be avoided.

The application seeks consent new internal road located within the 2(a) zone.

 

The constructions of lines for electricity or telecommunication purposes should wherever possible avoid vegetated areas and the habitat zones and nay construction should only be carried out with the consent of Council.

Noted.

 

The Council will also require that any subdivision or housing developments located adjacent to the habitat zones will provide for appropriate buffer areas.

The subdivision plans show a 5m buffer to the 7(k) habitat zone land.

4.5 – Landscaping

A landscape architect should prepare a landscape plan for any subdivision or commercial development, non-residential or medium density or cluster housing development in Suffolk Park prior to release of the linen plan.

Provision of a landscape plan has been required by a recommended condition of consent.

4.6 – Ridgelines

No houses or other buildings to be constructed on ridgelines.

None of the proposed allotments are on or near the escarpment ridgeline.

4.7 – Site Grading

Subdivision and housing development plans should show areas of concentrated drainage and indicate what provisions have been made for protection against erosion and excessive runoff. The size of any pipes, retardation basins and the like should be clearly stated.

Grades should not be designed which direct a concentrated flow of surface drainage over existing or proposed slopes.

All earth slopes with grades of 1 in 3 or steeper should be planted with appropriate vegetation cover to minimise erosion.

No development should occur adjacent to the western escarpment of Suffolk Park where there may be a potential for rockslides or landslips.

A condition has been recommended that requires provision of a cut and fill plan and an erosion and sediment control plan to manage earthworks and construction phase stormwater.

 

4.8 – Public Open Space

Open space to be provided in the area shown on the DCP map, plus elsewhere as required by Council’s Planning Director, to meet the minimum public open space requirements.

The DCP plan for the west Suffolk Park residential area does not require public open space to be provided within the subject site itself. Developer contributions are applicable.

4.9 – Pedestrian, Bikeways and Vehicle Movement Systems

The pedestrian, bikeways and vehicle movement system within a subdivision should be an integral part of the overall development.  The system should give priority to the safety and convenience of pedestrians and cyclists.

Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the road plans and considers them to be acceptable subject to recommended conditions.

The proposed subdivision is not of such a scale as to require the provision of cycling and pedestrian facilities.

5.1 – Lot Sizes, Shapes, Frontage and Setbacks

General lots must have a minimum area of 600m2 and a minimum frontage of 18 metres.

Fanned shaped lots must have a minimum area of 650m2 and a minimum frontage of 9 metres.

But for lot 13, all lots are at least 600m2.  But for Lot 12, all lots have a street frontage of at least 18m.

Lot 12 is less than the minimum lot size of 900m2 for hatched shaped lots.

Note: “To facilitate the arrangement of lot layouts Council may permit up to 25% of lots to have a minimum frontage at the building line of 15m and a minimum area if 400m2”.

Urban services (6.1 – 6.4) have been considered above.

These checked Chapters/Parts have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act. The proposed development is demonstrated to meet the relevant Objectives of DCP 2010 (in some cases subject to conditions and/or to the satisfaction of other assessing officers).

4.5       Any Planning Agreement or Draft Planning Agreement?

 

Yes

No

Is there any applicable planning agreement or draft planning agreement?

 

4.6       Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 Considerations

Proposal raises no issues under the EPA Regulations 2000.

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

 

Impact on:

Likely significant impact/s?

Natural environment

No. The proposal will not have a significantly adverse impact on the natural environment of the locality.

Built environment

No. The proposal will not have a significantly adverse impact on the built environment of the locality.

Social Environment

No. The proposal will not have a significant social impact on the locality.

Economic impact

No. The proposal will not have a significant economic impact on the locality.

 

4.8       The suitability of the site for the development

The site is capable of being serviced, has manageable constraints and is suitable for the proposed development.

 

4.9       Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

The development application was publicly exhibited. There were four (4) submissions made in objection to the development application.  The following key concerns were raised in the submissions:

Key concerns

Response

Stormwater management – lack of on-site detention - risk of flooding neighbouring properties

 

Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the proposed stormwater and flood risk management and considers it to be satisfactory subject to recommended conditions.

Lack of current vegetation mapping - vegetation removal – no vegetation management plan - impact on biodiversity

 

Council’s Ecologist has assessed the likely impact of the subdivision on vegetation and biodiversity and has recommended conditions to avoid, minimise and manage identified impacts.

Too many, small, irregular-shaped lots - overdevelopment

Proposed development lots generally meet size, shape and alignment criteria.

Bush fire safety risk from single vehicular access

The Rural Fire Service has issued General Terms of Approval for the subdivision.

 

4.10    Public interest

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

 

5.         DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

 

5.1       Water & Sewer Levies

Section 64 levies will be payable.

5.2       Section 7.11 Contributions

Section 7.11 Contributions will be payable.

6.         CONCLUSION

The proposed subdivision is considered to be a reasonable response to the constraints applying to the site. The proposal raises no environmental issues or constraints that can’t be addressed and the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.  


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                          13.7

Report No. 13.7     PLANNING - Development Application 10.2020.574.1 Farmstay Accommodation comprising Six (6) Cabins and a Central Facility at 219 The Saddle Road Brunswick Heads

Directorate:                         Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:                   Chris Larkin, Manager Sustainable Development

File No:                                 I2021/757

Proposal:

DA No:

10.2020.574.1

Proposal description:

Farm Stay Accommodation comprising Six (6) Cabins and a Central Facility

Property description:

LOT: 4 DP: 810118

219 The Saddle Road BRUNSWICK HEADS

Parcel No/s:

137160

Applicant:

Koresoft Pty Ltd

Owner:

Koresoft Pty Ltd

Zoning:

RU2 Rural Landscape 

Date received:

2 December 2020

Integrated / Designated Development:

    Integrated

    Designated

    Not applicable

Concurrence required

No

Public notification or exhibition:

-    Level 2 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications

-    Exhibition period: 16/12/20 – 20/01/21 and from 24/2/21 – 9/3/21

-    Submissions received: Three

-    Submissions acknowledged: Yes     No          N/A

Other approvals

N/R

W & S (68)

OSMS (68)

ST (68)

RA (138)

Other:

 

Variation request

Not applicable

 

Delegation to determine

Council

Summary:

The DA proposes Farm Stay Accommodation comprising Six (6) Cabins and a Central Facility.

The application appropriately addresses the relevant constraints applying to the site, and is generally satisfactory. However, there are concerns regarding the height of the central facility with conditions proposed to reduce the height to five metres and to limit its impact on the visual amenity of the area.

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

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

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That pursuant to Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Development Application No. 10.2020.574.1 for Farm Stay Accommodation comprising Six (6) Cabins and a Central Facility, be granted consent subject to the conditions of approval listed in Attachment 2 #E2021/86480.

Attachments:

 

1        10.2020.574.1 Proposed Plans, E2021/86774  

2        10.2020.574.1 Conditions of consent, E2021/86480  

3        10.2020.574.1 Redacted Submissions of objection, E2021/86572  

 


 

Report

Assessment:

1.         INTRODUCTION

 

1.1.          History/Background

 

Recent approvals on the site include:

 

·     10.2017.742.1 – Alterations and additions to Existing Dwelling and New Dwelling House to create a dual occupancy and two studios – Approved 20/9/2018

·     10.2019.158.1 – Agricultural Produce Industry including use of Wind turbine, ancillary rural Infrastructure and Roadside Stall – Approved 17/10/2019

 

1.2.          Description of the proposed development

 

This application seeks approval for Farm Stay Accommodation comprising Six (6) Cabins and a Central Facility. Each of the accommodation cabins will consist of features including: one bedroom, kitchen, living room, bathroom and toilet, disabled access, verandah and deck area, rainwater collection and solar panels. The cabins will have a drop-off and pick-up area and shared central car parking. The central facility will share the same access entrance from 219 The Saddle Road as the existing dwellings and proposed farm stay cabins. Features of the central facility include: laundry, bathrooms, toilets, communal dining area, storage room, barbecue area, library, office and playground. The proposal also consists of a wastewater management system, associated infrastructure such as a dam for water supply and supplementary biodiversity enhancements.

 

The proposed development is to be built over four stages; however, it is not a staged consent. The farm stay accommodation units will be constructed in stages 1 and 2, and the central facility will be constructed in stages 3 and 4. Relative infrastructure works and biodiversity enhancements will be conducted over all stages.

 

1.3.          Description of the site

 

A site inspection was carried out on 23 December 2020.

 

The site is located at Lot 4 DP 810118, 219 The Saddle Road, Brunswick Heads. The property has a 145-metre frontage to Gulgan Road and a 325-metre frontage to The Saddle Road.

 

Map

Description automatically generated

 

The property is entirely zoned RU2 Rural Landscape under Byron LEP 2014 and has an approximate area of 19.3 hectares.

 

The following environmental factors have been identified as relevant to the site:

 

 

Diagram

Description automatically generated

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The site is partially affected by bushfire hazard including an area close to the site of the proposed cabins. It does not contain any mapped bushfire hazard vegetation.

 

 

Acid sulfate soil class 3 is identified to be affecting a small portion of the site in the south-east corner of the property. A preliminary ASS assessment has been undertaken and no ASS was present to a depth of 4 metres.

 

Map

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

 

Areas of high environmental value affect small portions of the north-west area of the site. No vegetation is proposed to be removed for the development.

 

Diagram, engineering drawing

Description automatically generated

 

Approximately 50% of the site is classified to have ‘regional significant farmland’. The proposal should consider this factor in preserving these areas.

 

Land is legally described

LOT: 4 DP: 810118

Property address

219 The Saddle Road BRUNSWICK HEADS

Land is zoned:

RU2 Rural Landscape 

Land area is:

19.3 hectares

Property is constrained by:

 

 

Bushfire prone land

Is a BDAR required due to the location of the proposed development?

Yes  No

Are there any easements in favour of Council affecting the site?

Yes  No

Is there a Vegetation Management Plan which might affect the proposal?

Yes  No

Is there a Voluntary Planning Agreement which might affect the proposal?

Yes  No

 

2.         SUMMARY OF REFERRALS

 

Referral

Issue

Environmental Health Officer*

No objections subject to conditions.

 

No concerns in relation to acid sulfate soils or land contamination (SEPP 55). There is a possibility that rubbish may have been buried on the subject farmland. It is therefore recommended that the applicant provides an Unexpected Findings Protocol (UFP) to Council for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. A condition has been imposed in this regard.

 

The wastewater generated from the proposed development is to be disposed of on site. On-site Wastewater Management Report No.17224_ww_Farmstay accomm.doc prepared by Greg Alderson & Associates dated (9 September 2020) demonstrates that wastewater generated by the development can be adequately managed. The applicant has not sought an approval to install the system and therefore a condition has been imposed requiring that prior to the issue of a construction certificate for the development, an approval to install the system must be obtained from Council pursuant to section 68 of the Local Government Act (1993).

 

Section 68 approvals 70.2017.1122.1 and 70.2017.1122.2 granted on 17/11/2017 and 19/12/2018 are to be surrendered. This must be in the form of a written memorandum to Council from the owner of the subject property. This must be complied with prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for Building Works. A condition has been imposed to this effect.

 

Development Engineer

No objections subject to conditions.                

Parking – Requirement is 6 parking spaces – 12 are proposed. Parking supply exceeds the minimum requirement and parking design must meet the design requirements of AS2890.1:2004 and AS2890.6:2009. Batter stabilisation/armouring will be required.

 

Internal Driveway and Roads – The submitted supporting engineering plans did not provide a cross section of the proposed internal driveway. The assessment assumes width of the internal driveway to be 4.0 metres in accordance with RFS requirement. Should this be the case, there is not sufficient aisle width to comply with AS2890. This can be conditioned. Proposed turnaround will also be conditioned. Sealing of road sections greater than 10-degree grade and must meet non-perimeter road requirements of Table 5.3b in Planning for Bushfire 2018.

 

Site Access from The Saddle Road – Traffic will enter The Saddle Road via Mullumbimby/The Saddle Road intersection (INGRESS) and advises guests to exit the site in The Saddle Road towards Gulgan Road roundabout (EGRESS). The Mullumbimby/The Saddle Road intersection is deemed to be relatively unsafe with substandard sight distance available. To address safety, the measures by way of designing the access in The Saddle Road to direct all traffic (egress and ingress) towards Gulgan Road roundabout. This will involve in the provision of traffic islands, street lighting, road sealing and a Road Safety Audit (RSA). It is agreed that the existing dwelling can have a separate access to that used by the proposed cabins and that this will be fenced off (with a gate) to avoid cabin occupants using the house access.

 

Earthworks – A site plan shall be provided that shows all areas of cut and fill on the site and specifically identifies any areas over one metre, to meet the prescriptive measures of Chapter B14 of BDCP. Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Stability Report of the development site to meet the prescriptive measures of Chapter B14 of BDCP. The Geotechnical Investigation must be in accordance with AS1726 and AS2870, and the Slope Stability in accordance with Land Risk Assessment (Australia Geomechanics Society) 2007. This will be conditioned.

 

Water & Sewer Engineer (Local Approvals Officer)

No objections subject to conditions.                                        

 

The proposed development does not generate additional loading onto Council’s Water, Bulk Water and/or Sewer systems beyond the existing ET entitlements.

 

A section 307 certificate from Rous is required if tanks are to be filled from the Rous water supply connection to the site.

 

S94 / Contributions Officer

This development does not involve an increase in population. The section 7.11 contribution plan does not apply. The fixed development levy of the section 7.12 plan will apply. A condition of consent will be imposed to require payment of contributions.

 

Ecologist

No objections subject to conditions.                                        

 

The proposal design has been located such that no established native vegetation is required to be removed to construct the cabins or visitor facility. The proposed development site is located in a relatively degraded part of the subject land. The submitted bushfire assessment report provides that no native vegetation removal is needed to establish the required APZs.

 

The proposal does not exceed either of the two triggers that form the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (BOS) threshold (the Biodiversity Values Map and the area clearing threshold).

 

The application was lodged prior to the commencement of the Koala SEPP 2021, and therefore the Koala SEPP 2020 applies. The Koala SEPP 2020 reproduces the provisions of the previous SEPP 44 – Koala Habitat Protection (SEPP 44). An assessment of the twelve E. microcorys trees did not detect any koala scats. There are no records of koalas within the site. As a result, it is considered that the land does not meet the definition of core koala habitat. It is therefore considered that the proposal is subject to clause 9(3)(a), which states that “if the Council is satisfied that the land is not a core koala habitat, it is not prevented, because of this Policy, from granting consent to the development application”.

 

A Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) is required with a rural tourism DA detailing an ecological restoration effort comprising 900 local native tree plantings or equivalent assisted natural regeneration (work units) per tourist facility. For the present proposal, this equates to 5,400 work units (900 x 6 cabins). The application included a draft VMP that described the proposed ecological restoration effort to meet this requirement. The general approach of the VMP is supported; however, the submitted plan lacks detail. A detailed VMP will be recommended as a condition of consent.

Rural Fire Service (100B/4.14/4.14)

The New South Wales Rural Fire Service (NSW RFS) considered the information submitted and issued General Terms of Approval, under Division 4.8 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and a Bush Fire Safety

Authority, under section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997, subject to the following conditions relating to:

Asset Protection Zones; Construction Standards and BAL Levels; Access; Water and Utility Services; Landscaping; Emergency and Evacuation Planning Assessment.

 

These conditions have been included in this approval.

 

Essential Energy

There are unlikely to be potential safety risks if the following conditions are complied with:

1.   Any existing encumbrances in favour of Essential Energy (or its predecessors) noted on the title of the above property should be complied with. Essential Energy’s records indicate that there is an easement located on the boundary of this property in the location of the proposed development. All farm stay accommodation and the proposed central visitors facility must be constructed outside the easement area.

 

2.   Satisfactory arrangements must be made with Essential Energy for the provision of power with respect to the proposed development. It is the applicant’s responsibility to make the appropriate application with Essential Energy for the supply of electricity to the development, which may include the payment of fees and contributions.

 

3.   In addition, Essential Energy’s records indicate there is electricity infrastructure located within the property and within close proximity to the property. Any activities within these locations must be undertaken in accordance with the latest industry guideline currently known as ISSC 20 Guideline for the Management of Activities within Electricity Easements and Close to Infrastructure. Approval may be required from Essential Energy should activities within the property encroach on the electricity infrastructure.

 

4.   Prior to carrying out any works, a “Dial Before You Dig” enquiry should be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Part 5E (Protection of Underground Electricity Power Lines) of the Electricity Supply Act 1995 (NSW).

 

5.   Given there is electricity infrastructure in the area, it is the responsibility of the person/s completing any works around powerlines to understand their safety responsibilities. SafeWork NSW (www.safework.nsw.gov.au) has publications that provide guidance when working close to electricity infrastructure. These include the Code of Practice – Work near Overhead Power Lines and Code of Practice – Work near Underground Assets.

 

 

 

SECTION 4.14 – BUSH FIRE PRONE LAND

 

As outlined above, the site has limited native vegetation that can induce bushfire hazard and risk. Small, isolated pockets of vegetation on the site exist but do not generate major risk of bushfire. A risk occurs as a result of vegetation on a neighbouring property to the south.

 

The farm stay accommodation will incorporate a suitable accessible road, water supply and a bushfire management plan to protect the accommodation and occupants. The conditions imposed by RFS will suffice in managing 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 No 55—Remediation of Land

Consideration: A preliminary contaminated land assessment was undertaken in 2017 for the subject site. A review of the site’s history demonstrated that soil sampling was not required due to the following findings in the assessment:

 

-     There was no evidence that the investigation has ever been subject to cropping or plantations

-     There was no evidence that buildings or structures had ever been constructed in the investigation area

-     There was no evidence that any other contaminating activities had occurred in the investigation area.

 

It is evident that the land has not been subjected to contamination through previous activities and land uses, demonstrating that the SEPP has been addressed.

 

However, there is a possibility that rubbish may have been buried on the subject farmland. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant provide an Unexpected Findings Protocol (UFP) to Council for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. A condition has been imposed.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Consideration: This SEPP is relevant because clause 101 applies to “Development with frontage to a classified road”. The relevant objective is to “ensure that new development does not compromise the effective and ongoing operation and function of classified roads”. Gulgan Road is a classified road; The Saddle Road is not. The applicant addresses this issue in the Traffic Impact Analysis.

 

To ensure the continued operation and function of Gulgan Road, the SEPP requires that Council must not grant consent to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that:

(a)   where practicable and safe, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road,

 

The Saddle Road has low traffic volumes and is a narrow, gravel road with a poor intersection to Mullumbimby Road (and a good roundabout access to Gulgan Road). Direct access to Gulgan Road would normally be a safer option subject to intersection upgrades that are already planned for previously approved development. However, clause 6.8 of Byron LEP 2014 acts as a prohibition to rural tourism development using any classified road for access. Therefore, The Saddle Road is the only option. In this case, the safest thing to do is create a driveway access to The Saddle Road so that any traffic generated by the farm stay accommodation will be specifically guided to The Saddle Road, and that once it exits the property it will turn right onto The Saddle Road towards the roundabout intersection with Gulgan Road, and not left towards Mullumbimby Road. It will be imposed as a condition of consent. This will be compliant with the SEPP. It will not compromise the effective and ongoing operation and function of any classified roads.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Koala Habitat Protection) 2020

Consideration: The application was lodged prior to the commencement of the Koala SEPP 2021, and therefore the Koala SEPP 2020 applies. The Koala SEPP 2020 reproduces the provisions of the previous SEPP 44 – Koala Habitat Protection. An assessment of the 12 Eucalyptus microcorys trees that are present on the site near the old quarry did not detect any koala scats. There are no records of koalas within the site. As a result, it is considered that the land does not meet the definition of core koala habitat. To be defined as ‘core koala habitat’ the following attributes must be evident: breeding females, recent sightings and historical records of population. None of the above criteria was noted for the site.

 

It is therefore considered that the proposal is subject to clause 9(3)(a), which states that “if the Council is satisfied that the land is not a core koala habitat, it is not prevented, because of this Policy, from granting consent to the development application”. A koala plan of management is not required.

 

 

4.2A Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP 2014)

 

LEP 2014 is an applicable matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 4.15(1) of the EP&A Act because it applies to the subject land and the proposed development. The LEP 2014 clauses that are checked below are of relevance to the proposed development:

 

Part 1

1.1| 1.1AA| 1.2| 1.3| 1.4| Dictionary| 1.5| 1.6| 1.7| 1.8| 1.8A| 1.9|

1.9A

Part 2

2.1| 2.2 | 2.3 |Land Use Table | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8

Part 3

3.1| 3.2| 3.3

Part 4

4.1| 4.1A| 4.1AA| 4.1B |4.1C| 4.1D| 4.1E| 4.1F| 4.2| 4.2A| 4.2B| 4.2C| 4.2D|4.3|4.4 |4.5 | 4.6

Part 5

5.1| 5.2| 5.3| 5.4| 5.6| 5.7| 5.8| 5.10| 5.11| 5.12|

5.13 | 5.14 | 5.15 | 5.16 | 5.17 | 5.18 | 5.19

Part 6

6.1| 6.2| 6.3| 6.4| 6.5| 6.6| 6.7| 6.8| 6.9 | 6.10| 6.11|

 

The development application is consistent with certain aims outlined in LEP 2014 (clause 1.2), in particular subclauses:

 

2) (d)  to promote and coordinate the orderly and economic use and development of land,

2) (g)  to encourage development that contributes to a strong, growing and diversified economy,

 

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

 

(a)     The proposed development is defined as follows in the LEP 2014 Dictionary:

 

farm stay accommodation means a building or place that provides temporary or short-term accommodation to paying guests on a working farm as a secondary business to primary production.

 

Comment: The applicant states that the 6 farm stay accommodation cabins and central facility are proposed to be used for the purposes of supplying accommodation to students to supplement their study in relevant agricultural, sustainability, natural resources and conservation courses. It is stated that the intent is to provide short-term accommodation ranging from 2 weeks to 3 months. If not in use by students, the cabins will be available for temporary and short-term visitors and guests. Despite the applicant’s references to “affordable housing”, farm stay accommodation is a form of tourist and visitor accommodation. It is not a form of residential accommodation.

 

(b)     The land is within the RU2 Rural Landscape zone according to the Land Zoning Map. Farm stay accommodation is permitted with consent within the RU2 Rural Landscape zone.

 

 

(c)     Regard to the Zone Objectives:

 

Zone Objective

Consideration

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

The proposal states that the development will primarily accommodate students interested in local agriculture relative to the industry. The proposed works should not interfere with the agricultural land uses on the balance of the land and this will maintain the natural resource base.

To maintain the rural landscape character of the land

The farm stay accommodation and central facility designs do not negatively impact the locality of area. Remnant vegetation is to be maintained and the agricultural uses of the site should not be affected. Landscaping and building materials colour can be used to assist in avoiding landscape impacts.

To provide for a range of compatible land uses, including extensive agriculture

A range of compatible land uses already exist on the site; the farm stay accommodation and its purposes support this objective. Rainbow Farm is an organic operation, which assists in avoiding land use conflict.

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

The proposal is to provide tourist accommodation and facilities that are small scale (1-bedroom cabins) and can be used by those interested in primary production.

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

Visual impacts of the proposal will be kept to a minimum through the location of the buildings below the ridgeline. Building material colour will assist (earth tones). Landscaping will also be applied to break up the building appearance. Removal of vegetation is not required.

 

Clause 4.3 Height of buildings

Complies. The LEP prescribes a 9-metre building height limit for land zoned RU2. The farm stay accommodation facilities have an approximate height of 6.1 metres. The central facility has an approximate height of 7.1 metres.

 

Clause 5.4 Controls relating to miscellaneous permissible uses

Complies. Subclause (5) states:

Farm stay accommodation: If development for the purposes of farm stay accommodation is permitted under this Plan, the accommodation that is provided to guests must consist of no more than 12 bedrooms.

 

The farm stay accommodation and central facility do not exceed the maximum number of bedrooms (12) for clause. The proposal will supply six 1-bedroom cabins. Each cabin has a mezzanine for storage and this is not to be used as an additional bedroom. The central facility will not have a kitchen to ensure that it is not used as an additional cabin or dwelling.

 

Clause 6.1 Acid sulfate soils

Complies. The objective of this clause is: to ensure that development does not disturb, expose or drain acid sulfate soils and cause environmental damage. A small portion of the south-east corner of the site has been classified in the Byron LEP to contain acid sulfate soils class 3. A preliminary assessment undertaken in 2019 for the site revealed that no acid sulfate soils or potential acid sulfate soils were present in the tested locations to a depth of 4 metres. The proposed development is not located in the affected area identified in the LEP 2014. Therefore, no ASS management practice is required during the works to be undertaken.

 

Clause 6.2 Earthworks

Complies subject to conditions being met. The objective of this clause is: to ensure that earthworks for which development consent is required will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land.

Earthworks will be required for all cabins and the central facility plus the internal driveway and parking. A site plan shall be provided that shows all areas of cut and fill on the site and specifically identifies any areas over one metre, to meet the prescriptive measures of Chapter B14 of BDCP. Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Stability Report of the development site to meet the prescriptive measures of Chapter B14 of BDCP. The Geotechnical Investigation must be in accordance with AS1726 & AS2870 and the Slope Stability in accordance with Land Risk Assessment (Australia Geomechanics Society) 2007.

 

Clause 6.6 Essential services

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

(a)    the supply of water,

(b)    the supply of electricity,

(c)    the disposal and management of sewage,

(d)    stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,

(e)    suitable vehicular access.

 

Complies:

a)   Drinking water will be supplied through Rous Water mains connection. An on-site rainwater dam will provide water for non-potable purposes in the cabins and the central facility, plus fire fighting.

b)   Electricity is available to the site; the supply of electricity is supplemented through solar panel sources along with a small wind turbine and a Lithium battery tank.

c)   The applicant’s supporting information demonstrates that wastewater generated by the development can be adequately managed. The applicant has not sought an approval to install the system and therefore a condition has been imposed requiring that prior to the issue of a construction certificate for the development, an approval to install the system must be obtained from Council (pursuant to section 68 of the Local Government Act (1993)). Section 68 approvals 70.2017.1122.1 and 70.2017.1122.2 granted on 17/11/2017 and 19/12/2018 are to be surrendered. This must be in the form of a written memorandum to Council from the owner of the subject property. This must be complied with prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for Building Works.

d)   Roof water from all structures will be collected in tanks for use in the development and excess water directed to the turkeys’ nest dam or the existing stormwater drainage lines that traverse the property. The application for a Construction Certificate is to include plans and specifications for stormwater drainage in accordance with AS/NZS 3500.3:2003, Plumbing and drainage, Part 3: Stormwater drainage. All stormwater drainage for the development must be conveyed by a gravity system to the existing stormwater drainage system within the site.

e)   The Saddle Road has low traffic volumes and is a narrow, gravel road with a poor intersection to Mullumbimby Road (and a good roundabout access to Gulgan Road). Direct access to Gulgan Road would normally be a safer option subject to intersection upgrades that are already planned for previously approved development. However, clause 6.8 of Byron LEP 2014 acts as a prohibition to rural tourism development using any classified road for access. Therefore, The Saddle Road is the only option. In this case, the safest thing to do is create a driveway access to The Saddle Road so that any traffic generated by the farm stay accommodation will be specifically guided to The Saddle Road, and that once it exits the property it will turn right onto The Saddle Road towards the roundabout intersection with Gulgan Road, and not left towards Mullumbimby Road.

 

6.8 Rural and nature-based tourism development

The objective of this clause is to ensure that tourism development in rural and natural areas is small scale and does not adversely impact on the agricultural production, scenic or environmental values of the land. The clause is applicable to the zoning of the site, RU2 Rural Landscape. The development proposed is a form of rural tourism.

 

Complies. The proposed development is consistent with the requirements of the clause as follows:

 

(a)    there is, or will be, adequate vehicular access to and from a road, other than a classified road, taking into account the scale of the development proposed

The development will get access from The Saddle Road.

 

(b)    the development is small scale and low impact

The development is small enough to be generally managed and operated by the principal owner living on the property.

 

(c)    the development is complementary to the rural or environmental attributes of the land and its surrounds

The development will complement the farming capability of the site by providing short-term accommodation for farm workers and visitors. It is substantially located south of the regional farmland that is located on the subject land.

 

(d)    the development will not have a significant adverse impact on agricultural production, amenity or significant features of the natural environment.

The development will have minimal impact on the farming capability of the site and will not cause any significant environmental impacts. Potential visual impacts can be ameliorated with building material colours and landscaping.

 

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

 

N/A

 

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

 

B3 Services

Water, on-site wastewater disposal, stormwater are all addressed adequately in this application. Council referral officers have supplied appropriate conditions to address any concerns.

 

B4 Traffic and Parking

The implications of traffic have already been previously addressed in this referral, with a viable management plan adopted concerning the impacts of increased traffic.

A central car parking area has been incorporated as part of the development application, which proposes to service all of the farm stay accommodation units. Ten car parking spaces will be provided, which is sufficient to meet the demands of the visitors. The DCP requires six spaces; therefore, the proposed development is compliant with Council parking requirements.

 

B6 Buffers and Minimising Land Use Conflict

The DCP recommends rural tourist accommodation be separated from a range of other land uses as follows:

 

Land Use

Recommended Buffer

Actual Distance

Grazing of Stock

50 metres

Properties to the south and west are not grazing land. The nearest grazing is approx 300 metres from proposed farm stay accommodation to the north.

Rural Industries (timber mill)

500 metres

Approx 650 metres – timber mill located to south-east of proposed farm stay accommodation across Gulgan Road.

Wholesale and Retail Nursery

200 metres

Approx 220 metres – nursery located to south-east of proposed farm stay accommodation.

Veterinary Hospital

300 metres

Approx 420 metres to neighbour’s veterinary hospital.

Horticulture

200 metres

Dragon fruits are being grown within 50 metres of the cabins but this is an organic farm and conflict is unlikely.

 

The development is compliant other than for horticulture, but conflict can be managed because it is taking place on the same land and the property is an organic farm. As it is farm stay accommodation, those visiting the site will expect to be on a working farm including noise, dust or odour.

 

B8 Waste Minimisation and Management

Waste generated by the proposed farm stay accommodation will be serviced by the current collection service provided by Byron Shire Council. Three new general waste and three new recycling bins will be required for the farm stay accommodation and will be stored adjacent to the central facility building for collection at Gulgan Road (total = 3 x 240 litre general waste and 3 x 240 litre recyclable waste). A Site Waste Minimisation & Management Plan (SWMMP) will be submitted as part of the Construction Certificate application.

 

B14 Excavation and Fill

Earthworks will be required for the development. A site plan needs to be provided that shows all areas of cut and fill on the site and specifically identifies any areas over one metre, to meet the prescriptive measures of this chapter. Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Stability Report of the development site to meet the prescriptive measures of Chapter B14 of BDCP. The Geotechnical Investigation must be in accordance with AS1726 and AS2870, and the Slope Stability in accordance with Land Risk Assessment (Australia Geomechanics Society) 2007.

Visual impacts of the development will be minimised as the structures are to be constructed below the western ridgeline and no vegetation is required to be removed. A proposed forestry area below the cabins will also assist with screening the earthworks.

 

Chapter C3 – Visually Prominent Sites, Visually Prominent Development and View Sharing

Although it is located in an elevated location, this chapter does not apply to the proposed development because it is located at or below the 49-metre AHD contour and does not meet the definition of a visually prominent site. It is unlikely to impact the character of a visually prominent site. Notwithstanding this, conditions will be imposed to ameliorate the visual impact of the development when viewed from public roads or private property located to the east. This chapter is cross referenced in Chapter D3 as being relevant to rural tourist accommodation.

Visually prominent site means land that is wholly or partly within the coastal zone; and land in Zone RU1 Primary Production, RU2 Rural Landscape with a height of 60m AHD or greater.

Visually prominent development means any development located on a visually prominent site or development in a location that has the potential to impact the visual or scenic character of a visually prominent site.

 

D3 Tourist Accommodation

This chapter provides guidelines to support the Shire’s commitments to a sustainable, natural, built and economic environment in relation to the control of tourist accommodation. Farm stay accommodation is included in the definition of tourist accommodation. Tourist accommodation has the same meaning as tourist and visitor accommodation, camping ground, caravan park and eco-tourist facility in Byron LEP 2014.

 

In the DCP, Rural tourist accommodation means (in relation to sections D3.3.4 and D3.3.5 of this DCP) a structure containing a room or suite of rooms used, or intended to be used, for the provision of holiday accommodation only. Such accommodation is to have a maximum of two bedrooms and must be freestanding.

 

The corresponding objective of this chapter and farm stay accommodation is:

To facilitate and support the establishment of low scale farm tourism as a secondary business to primary production, where farm stay accommodation is proposed.

 

Comment: The agricultural and primary production processes of the site will be supported through the attraction of visitors, which may include students taking courses in the related rural industries.  The six 1-bedroom units and the capacity of the number guests enforce that the proposal can be classified as low scale.

 

Other controls to be assessed include:

 

Chapter D3 Objectives and Controls

Compliance / Non-Compliance

D3.2.1 Location and Siting

 

Performance Criteria

1.   The siting, design and operation of tourist accommodation and associated development must not adversely affect important conservation values, ecological systems or characteristics of the site or the Shire. Development must respect and contribute to the natural environmental systems and values of its location and surrounds.

2.   Development applications for proposals located in or near ecologically sensitive areas, areas of high environmental values and/or important natural features or sites must include a full description of those ecological, conservation and natural values and systems, together with a comprehensive, professional assessment of the impact of the proposed development thereon. The impact assessment must include an evaluation of the effectiveness and sustainability of any proposed amelioration and management measures.

3.   Determination of the siting, extent and nature of development must be consistent with the provisions of Chapter B6 Buffers and Minimising Land Use Conflict.

1.   The development location has no important conservation values.

 

2.   Sufficient information is supplied to assess the impacts of the development.

 

3.   The location in relation to potential land use conflict is acceptable and addressed in relation to DCP Chapter B6.

D3.2.3 Character and Design in Rural Zones

 

Objectives

1.   To ensure that tourist accommodation in Rural Zones is compatible with the surrounding landscape and with the character and amenity of development in the locality.

2.   To implement the relevant Aims, Guiding Principles and provisions of the Byron Rural Settlement Strategy 1998.

1.   The development is clustered and generally compatible with the surrounding landscape.

 

2.   Generally complies.

D3.3.4 Rural Tourist Accommodation and Farm Stay Accommodation

 

Objectives

1.   To ensure that rural tourist accommodation does not detract from the rural and natural character of its locality.

2.   To ensure that rural tourist accommodation does not adversely affect the conduct and productivity of agricultural operations on the site or nearby lands.

3.   To facilitate and support the establishment of low scale farm tourism as a secondary business to primary production, where farm stay accommodation is proposed.

1.   The cabins and central facility will all be single storey structures (conditions to apply to central facility to achieve this) and, in combination with non-reflective material and earth tones plus landscaping, should not detract from the character of the locality.

2.   Its location on one edge of the property should avoid conflict with agriculture on the site.

3.   The cabins will be run as a secondary business to Rainbow Farm.

Performance Criteria

1.   The development must be located and operated so that it does not:

a)   adversely affect the conduct and productivity of agricultural operations on the site;

b)   create potential for conflict with adjoining land uses;

c)   disrupt environmental enhancement projects on the land;

d)   impact on the ecological or environmental values of the land; and

e)   conflict with buffer requirements pursuant to Chapter B6 Buffers and Minimising Land Use Conflict.

a)   Its location on one edge of the property should avoid conflict with agriculture on the site.

b)   Conflict with adjacent properties is low as they are not actively farmed in the vicinity of the cabins.

c)   Environmental enhancement is part of the farm master plan and a VMP will be required to offset the cabins’ impact. A licensed forestry area will need to be amended to allow for the cabins.

d)   Minimal ecological impacts are anticipated and no trees will be removed.

e)   Buffers are mostly consistent (see B6 assessment).

2.   Rural tourist accommodation must be designed and located to be compatible with the surrounding rural and natural landscape. Where new buildings are proposed to be constructed for the purpose of rural tourist accommodation such buildings are to be clustered and located in proximity to the primary dwelling house on the lot.

The cabins are compatible with the landscape but the central facility is excessively large and tall, and conditions will be imposed to reduce its impact. The development will be clustered within 200 metres of the existing house and an approved dual occupancy dwelling.

3.   The development is to be low scale and designed and located to be compatible with the surrounding rural environment and of minimal environmental impact.

Low scale means a rural tourist development that is small enough to be generally managed and operated by the principal owner(s) living on the property. This development is consistent with this definition and this control.

4.   Car parking for guests must be provided in accordance with Chapter B4 Traffic Planning, Vehicle Parking, Circulation and Access.

5.   Provision of recycling and waste management facilities must be in accordance with Chapter B8 Waste Minimisation and Management.

6.   The development must observe the road and boundary setback requirements specified in Chapter D2 Residential Accommodation and Ancillary Development in Rural Zones (D2.2.2) and the character and visual impact requirements (D2.2.3).

4.   Car parking complies with Chapter B4.

5.   Waste minimisation and management complies with Chapter B8.

6.   The development is set back at least 120 metres from the nearest public road.

The cabins are set back 13 metres from the western boundary and 20 metres from the southern boundary.

The central facility is located 18 metres from the western boundary and 110 metres from the southern boundary.

These distances comply with required setbacks.

7.  Rural tourist accommodation to be suitably sited in accordance with the requirements of Chapter C3 Visually Prominent Sites, Visually Prominent Development & View Sharing.

The development is located below the 60-metre AHD contour but is still in a high-set and high-profile location. It can be easily seen from Gulgan Road and from rural residential dwellings on the bottom of Tandys Lane and Hyrama Crescent.

Conditions will be imposed to address visual impact including landscaping, cladding colours and the height of the central facility.

Prescriptive Measures

1.   Rural tourist accommodation can incorporate up to 12 bedrooms collectively and accommodate a maximum of 2 persons per bedroom, with overall accommodation densities in accordance with Table D3.1 below

The cabins will only have one bedroom each and the mezzanine area in each will be restricted to storage only.

2    Rural tourist accommodation is to be designed with the following features.

a)   Each rural tourist accommodation structure is to have a gross floor area not more than 60 m2 comprising a maximum of two (2) bedrooms, a kitchenette and bathroom/toilet amenities.

b)   All weather car parking must be provided on-site

a)   The proposed cabins will have a GFA of 57 m2. Each will have a storage mezzanine of 24 m2, which is why this will be conditioned to be storage only and not used as a bedroom.

Each cabin will have a kitchen and bathroom but no laundry. A laundry will be provided in the central facility.

b)   Complies as parking will be all-weather.

c)   Provide external pedestrian access between buildings and facilities associated with the development, including car parking.

c)   A condition will be imposed to ensure there is an all-weather gravel path between the car park and cabins, and the cabins and the central facility.

d)   Be designed and constructed to minimise noise and vibration impacts on occupants of adjoining or nearby dwellings or buildings.

d)   The cabins will be conditioned to meet acoustic standards.

e)   A landscape plan to be submitted with the application in accordance with Chapter B9 Landscaping. The plan to incorporate adequate landscaping and screen plantings when viewed from a public road or a dwelling on other land in the locality, and for privacy between rural tourist accommodation structures.

e)   A concept landscape plan has been prepared which shows screen plantings between cabins. However, the screen plantings to the east of the cabins needs to be made taller to lessen the visual impact of the development to those on the other side of Gulgan Road. Conditions will address this.

f)    Be located so that it may benefit from existing road and physical infrastructure.

f)    The development will have reasonable access to internal roads and back to The Saddle Road.

g)   One of the bedrooms within the rural tourist accommodation structure must have disabled access.

g)   All cabins are proposed to have a ramp access (1:14) and accessible internal doors. The central facility will have an accessible step ramp. Complies.

h)   The siting of rural tourist accommodation must be such that:

ii)   Maximise solar energy collection and minimise energy use;

iii)  be arranged in a ‘cluster’ pattern and located on average no further than 80 metres apart;

iv)  on-site sewage management to be designed in accordance with Chapter B3 Services;

v)   it is located and operated so that it does not adversely affect the conduct and productivity of agricultural operations on the site.

ii)   The development will have good solar access.

 

iii)  The development is arranged in a linear pattern with all cabins within 100 metres.

 

iv)  On-site sewage has been addressed in B3.

 

v)   It will not adversely affect the organic agriculture taking place on the site.

3.   A vegetation management plan (VMP)is to be submitted with each Rural Tourist Accommodation Development Application detailing where 900 local native trees per cabin or rural tourist residence are to be planted as environmental repair and enhancement for development.

A VMP has been provided and its amendment and implementation will be required as a condition.

4.   All development applications for farm stay accommodation to include suitable details demonstrating that the accommodation is secondary to farming activity on the land.

The accommodation is planned to be secondary to farming.

5.   Night time lighting for outdoor recreational facilities such as tennis courts or sporting facilities is prohibited. All other external lighting should be limited to protect the dark night sky and the rural atmosphere of the locality (e.g. lighting located around pool areas).

A condition will be imposed to achieve the dark night sky outcomes.

 

4.5       Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 Considerations

 

Clause

This control is applicable to the proposal:

I have considered this control as it relates to the proposal:

If this control is applicable, does the proposal comply?

92

N/A

 

 

93

N/A

 

 

94

N/A

 

 

94A

N/A

 

 

* Non-compliances and any other significant issues discussed below

 

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

 

Impact on:

Likely significant impact/s?

Natural environment

No. The proposal will not have a significantly adverse impact on the natural environment of the locality. It will not clear any trees or native vegetation and the VMP will offset other impacts.

Built environment

No. The proposal will not have a significantly adverse impact on the built environment of the locality. Conditions will be imposed to reduce visual impacts from other properties.

Social environment

No. The proposal will not have a significant social impact on the locality. The most noticeable impact will be additional traffic on The Saddle Road and changes to the road frontage to stop farm stay guests exiting left.

Economic impact

No. The proposal will not have a significant economic impact on the locality. The provision of farm stay accommodation should provide an additional source of income for the farm owners.

Construction impacts

The development will generate minor impacts during its construction. Conditions of consent are recommended to control hours of work, builders’ waste, construction noise, installation of sedimentation and erosion control measures and the like to ameliorate such impacts.

 

Are there any Council Policies that are applicable to the proposed development?  No.

 

4.7       The suitability of the site for the development

 

The site is well suited to the proposition of providing farm stay accommodation to guests on a short-term basis (less than 3 months occupancy). Existing and proposed farming activities will also be conducive to supporting students studying courses that correlate with agricultural, sustainability and natural resource industries. However, the subject land already has an original dwelling and an approved dual occupancy dwelling, and this development is not suitable to provide long-term residential options or affordable housing based on the proposed cabins.

 

The central facility has been proposed as a two-storey metal structure with a 400-square metre footprint including 300 square metres of GFA. This is excessive for this site and the proposed 6 cabins. A single storey structure will contain ample room for farm stay guests and be much less imposing on the landscape.

 

Minimal environmental impacts of the development are likely as no vegetation is required to be removed. The key issue of traffic can be addressed with a new vehicle access point to The Saddle Road for visitors. They can be physically directed towards Gulgan Road by the use of medians, etc.

 

4.8       Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

 

The development application was publicly exhibited from 16/12/2020 to 20/01/2021. The application was withdrawn and resubmitted and then advertised again from 24/02/2021 – 9/03/2021.

 

There were 3 submissions made on the development application:

-     For – nil

-     Against – 3 (two from one objector)

 

A submission was received from a neighbouring property owner to the west of the site of the proposed development. The submission opposes the development application in its current form, stating that the proposed works are over-scaled and will require major amendments for certain factors of the development. The submission raises concerns about the following matters:

ž Number of increased guests, visitors, car parking facilities.

ž The need for the central facility in consideration of other site features.

ž Excessive scale and scope of the development, in particular the mezzanine storage in each cabin (an extra bedroom) and the 300 m2 GFA for the central facility.

ž Concerns over traffic implications for The Saddle Road.

ž Constraints in maintaining the local ‘scenic vista’ of the surrounding area.

ž Qualification/identification as a legitimate ‘training facility’.

 

The submission examines these issues in further depth and suggests that it could support the development on a smaller scale.

 

Comment: It is agreed that the mezzanine in each cabin could be easily turned into a loft bedroom and this would make each cabin exceed the 60 m2 GFA standard in the DCP. The pitched roof in the cabins is a positive architectural feature and a condition will be imposed to ensure it is not used as a bedroom.

It is also agreed that the central facility is too large at 300 m2 GFA with a 400 m2 footprint and 7.1-metre height. However, the applicant needs a central facility to house a communal laundry and a meeting place for guests. The structure proposed is essentially a large, metal clad shed with minimal architectural merit. No detailed support is provided for it being so large. The bottom floor is large enough to provide a meeting space for guests with a laundry and bathroom. A condition will be imposed to delete the upper storey. A condition will also be imposed to delete the kitchen area on the ground floor as the applicant was advised that a structure with a laundry, bathroom and kitchen is essentially a dwelling (or cabin) and that is not what is proposed. A condition will also be imposed to ensure that the central facility is only used by guests of the farm stay and not open to public events, or for private hire, etc.

 

Conditions requiring non-reflective cladding on cabins and the central facility, plus landscaping conditions will also address the scenic impact issue. It is noted that all buildings have been located to be substantially below the ridgeline to the rear. This will allow views ‘over the top’ from western residents and eliminate the ridge profile impacts for residents of Tandys Lane and Hyrama Crescent.

 

It is agreed that the Gulgan Road access to the site is better than The Saddle Road. However, Gulgan Road is a classified road that cannot be used to access rural tourism because of clause 6.8 of Byron LEP 2014. It is also agreed that farm stay traffic should not be able to easily access the Mullumbimby Road intersection as it is dangerous. A condition will be imposed to create a separate driveway access to The Saddle Road that will physically direct traffic to the north and connect with Gulgan Road at the existing roundabout. The car parking exceeds Council standards in the DCP and is fit for purpose.

 

The submission queries the reference to the cabins being used as student accommodation and whether the site is a training facility. The applicant does not have any approval for a private education or training facility. However, the cabins could still be used by students studying elsewhere as long as they do not stay more than 3 months. A condition will be imposed restricting the length of stay for guests.

 

The other two submissions were from a resident across Gulgan Road, to the east of the subject land. The submitter opposes the development application citing the following concerns:

 

ž The applicant (Mr Kenneth O'Reilly) is applying on behalf of a company named as Koresoft Pty Ltd but it does not have an ABN and the representative is Mr Matthew O’Reilly. Does this entity even exist?

ž The DA shows an approved dual occupancy dwelling and studio in the wrong location.

ž DA Form says that there will be no staged development and SEE says it will be in four stages?

ž The subject land is apparently not currently operated as a farm so how can the farm stay be a secondary use?

ž Properties at Hyrama Crescent have a clear view of the proposed development and would be significantly visually impacted negatively and potentially impacted by noise from the proposed development.

ž The development may be mostly single storey, but with steep roofs that increases height, and as a long string of development is not low key.

ž The bulk of this DA is inappropriate as it focuses on farm stay and does not address the requirements of rural tourist accommodation.

 

Comment: Koresoft Pty Ltd has an ACN (149332785) rather than an ABN. It owns the subject land and its Director, Mr Kenneth O'Reilly, has given written authorisation for Mr Matthew O’Reilly to represent the interests of the company when dealing with the subject land and Council (etc). The dual occupancy dwelling and associated studio are shown in the DA plans in a location approved by Council. It is different to where they were originally proposed, but they were moved as part of a separate DA process. They are not being moved by this DA.

 

The term ‘Staged Development’ has a legal meaning in planning terms. This DA is not a Staged DA but the applicant has indicated it will build the development progressively and not all at once. This is up to the applicant, and Council will not be imposing staging on the DA.

 

The applicant has shown sufficient farming activity to demonstrate that it is a farm. It has small cropping in some locations and permaculture farming in others, plus farm forestry. Other share farming activities are anticipated and outlined in master planning documents.

 

The development will be visible from locations such as Hyrama Crescent and a number of conditions will be imposed to address the visual impact, including: use of non-reflective materials; earth tones in cladding; reducing the height and bulk of the central facility; and additional landscaping requirements.

 

The combined impact of seven new structures is not insignificant but it has been located to mostly avoid breaching the ridgeline that is located behind it. Reducing the central facility’s height and bulk is also important. Landscaping will further help soften the impacts. The development is required to be Low Scale, which means a rural tourist development that is small enough to be generally managed and operated by the principal owner(s) living on the property. This development is consistent with this definition.

 

The submission is correct that the applicant focuses on farm stay accommodation rather that the rural tourist accommodation controls in the DCP. However, this assessment addresses both the farm stay controls and the rural tourist accommodation controls and does not accept that they are not interwoven in the circumstances presented in this DA. The development in this DA fits with both the definition for farm stay accommodation and rural tourist accommodation and there is a duality of use being proposed. The occupation of the cabins will be limited to 3 months to ensure that they are used for short term or holiday accommodation and not as dwellings for permananent occupation.

 

4.9       Public interest

 

The proposed development is unlikely to prejudice or compromise the public interest or create an undesirable precedent. The proposed conditions will reduce its impact and address the major concerns of objectors. It is consistent with controls in Byron LEP 2014 and substantially consistent with controls in Byron DCP 2014.

 

5.         DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

 

5.1       Water & Sewer Levies

 

This site is not connected to reticulated sewerage and has Rous Water connection.

 

5.2       Developer Contributions

 

No section 7.11 contributions will be required.

 

However, prior to the issue of a construction certificate, the section 7.12 levy required by the Byron Developer Contributions Plan 2012 must be paid to Council.

 

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

Provide Disclosure Statement register details here: Not applicable

 

7.         CONCLUSION

 

The DA proposes Farm Stay Accommodation comprising Six (6) Cabins and a Central Facility. The proposed development is satisfactory having regard to 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 appropriately addresses the relevant constraints applying to the site and is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

8.         REASONS FOR DECISION, HOW COMMUNITY VIEWS WERE ADDRESSED

Note: From July 1 2018, councils are required to give and publicly notify reasons for a range of planning decisions where they are deciding if development should proceed to help community members to see how their views have been taken into account and improve accountability to stakeholders. A statement of reasons for the determination of this application is provided below.

 

Statement of Reasons

The proposed modifications were minor and substantially the same as the original development approval with no detrimental environmental impacts.

The proposed development complies with the provisions of Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014.

The proposed development complies with relevant State Environmental Planning Policies.

The proposed development complies or is justifiably inconsistent with relevant provisions of Development Control Plan 2014.

The proposed development complies with Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 considerations.

The proposed development will not have significant adverse impact on the natural, built or social environment or economic impacts on the locality.

The proposed development is considered suitable for the proposed site subject to conditions.

The development application was notified/advertised in accordance with the Community Participation Plan. Issues raised in the submissions have been addressed during assessment of the application and have resulted in modifications to the development and additional conditions.

The proposed development is unlikely to prejudice or compromise the public interest.

 

How community views were addressed

The DA was advertised in accordance with Byron Shire Council Community Participation Plan (CPP). The three submissions received were considered on merit and addressed during assessment of the application. A number of conditions have been imposed in order to accommodate the concerns raised in submissions. The development has been modified in response to these concerns. Conditions address major issues such as local traffic, bulk and scale and visual impact.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                          13.8

Report No. 13.8     PLANNING - Report of the 3 June 2021 Planning Review Committee

Directorate:                         Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:                   Chris Larkin, Manager Sustainable Development

Noreen Scott, EA Sustainable Environment and Economy

File No:                                 I2021/959

Summary:

This report provides the outcome of the Planning Review Committee (PRC) held on 3 June 2021.

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 endorses the outcomes of the Planning Review Committee meeting held on 3 June 2021.

 


 

Report

The Planning Review Committee meeting was held on 3 June 2021.  The meeting commenced at 2:10pm and concluded at 2:30pm.

Councillors: Lyon, Hunter, Ndiaye, Martin

Apologies: Cr Spooner, Cr Coorey

Staff: Chris Larkin (Manager Sustainable Development)

The following development applications was reviewed with the outcome shown in the final column.

DA No.

Applicant

Property Address

Proposal

Exhibition /submissions

Reason/s

Outcome

10.2021.124.1

JV Urban P/L

14 Yalla Kool Drive

OCEAN SHORES

Subdivision two (2) into two (2) lots

Level 1

17/3/21 to 30/3/21

 

1 submission

Petition 46 signatures

Staff Delegation

10.2020.628.1

Ms SJ Ramsay

35 Lorikeet Lane

MULLUMBIMBY

Dwelling house and Tree removal four (4) trees

Level 1

21/1/21 to 4/2/21

 

1 submission

Staff Delegation

Council determined the following original development applications.  The S4.55 application to modify these development consents are referred to the Planning Review Committee to decide if the modification applications can be determined under delegated authority.

DA No.

Applicant

Property Address

Proposal

Exhibition /submissions

Reason/s

Outcome

10.2014.753.5

Newton Denny Chapelle

2 Tanner Lane

30 Tanner Lane

35 Yarum Road

TYAGARAH

S4.55 to modify condition 18(b) to delete requirement to construct a roundabout, and to extend the timeframe to construct pedestrian bridge under condition 20

Level 2

19/3/21 to 1/4/21

 

No submissions

Council

10.2020.97.2

Bayview Land Development

7 Tuckeroo Ave

MULLUMBIMBY

S.4.55 to modify weed control requirements, engineering construction Plan requirements and Development contribution payments

Level 1

31/3/21 to 20/4/21

 

No submissions

The perceived public significance of the application.

Council

10.2013.587.8

Mercato on Byron P/L

108-110 Jonson Street

BYRON BAY

S4.55 to modify approved use of tenancy 19 from gallery to Gallery and small bar

Level 2

25/2/21 to 10/3/21

 

1 submission

Staff Delegation

10.2020.145.2

Ingen Consutling P/L

35A Argyle Street

MULLUMBIMBY

S4.55 to modify condition 5

Level 1

23/5/21 to 9/4/21

 

No submissions

Staff Delegation

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                          13.9

Report No. 13.9     PLANNING - DA 10.2019.343.1 - Tourist and visitor accommodation comprising four (4) one-bedroom cabins

Directorate:                         Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:                   Ben Grant, Planner

File No:                                 I2021/761

Proposal:

DA No:

10.2019.343.1

Proposal description:

Tourist and Visitor Accommodation comprising Four (4) One Bedroom Cabins

Property description:

LOT: 5 DP: 863320

150 Tandys Lane BRUNSWICK HEADS

Parcel No/s:

213810

Applicant:

Planners North

Owner:

Mr S L Eakin & Ms K Amos

Zoning:

RU1 Primary Production / PART RU2 Rural Landscape / PART 1 (d) Investigation / PART 1 (a) General Rural / PART 7 (a) Wetlands / PART 7 (b) Coastal Habitat

Date received:

27 June 2019

Integrated / Designated Development:

    Integrated

    Designated

    Not applicable

Concurrence required

No

Public notification or exhibition:

-    Level 2 advertising under DCP 2014 Part A14 – Public Notification and Exhibition of Development Applications

-    Exhibition period: 11/7/19 - 24/7/19

-    Submissions received: twenty six (26) in opposition

Planning Review Committee:

Not applicable

Concurrent approvals (S68/138):

Not applicable

Variation request

    Clause 4.6

    SEPP 1

    Not applicable

Delegation to determine

Council

Issues:

·      A Vegetation Management Plan is required.

·      Decentralised rather than centralised carparking. 

Summary:

The subject development application seeks consent for rural tourist and visitor accommodation comprising four one-bedroom cabins plus a new internal driveway, landscaping, and wastewater system at 150 Tandys Lane, Brunswick Heads. The subject site is a 24.5-hectare rural property located at the end of Tandys Lane on the eastern side of the Pacific Highway and lies adjacent to Simpsons Creek.

The proposal is an Integrated Development Application, requiring approval from the NSW Rural Fire Service under the Rural Fires Act, 1997.

The application was advertised and notified between 11 July 2019 and 24 July 2019 and a total of 26 public submissions were received, raising concerns in relation to visual impact, scale, amenity, traffic generation, environmental impact, perceived non-compliance with planning controls and alleged unauthorised development.

The application is being referred to Council for determination due to the number of submissions received and the perceived public interest in the application.

Following an initial assessment by Council staff, further information was requested to address issues relating to landscaping, vehicular access, environmental enhancement, primary production, disabled access and the siting of cabins.

The amended plans and further information substantially addressed the issues raised, apart from the environmental enhancement requirements of Chapter D3 of DCP 2014 which are discussed further in the body of this report. The applicant has not provided a vegetation management plan, instead putting forward a view that existing vegetation and restoration efforts on the site are sufficient.

After discussing the matter further with Council’s Ecologist, it is concluded that the issue can be resolved with a consent condition that requires a VMP to be prepared and submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

Overall, the proposal is a low-scale, low-impact development that is compatible with the character of the surrounding environment and is generally consistent with the planning controls for rural tourism in Byron LEP 2014 and Byron DCP 2014.

Environmental enhancement of the land will be achieved through the preparation of a vegetation management plan to be approved by Council and implemented prior to the occupation of the development.

The development application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions in Attachment 1.

NOTE TO COUNCILLORS:

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

  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That pursuant to Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Development Application No. 10.2019.343.1 for tourist and visitor accommodation comprising four (4) one-bedroom cabins be granted consent subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 1 (E2021/66225).

Attachments:

 

1        Attachment 1 - 10.2019.343.1 - Recommended conditions, E2021/66225  

2        Attachment 2 - 10.2019.343.1 - Plans, E2021/63960  

3        Attachment 3 - 10.2019.343.1 - Submissions Redacted, E2021/64844  

4        Attachment 4 - 10.2019.343.1 - Amended Bush Fire Safety Authority - Determination Letter, E2021/90236  

5        Attachment 5 - 10.2019.343.1 - Timber Plantation Licence, E2021/90231  

 

Report

1.         INTRODUCTION

 

1.1.          History relevant to the development application

Background

The eastern end of the property near Simpsons Creek (formerly ‘Wiltons Quarry’) was mined for Rutile in the 1960’s. A piggery was later established in the early 1970’s which operated until sometime in the mid 1990’s. Following closure of the piggery, the property was used for rural living in the 2000’s and more recently appears to have been adapted to a mixture of residential and tourist accommodation uses.

Development Applications

 

Previous determinations relevant to the subject application are listed below:

 

·        DA 95/147 for a dwelling, approved 1 March 2005.

·        DA 95/249 for sand quarry, withdrawn 24 July 2006.

·        DA 10.2004.544.1 for dwelling, approved 1 March 2005.

·        DA 10.2016.818.1 for use of an existing building as a dual occupancy (detached), approved on 9 August 2017.

·        DA 10.2016.818.2 for partial retention of movie room, approved 19 July 2019.

·        DA 10.2018.366.1 for a change of use of dwelling house to a bed and breakfast accommodation, withdrawn on 7 May 2019.

 

Compliance Actions

The NSW Environment Protection Authority notified Council in relation to alleged illegal sand extraction from the abandoned quarry in November 2017. It is understood the sand was later stockpiled at a rural property in Myocum.

Council records also show that an investigation was undertaken in relation to unauthorised structures adjacent to Simpsons Creek within the 7 (a) (Wetlands Zone). Records indicate that a request to remove these unauthorised structures was issued to the property owners in January 2017 and that the issue is ongoing.

1.2.          Description of the proposed development

The proposed development comprises four (4) one-bedroom tourist accommodation cabins plus a new internal driveway, infrastructure, and landscaping.

The four cabins are clustered in a single group approximately 60m east of the primary dwelling house near Tandy’s Lane. The cabin sites have an elevation of 30m AHD and provide easterly views over the Tyagarah Nature Reserve towards Cape Byron. 

Each of the cabins will be single storey, have a maximum floor area of 60m2 and comprise one bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, living room that opens onto a deck and single carport.  Neither a communal laundry nor individual laundries in the cabins will be provided.

Figure 1: Extract from the site plan illustrating cabin locations.

Figure 2: Floor plan and elevations of the proposed cabin design.

1.3.          Description of the site

The subject site is a 24.5-hectare property located at the end of Tandys Lane on the eastern side of the Pacific Highway. The property is bisected by Anderson Lane which splits the lot into a small northern portion containing a recently approved dual occupancy and studio and a larger southern portion containing the original dwelling house and the balance of remaining land. The land slopes down from the road over undulating terrain for ~1.5km until it meets Simpsons Creek at the eastern boundary.

Historically, the property has been used for farming and sand mining which has left the landscaped disturbed and mostly cleared of vegetation apart from a patch of subtropical rainforest on the western slopes and a corridor of forest along the bank of Simpsons Creek. 

Land to the north and west of the site near Tandys Lane is characterised by small to medium sized lots used for rural living and small-scale agriculture while land to the south comprises a larger property that is undeveloped and covered by vegetation. Tyagarah Nature Reserve is located on the eastern side of Simpsons Creek.

Figure 3: Aerial image of the site.

Figure 4: View south-east from driveway to proposed location of the cabins.

Figure 5: Proposed location of cabin 2 (orange flag).

Figure 6: Proposed location of cabin 3 (orange flag).

Figure 7: Proposed location of cabin 4 (orange flag).

Figure 8: Northern access to proposed cabins from Tandys Lane.

Figure 9: Southern access to proposed cabins (note: “existing shed” in left foreground).

2.         SUMMARY OF REFERRALS

 

External Referrals

Comment

Rural Fire Service (s. 100B Rural Fires Act 1997)

The RFS initially refused to issue a Bush Fire Safety Authority on the basis that the development did not meet the 10kW/m2 requirement for tourist accommodation as required by Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019.

Following representations from the application over a period of months, the RFS changed their policy position and issued a BFSA on 26 April 2021.

The BFSA was re-issued on 9 July2021 following modifications to the development layout.

Essential Energy

Essential Energy have endorsed the proposal but commented that the cabins must maintain a minimum of 10 metres clearance from the centreline of overhead powerlines. The amended plans comply with this requirement.

Rous County Council

The site is connected to Rous County Council (RCC) reticulated water supply. RCC recommended that Council should include a consent condition for the Applicant to obtain a Certificate of Compliance from Rous prior to construction certificate being issued.

 

Internal Referrals

Comment

Environmental Health Officer

Council’s Environmental Health Officer commented that wastewater generated by the development can be managed by an on-site sewage management facility.

In terms of land contamination, a preliminary site investigation report has been provided demonstrating that the land is uncontaminated and suitable for the proposed development.

Development Engineer

Council’s Development Engineer commented that the property has three unapproved driveways which is a safety concern. Two of the driveways south of Tandys Lane are required to be consolidated and upgraded in accordance with Council and RMS standards.  

Traffic generation was deemed ‘low impact’ as per DCP 2014, Part B4.2.1.

Other development engineering aspects such as car parking and stormwater were deemed acceptable.

Contributions Officer

Council’s Development Planning Officer commented that the development is non-residential and therefore a Section 7.12 levy is applicable.

Ecologist

Council’s ecologist commented that conditions of consent can be imposed requiring a vegetation management plan to be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

3.         SECTION 4.46 INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

Tourist and visitor accommodation is defined as a type of “special fire protection purpose” and requires a Bush Fire Safety Authority (BFSA) under s. 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997.

The development application seeks approval for the BFSA concurrently and is therefore classified as integrated development as per s. 4.46 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

General Terms of Approval were issued by the RFS on 26 April 2021 and then re-issued on 9 July 2021 following an amendment to the site plan.

4.         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.

4.1       State Environmental Planning Instruments

State Environmental Planning Policy (Koala Habitat Protection) 2021

The application was lodged prior to the introduction of the Koala SEPP 2021 on 17 March 2021. In accordance with the savings and transitional arrangements under clause 18, the application is to be determined as if the SEPP had not commenced.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Koala Habitat Protection) 2020

As the site has an area of more than 1 hectare and is zoned RU1 Primary Production and RU2 Rural Landscape, the proposal must be considered under the Koala SEPP 2020.

Clause 8(1) of the Koala SEPP 2020 provides that “before a Council may grant consent to a development application for consent to carry out development on land to which this part applies, the council must be satisfied as to whether or not the land is a potential koala habitat”.

It is considered that the subject land is not a potential koala habitat as defined by the Koala SEPP 2020 because it does not contain an area of native vegetation where Schedule 2 Feed Tree Species constitute at least 15% of the total number of trees in the upper or lower strata of the tree component. It is therefore considered that the proposal is subject to Clause 8(3)(a) which states “if the Council is satisfied that the land is not a potential koala habitat, it is not prevented, because of this Policy, from granting consent to the development application”.

The proposed development does not involve any clearing of native vegetation and results in development being clustered near the existing dwelling and road access on the western half of the property. The proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on koalas or koala habitat and satisfies the provisions of Koala SEPP 2020.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land

The site has historically been used for animal agriculture and sand mining which are both potentially contaminating activities. 

A preliminary investigation report was provided which analysed soil samples taken around the development footprint. The report concluded that the site was not contaminated and is suitable for the proposed use in its current state.

Council’s Environmental Health Officer endorsed the report conclusions, noting that the site is suitable for the proposed use in its current state and does not require remediation. 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

A multi-dwelling BASIX certificate has been provided which specifies commitments for insulation, rainwater tanks, 1.5kW solar photovoltaic cells and high efficiency hot water systems.

Some of the BASIX commitments were not shows on the DA plans as required. A condition is therefore recommended requiring these items to be shown on the construction certificate plans.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018

The far east of the property near Simpson Creek is mapped as a coastal wetland under the Coastal Management SEPP. The closest part of the mapped wetland and buffer area is ~450m from the proposed development and consequently does not trigger the relevant provisions of the policy (clauses 10 and 11).  The eastern area of the property is also mapped as coastal use area and coastal environment area; however no part of the proposed development is within the mapped areas (clauses 13 and 14).

The proposal will not have a significant impact on the coastal environment and is satisfactory having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under the SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

In accordance with Clause 45 of the Infrastructure SEPP, the DA was referred to Essential Energy for comment due to the proximity of the development to overhead powerlines.

 

Following the submission of additional information, Essential Energy raised no objection to the proposal subject to the cabins being located more than 10m from overhead powerlines. The amended site layout complies with this requirement.

 

4.2A Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP 2014)

LEP 2014 is an applicable matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application in accordance with subsection 4.15(1) of the EP&A Act because it applies to the subject land and the proposed development.

The LEP 2014 clauses that are checked below are of relevance to the proposed development:

Part 1

1.1| 1.1AA| 1.2| 1.3| 1.4| Dictionary| 1.5| 1.6| 1.7| 1.8| 1.9| 1.9A

Part 2

2.1| 2.2 | 2.3 |Land Use Table | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8

Part 4

4.3

Part 6

6.2| 6.6| 6.8

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

(a)     The proposed development is defined in the LEP 2014 Dictionary as Tourist and Visitor Accommodation;

(b)     The subject site is within the RU1 Primary Production and RU2 Rural Landscape according to the Land Zoning Map;

(c)     The proposed development is permitted with consent; and

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

Zone Objective RU1 Primary Production

Consideration

To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base.

The proposal is not expected to hinder or promote sustainable primary industries in the area. Minimal impact on the natural resource base is expected.

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

The proposal will neither encourage nor discourage encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises.

To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands.

The proposal is not expected to result in fragmentation and alienation of resource lands.

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

No potential land use conflicts were identified by Council’s Environmental Health Officer.

To encourage consolidation of lots for the purposes of primary industry production.

Not applicable.

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

The proposal is for tourist accommodation that can be considered “small-scale”. Further environmental conservation and enhancement works are required through conditions of consent.

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

The proposed tourism development is not expected to adversely impact on the scenic quality due to the low scale of the development and the provision of landscaping as a visual screen.

 

Zone Objective RU2 Rural Landscape

Consideration

To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base.

The proposal is not expected to hinder or promote sustainable primary industries in the area. Minimal impact on the natural resource base is expected.

To maintain the rural landscape character of the land.

The proposed tourism development is not expected to adversely impact on the rural landscape character due to the relatively small scale of the proposal and screening of the development with vegetation.

To provide for a range of compatible land uses, including extensive agriculture.

The property has space for a range of small-scale agricultural pursuits, having an area of approximately 25ha. The cabins will be located to the west of the property and will leave room for other compatible land uses.

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

The proposal is for tourist accommodation that can be considered “small-scale”. Further environmental conservation and enhancement works are required through conditions of consent.

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

The proposed tourism development is not expected to adversely impact on the scenic quality of the locality as it will or can be screened by vegetation.

 

Part 4 – Principal Development Standards

Compliance

Comment

4.3 Height of Buildings

Yes

A maximum height of 9m is permitted.

A maximum height of 3.5m is proposed.

 

Part 6 – Local Provisions

Compliance

Comment

6.2 Earthworks

 

Yes

The proposal will involve minor soil disturbance for the foundations of the proposed cabins and the internal access road. Excavation and fill will not exceed 1m in depth and is unlikely to have a significant impact on drainage patterns or soil stability.

Clause 6.6 Essential services

 

Yes

Essential services are available or capable of being made available to the development.  Council’s Environmental Health Officer is satisfied with the proposed on-site wastewater system. Council’s Engineer has reviewed the vehicular access and stormwater management and found them to be adequate or capable of being made adequate via conditions of approval.

Clause 6.8 Rural and nature-based tourism development

 

Yes

The proposed tourism development is small scale and is not expected to adversely impact on the agricultural production, scenic or environmental values of the land.  As noted above, adequate vehicular access can be provided to the development.  The proposal is for four cabins, should be able to be managed by the owner living on the property and is therefore considered to meet the definition of “small scale”.  The proposed location of the cabins is on cleared ground and should not have a significant adverse impact on agriculture or the natural environment.  There is an approved dwelling located on the property and the proposal does not include a caretaker’s residence.

 

4.2B      Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988 (LEP 1988)

 

The proposed cabins and all associated infrastructure are located entirely on RU1 or RU2 zoned land. LEP 1988 is therefore not an applicable matter for consideration in the assessment of the application.

 

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

There are no draft environmental planning instruments with relevance to the subject application.

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 A

Preliminary

Part B Chapters:

B3| B3| B4| B6| B8| B9| B14

Part D Chapters

D2| D3

 

Chapter B1 Biodiversity

Compliance

Comment

B1.1.5 Biodiversity Planning Principles

Yes

The proposal does not result in any net loss of vegetation or affect habitat connectivity.

B1.2.1 Development Envelope Controls

Yes, subject to conditions

 

A 20m buffer from high ecological value (HEV) vegetation is required.

The cabins have a separation distance of approximately 10m-15m from HEV (subtropical rainforest) on the western slopes of the property.

There is potential for a minor conflict between the required 19m asset protection zones and the HEV.

A condition is recommended that requires the cabins to be setback from the HEV by at least 20m, thus ensuring no loss of native vegetation when establishing the asset protection zones.

B1.2.2 Development infrastructure and other controls

Yes

The internal access road, plus water and sewer infrastructure does not require any clearing of vegetation and will not adversely impact biodiversity.

B1.2.3 Koala Habitat

Yes

The site is not considered to be a potential koala habitat.

 

Chapter B3 Services

Compliance

Comment

B3.2.1 Provision of Services: Water supply

Yes

The site is serviced by Rous County Council. The Applicant has confirmed that the cabins are intended to be connected to town water.

B3.2.1 Provision of Services: Road Access - Council controlled roads

Yes

Council’s Development Engineer did not recommend any upgrades to Tandys Lane as part of the development.

B3.2.2 On-site Sewage Management

Yes

A concept wastewater proposal has been submitted with the application and endorsed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer.

A condition is recommended for Section 68 approval to be obtained for the OSMS prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

Chapter B4 Traffic Planning, Vehicle Parking, Circulation and Access

Compliance

Comment

B4.2.1 Traffic Impact

Yes

 

 

The application is supported by a traffic impact assessment that estimates the development will generate an additional 10 car trips per day.

The report anticipates an increase in incremental demand of 3.5% over current traffic levels on Tandys Lane, based on the theoretical traffic volume generated by 43 existing dwellings.

Council’s development engineer endorsed the findings of the report and classified the development as low impact in terms of traffic generation.

B4.2.3 Vehicle Access and Manoeuvring Areas

Yes, subject to conditions

 

There are two driveways near Tandys Lane and a third driveway off the Crown road which connects from the south.

Council’s Development Engineer concluded that the current situation is not in accordance with the NRLG Guidelines and recommended the driveways be consolidated and sealed as part of the development. A condition is recommended.

B4.2.5 Car Parking Requirements

Yes

 

Four (4) car parking spaces are required.

The development provides a carport for each cabin, resulting in a total of four car parking spaces for the development.

 

Chapter B6 Buffers and Minimising Land Use Conflict

Compliance

Comment

B6.2.4 Buffers

 

 

Yes

There are no significant primary industries near the subject site. Surrounding land is primarily used for rural living and small-scale agricultural pursuits. It is understood that a landscaping or horticulture business is potentially being developed on the property to the north, approximately 120m from the nearest cabin

Proximity to residential properties is addressed under Chapter D3 and Section 4.8 of this report.

 

Chapter B8 Waste Minimisation and Management

Compliance

Comment

B8.3 General Development Criteria

Yes, subject to conditions

A site waste minimisation and management plan was not provided with the application.

The site has access to Council garbage collection services at the Tandys Lane frontage and adequate room for bin storage and collection in the road reserve is available.

A condition is recommended for an SWMMP to be provided for approval with the construction certificate application.

 

Chapter B9 Landscaping

Compliance

Comment

B9.6.1 Landscaping of Tourist and Visitor Accommodation

Yes, subject to conditions

The applicant submitted a landscape plan in their further information. The plan proposes screening between the cabins and along the northern boundary. 

However, the plan does not include screening of the development along the western road boundary which is considered necessary to improve privacy and reduce the visual impact of the development when viewed from Tandys Lane to the west.

A condition is recommended requiring an amended landscape plan that includes landscaping/screening vegetation along the western boundary of the property, particularly either side of the new driveway.

 

Chapter B13 Access and Mobility

Compliance

Comment

B13.2 Development Controls

Yes

 

The application proposes one of the cabins as being an accessible cabin and plans have been provided for this cabin.

 

Chapter B14 Excavation and Fill

Compliance

Comment

B14.2 Excavation and Fill in all Zones

 

Yes

 

Only a minor amount of excavation is required to place the slabs for the proposed cabins. This is not expected to have a significant visual impact or affect drainage or soil stability.

 

Chapter C3 Visually Prominent Sites, Visually Prominent Development and View Sharing

Compliance

Comment

C3.2.1 Visual Impact Assessment

Not Applicable

Development applications for visually prominent development must be accompanied by Visual Impact Statement in accordance with Part C3.2.

The cabins are located on land outside the coastal zone with an elevation of ~30m AHD. The proposal does not meet the definition of Visually Prominent Development and Part C3.2.1 is therefore not applicable.

 

Chapter D3 Tourist Accommodation

Compliance

Comment

D3.2.1 Location and Siting

Yes

The proposed cabins are generally in accordance with the Objectives and Performance Criteria of Part D3.2.1. The siting, design and operation of the tourist accommodation will not adversely affect any important conservation values, ecological systems or characteristics of the site.

D3.2.3 Character and Design in Rural Zones

 

No, but assessed as being acceptable.

The applicant addressed the Byron Rural Settlement Strategy 1998 through submission of further information and amended plans. The proposal is generally consistent with the relevant sections of the Strategy, apart from the following:

·      Performance Criteria 3(a)(iii): The development is not directly linked to the repair, enhancement, and protection of the natural environment – there is no environmental enhancement concept or VMP provided with the application.

·      Performance Criteria 3(c), Section 7.2 (5) of the 1998 Strategy: The site layout does not incorporate centralised car parking.

Refer to the further discussion and assessment provided under the DCP Issues Section.

D3.3.4 Rural Tourist Accommodation and Farm Stay Accommodation

Yes, subject to condition

The proposed development does not comply with the following Prescriptive Measures of Part D3.3.4:

·      Prescriptive Measure 3: A Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) outlining an ecological restoration concept has not been submitted with the application.

The application does not include a VMP, however, a condition is recommended that requires one to be provided prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

The proposal is deemed to comply with the development control subject to this condition. 

Refer to the further discussion and assessment provided under the DCP Issues Section.

 

4.5       Byron Development Control Plan 2014 – Issues

D3.2.3 Character and Design in Rural Zones

The relevant objectives and performance criteria of Part D3.2.3 are reproduced below–

Objectives

1.      To ensure that tourist accommodation in Rural Zones is compatible with the surrounding landscape and with the character and amenity of development in the locality.

 

2.      To implement the relevant Aims, Guiding Principles and provisions of the Byron Rural Settlement Strategy 1998.

 

Performance Criteria

 

 

3.      All development to which this Chapter applies in Rural Zones must be low scale consistent with the relevant Aims, Guiding Principles, Best Practice Guidelines and Performance Standards contained in the Byron Rural Settlement Strategy 1998 (‘the Strategy’) as follows:

 

a)      The Strategy’s relevant aims are:

 

i)       To ensure future rural settlement is directly linked to the repair, enhancement and protection of the natural environment, thereby increasing the Shire's natural capital.

 

d)      The relevant Performance Standards are contained in Chapter 8 of the Strategy.

1998 Strategy Section 7.2: Holiday Cabins – Guidelines:

 

 

5.      All weather ‘centralised’ car parking must be provided on-site at the rate of at least 1 car space per holiday cabin. The paving of car-parking areas is not encouraged (except where roads need to be on more steeply sloping lands), rather these areas should be either grass-covered or topped with gavel to an all-weather standard to ameliorate stormwater runoff.

 

 

7.      The siting of holiday cabins must be such that:

 

 

f.     vehicle access to cabins is for loading and collecting baggage only, while guest car parking instead must be confined to a single centralised area on the site. This requirement does not apply to accessways set aside for disabled persons, emergency purposes (including accident or fire) and other services such as sewerage disposal system, water supply and electricity.

 

8.      Environmental repair and enhancement:

 

1.      Planting of 900 native plants per dwelling-house or holiday cabin. (Thus a development comprising six (6) dwelling-houses or holiday cabins would require no fewer than 5400 plantings).

 

Assessment:

 

Section 7.2 (5) of the Byron Rural Settlement Strategy 1998 provides that holiday cabin development should be provided with all-weather “centralised” car parking at a rate of at least 1 car space per holiday cabin. This is further explained in Section 7.2(7)(f) which states “vehicle access to cabins is for loading and collecting baggage only, while guest car parking instead must be confined to a single centralised area on the site”.

 

The intent of this measure is related to the overall objective of facilitating holiday cabin development that is “in harmony with rural and natural environments” (s 7.2). Centralised car parking can contribute to that aim by minimising disturbance on the landscape from internal roads and car parking areas.

 

The proposal does not strictly comply with the DCP requirement because it provides individual (decentralised) carparking for each cabin rather than centralised carparking as stipulated in the DCP.

 

This design choice is partly related to bushfire planning controls, which require suitable access to be provided to the cabins for fire fighting vehicles. Access is achieved by providing an internal road that loops around the main dwelling and past the cabins, connecting to the Crown Road on the western boundary. A secondary driveway for each cabin branches off the internal road, leading to a covered car parking space for guests arriving by vehicle.

 

By comparison, a centralised car parking design would require the creation of a separate carpark in addition to the internal access road (which is required for firefighting access). The result would be similar, in terms of visual impact and character, and is unlikely to provide any significant benefits compared to the proposed decentralised design.

 

On balance, the proposed decentralised car parking design is considered to be acceptable having regard to the DCP aims and objectives and a variation to the control is supported in this instance.

 

D3.3.4 Rural Tourist Accommodation and Farm Stay Accommodation

 

The relevant objectives and performance criteria of D3.3.4 are shown below–

 

Objectives

 

1.      To ensure that rural tourist accommodation does not detract from the rural and natural character of its locality.

 

2.      To ensure that rural tourist accommodation does not adversely affect the conduct and productivity of agricultural operations on the site or nearby lands.

 

3.      To facilitate and support the establishment of low scale farm tourism as a secondary business to primary production, where farm stay accommodation is proposed.

Performance Criteria

 

8.      Environmental reparations are required as a part of any Rural Tourist Development. Such repairs are to be focused on the expansion of wildlife corridors, repairing and reconnecting vegetation remnants and enhancing riparian areas and habitat for threatened species and endangered plant communities.

 

Assessment:

 

Part D3.3.4 of the DCP and Section 8.2 of the Byron Rural Settlement Strategy 1998 requires a Vegetation Management Plan to be provided detailing an environmental restoration concept including 900 native trees per cabin.

 

Part D3.3.4 also specifies equivalent ecological restoration criteria where existing native vegetation occurs on site.

 

The application states that “existing environmental enhancement projects undertaken on the land will continue” but does not provide any detail on these projects. The applicant’s further information confirms that existing native vegetation on the property is “largely self-maintaining” and that no additional planting of native vegetation is proposed other than screening vegetation between the cabins under the landscape plan.  The applicant has argued that a VMP should not be required as the application was lodged (June 2019) prior to this requirement being incorporated into DCP 2014 (September 2019).  The subject amendment was publicly exhibited by Council from 1 May to 16 June 2019 (i.e., prior to lodgement of the subject DA).

 

While it is acknowledged that the application was lodged prior to the VMP requirements being introduced into DCP 2014, the relevant planning controls are the ones that apply at the time of determination. Further, a fundamental planning principle for rural tourism is that new development should be directly linked to the repair and enhancement of the natural environment. It is therefore appropriate that a VMP be developed for the site to provide improved biodiversity outcomes in accordance with the DCP.

 

A condition is recommended that requires a VMP to be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of a construction certificate and substantially implemented prior to the occupation phase of the development.

 

4.6       Any Planning Agreement or Draft Planning Agreement?

There are no proposed planning agreements or draft planning agreements.

4.7       Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 Considerations

 

Clause 92   Additional matters that consent authority must consider

 

There are no additional matters under the Regulations that require further consideration. Conditions relating to AS 2601–the demolition of structures are not required for the subject application as no demolition is proposed.

 

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

Impacts on vegetation and biodiversity

The proposal will not have a significant impact on the environment, subject to conditions requiring the site to be enhanced through a vegetation management plan including an additional 3600 native trees plus weeding and ongoing vegetation management. The overall outcome is likely to positive subject to the implementation of the VMP.

Timber plantation

A timber plantation has been approved for the property under the Plantations and Reafforestation Act 1999 (ref. AV0752P). The plantation will be in the central portion of the site approximately 200m from the proposed cabins (refer to Attachment 4).

The proposed development is not incompatible with the future use of the land for forestry, although care will need to be taken to ensure environmental restoration works are kept clear from the timber plantation to prevent unintended clearing of restored areas in the future.

Details of the timber plantation will need to be provided with the VMP along with further formation detailing how the restoration areas are to be managed separately from the timber plantation.

Structures near Simpsons Creek

Council received photos from the public showing two timber platforms and a composting toilet installed near the bank of Simpsons Creek within the 7(a) Wetlands Zone. Council records indicate that a request to remove these unauthorised structures was issued to the property owners in January 2017 (A2017/785) and that the issue is ongoing (E2018/33158 and E2018/44830).

Due to the environmentally sensitive nature of this area and its designation as a coastal wetland, a condition is recommended requiring any structures in this area to be removed prior to the issue of a construction certificate (unless they are otherwise deemed lawful following further investigation).

Built environment

Character, locating, siting, scale and external appearance

The design, siting and character of the development is considered to be low scale and generally compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding environment. Additional landscaping closer to the road frontage is recommended to reduce the visual impact of the development from Tandys Lane to the west.

Impacts on the existing and likely future amenity of the locality

Subject to conditions, the proposed cabins will have sufficient buffers to neighbouring dwellings and properties such that there is unlikely to be any significant impact on existing and likely future amenity of the area.

Conditions are recommended preventing the use of lighting in the evening aside from that needed for reasonable safety and use of the development.

Use of land for events and functions

The application is for tourist accommodation only and is unlikely to facilitate future events or functions at the property. Any future use of the land for functions or events requires consent and should be treated as a compliance issue.

Traffic generation and road access

The development will generate an additional 10 vehicle trips per day which represents an increase in traffic volumes of ~3.5% over current levels.

Tandys Lane is a sealed two way road in reasonable condition and is deemed suitable for the proposed development.

Social Environment

No. The proposal will not have a significant social impact on the locality.

Economic impact

The development is likely to provide a minor economic benefit to the construction sector in the short term and will contribute to the local tourism industry in the longer term.

Council Policies that are applicable to the proposed development are considered below:

Council Policy

Consideration

Management of Contaminated Land Policy

Council’s Environmental Health Officer considered land contamination as part of their assessment of the proposal.

Provision of Driveways Policy

Council’s Engineer has recommended a condition requiring approval for works within the road reserve.

Enforcement Policy

It is recommended that any unauthorised structures near Simpsons Creek be removed prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

4.9       The suitability of the site for the development

The site is a serviced property (with respect to access and water), has manageable constraints 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 and advertised for a period of 14 days in accordance with DCP 2014. There were 26 submissions made on the development application:

-     0 For,

-     26 Against.

One of the submissions was endorsed and signed by 22 owners/occupiers of properties on Tandys Lane and Hyrama Crescent.

Consideration of the key issues raised in submissions is included below:

Key issues raised in submissions

Consideration

Non-compliance with planning regulations

Permissibility of the proposed development is considered above under Section 4.2A.

The applicant has provided further information and amended plans and the proposal is now considered to be generally consistent with the relevant planning controls subject to conditions.

Consideration of the proposed development in light of applicable planning instruments is included above (see sections 4.2A-4.7).

Loss of amenity/ Impact on scenic values

The proposed cabins can be adequately screened by vegetation to minimise the impact on scenic values. Such screening has been required by a recommended condition of approval. Cabins are suitably located away from neighbouring properties to have detrimental impact on amenity.

Traffic, vehicular access and safety

Council’s Engineer concurs with the applicants engineering report that the likely increase in traffic on Tandys Lane from the development being approximately 3.5%.  The potential impact of the development on traffic and road safety is considered to be acceptable subject to conditions requiring the consolidation and upgrade of vehicular access to the property/development.

Environmental impact on Simpsons Creek

Information was provided indicating that unauthorised development has occurred on the property adjacent to Simpsons Creek and within the Wetlands (7(a)) zone.  Council records indicate that a request to remove these unauthorised structures was issued to the property owners in January 2017 (A2017/785) and that the issue is ongoing (E2018/33158 and E2018/44830).

A condition is recommended requiring these structures to be removed or regularised prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

Condition of Tandys Lane

Submissions argue that the increased traffic from this development will exacerbate the already poor condition of Tandys Lane.  Council’s Development Planning Officer has recommended a condition requiring the payment of contributions for the development.  Ultimately the maintenance and upgrade of Tandys Lane is a matter for Council’s Infrastructure Services team.

Lack of primary production

It is acknowledged that the proposal is not directly associated with primary production however this is not required as the proposal is defined as ‘tourist and visitor accommodation’ rather than ‘farm stay accommodation’.

The proposal is unlikely to prejudice future primary production on the land (a timber plantation has been approved) and is therefore not considered to be offensive to or incompatible with the RU1 and RU2 zone objectives.

Scale of development

The proposed development is considered to adequately meet the definition of “small-scale”.  The possibility of the approved dwellings also being used for short-term accommodation is not a relevant consideration for this application.

Unauthorised functions and events

Information was provided that indicates that unauthorised events may have occurred on the property.  However, this application does not seek approval for events and any such concerns should be referred to Council’s community enforcement team. A condition has been recommended that clearly states that commercial functions/events are not approved.

Lack of consultation with the community

The proposed development does not fall under the definition of “community significant development” and as such, pre-lodgement consultation is not required.

Unauthorised development and use of the property

The alleged unauthorised development on the property has been discussed above and a second recommendation is made to have Council’s community enforcement team investigate the matter further.

 

4.11    Public interest

The proposed development is unlikely to prejudice or compromise the public interest or create an undesirable precedent subject to appropriate conditions of consent.

5.         DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

 

5.1       Water & Sewer Levies

The development will be serviced by reticulated water from a Rous Water connection. Section 64 levies will be payable to Rous County Council prior to issue of construction certificate.

5.2       Developer Contributions

A Section 7.12 levy is applicable as the development is non-residential and has an estimated cost of more than $100,000.

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

The proposed development is a satisfactory response to the site’s constraints and the applicable planning controls that apply to the land.  Potential environmental, visual and amenity impacts have been addressed through conditions of consent requiring additional landscaping and environmental enhancement works through a vegetation management plan.

Overall, the proposal is a low-scale, low-impact development that is compatible with the character of the surrounding environment and is generally consistent with the planning controls for rural tourism in Byron LEP 2014 and Byron DCP 2014. The application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                        13.10

Report No. 13.10   Climate Change Adaptation Plan

Directorate:                         Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:                   Rachel Thatcher, Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Officer

File No:                                 I2021/574

Summary:

In 2018, Council declared a climate emergency (Res 18-680). In 2019, it was decided that a Climate Action Tank would be delivered to advance the development of a Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Unfortunately, due to COVID-19 this was unable to go ahead, however in June 2020, Council resolved (Res 20-351) to develop a Climate Change Adaptation Plan (CCAP) in-house.

In late 2020 and early 2021, Council completed a Climate Change Risk Assessment with Council’s insurer, Statewide Mutual. Seven workshops were held involving over 20 cross-directorate staff to identify the key climate risks for Byron Shire. A comprehensive list of adaptation initiatives were developed in response to the identified climate risks for Byron Shire. Initiatives identified as High or Extreme were then used as the basis of Council’s CCAP Actions.

As per Resolution 20-351, a first draft of the CCAP was sent to the previously confirmed Action Tank participants for peer review, in addition to several Council advisory committees. The peer reviewers consisted of:

·     Joelle Gergis – IPCC Climate Scientist

·     Rebecca McNaught – Southern Cross University / Pacific Connections

·     Jean Renouf – Resilient Byron

·     Marcello Sano – Griffith University

·     Hamish McCallum – Griffith University

·     Danny Almagor – Small Giants

·     Damon Gameau

·     Arakwal Corporation

·     Rous County Council

·     Zero Emissions Byron

·     Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Advisory Committee

·     Biodiversity Advisory Committee

The peer review process was highly valuable in developing a thorough, well considered Adaptation Plan and many key improvements were achieved through this process. In total, 100 Adaptation Actions were developed, many of which are already funded and in progress. Those that are not yet in progress will be considered annually in the development of future Operational Plans and budget resourcing. Future occurrence of climate related events and opening of grant funding opportunities may also trigger the ad hoc implementation and resourcing of appropriate Adaptation Actions.

As proposed by Councillors at the June 3 Strategic Planning Workshop, a community information session was held on June 15 to give community members and peer reviewers a chance to informally discuss the CCAP and raise any questions or concerns. The CCAP was also available on Your Say for a period of 3 weeks to allow for community feedback. A summary report of submissions received, and changes made is in Attachment 2. A full version of submissions can be accessed in Attachment 3. 

The CCAP can be viewed in Attachment 1. The final graphic designed version of the CCAP will be made available following adoption by Council.

  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council

1.      Adopts the Climate Change Adaptation Plan (Attachment 1 - E2021/89746), noting that final graphic design is to follow.

2.      Acknowledges the Peer Reviewers for their time, commitment and valuable expertise in shaping the Climate Change Adaptation Plan.

Attachments:

 

1        Final Draft Climate Change Adaptation Plan, 5 August 2021 Council Meeting, E2021/89746  

2        Climate Change Adaptation Plan - Submissions Report, E2021/89751  

3        Confidential - Combined submissions on draft Climate Change Adaptation Plan, attached to 5 August 2021 Council report, E2021/88039  

 


 

Report

In 2018, Council declared a Climate Emergency (Res 18-680). In order to advance the development of a CCAP, in 2019 Council planned to facilitate a Climate Action Tank workshop involving input from a range of community members, universities, government agencies and council staff. Due to COVID-19, this was unable to go ahead. However, in an effort to progress an adaptation response, Council resolved (Res 20-351) for staff to develop a CCAP in-house which –

a)      Considers the:

i)   Identified areas of concern determined at the 6 September 2019 Councillor workshop;

ii)  Council researched gap analysis conducted and presented to Council 12 December 2019; and

iii) Contemporary and current science as it relates to Local Government best practice for Climate Adaptation within Australia.

b)      Is peer reviewed where possible by the previously confirmed workshop participants; and

c)      Undergoes a Councillor and community engagement process before reporting to Council for consideration for adoption.

These components are addressed in further detail in a separate section of this report.

Climate Change Risk Assessment

In late 2020 and into early 2021, Council staff completed a Climate Change Risk Assessment with Council’s insurer, Statewide Mutual. Four initial workshops were held and attended by staff from each directorate. The results of this risk assessment were reported to the Executive Team and the Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Advisory Committee in December and November 2020, respectively.

An additional three internal workshops, facilitated by Statewide Mutual, identified controls and adaptation initiatives required to mitigate the previously workshopped climate risks.

The outcome was a comprehensive list of feasible actions within Council’s operational control that could be used as the basis of a CCAP.

 

Risks identified in the risk assessment process were categorised into low, medium, high, or extreme, however only risks identified as high and extreme have been prioritised for inclusion in the CCAP. The remaining low to medium risks will be considered in future 5 year reviews of the CCAP and the Climate Change Risk Assessment. 

 

How the Climate Change Adaptation Plan responds to Resolution 20-351

 

Res 20-351 required the CCAP to consider -

a-i) Identified areas of concern determined at the 6 September 2019 Councillor workshop;

The identified areas of concern were –

·   Resilient Communities

·   Emergency Management

·   Biodiversity

·   Infrastructure and Water

·   Settlement and Land Use Planning

The Climate Change Risk Assessment workshops involved staff from across all directorates. As a result, all identified areas of concern were addressed by the relevant teams. For example, Council’s Biodiversity Team were engaged to develop actions to mitigate climate risks to biodiversity in the region, and so on. All Adaptation Actions that correspond to the areas of concern above are included in the CCAP.

a-ii) Council researched gap analysis conducted and presented to Council 12 December 2019; and

A gap analysis was conducted to identify which existing plans, policies, and controls Council had in place to address climate change. A summary has been included in the CCAP (Section 5.0). In addition, current controls already within Council’s Operational Plan are also identified within our Adaptation Actions (Section 5.3).

a-iii) Contemporary and current science as it relates to Local Government best practice for Climate Adaptation within Australia.

The CCAP incorporates climate science and policy from leading international, national, and state agencies including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), United Nations, CSIRO, BOM, the Australian Government, and NSW Government. The climate projections for Byron Shire are sourced from NARCliM, CSIRO, and BOM, and are based on the most recently available data for the region. This information can be found in Section 4.0 and 5.3 of the Adaptation Plan.

b) Is peer reviewed where possible by the previously confirmed workshop participants.

The CCAP was sent to all previously confirmed Action Tank workshop participants for peer review and most were able to provide valuable expertise and constructive feedback. The participants are highly skilled and experienced in their respective fields and many are also Byron Shire residents. The CCAP was peer reviewed by –

·      Joelle Gergis - IPCC

·      Rebecca McNaught – Southern Cross University / Pacific Connections

·      Jean Renouf – Resilient Byron

·      Marcello Sano – Griffith University

·      Hamish McCallum – Griffith University

·      Danny Almagor – Small Giants

·      Damon Gameau

·      Arakwal Corporation

·      Rous County Council

·      Zero Emissions Byron

·      Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Advisory Committee

·      Biodiversity Advisory Committee

c) Undergoes a Councillor and community engagement process before reporting to Council for consideration for adoption.

The CCAP has undergone Councillor engagement at the 3 June Strategic Planning Workshop. The community was invited to submit feedback through a 3 week public exhibition period on Your Say supported by community newsletter, social media, and local radio promotion. Eleven submissions were received and summary is in Attachment 2. A full version of submissions can be accessed in Attachment 3.

A community information session was also held on June 15 in the Council Chambers to discuss the CCAP with the community and answer any questions about the Plan. Overall there was support for the CCAP.

Next Steps

It is recommended that Council adopt the CCAP (Attachment 1), noting:

·     the peer review process used throughout the development of the Plan;

·     the changes made based on community Your Say submissions (Attachment 2);

·     the implementation and review process for the Plan, allowing for future revisions as new information, data, or events arise; and

·     that final graphic design is to follow adoption.

Strategic Considerations

Community Strategic Plan and Operational Plan

CSP Objective

L2

CSP Strategy

L3

DP Action

L4

OP Activity

Community Objective 3:  We protect and enhance our natural environment

3.2

Strive to become a sustainable community  

3.2.1

Work towards Council's zero-emissions target

3.2.1.9

Develop and implement a Climate Adaptation Plan

Recent Resolutions

·     Resolution 18-680

·     Resolution 20-351

Financial Considerations

Adaptation Actions will be considered annually for the Operational Plan (OP) and resourced accordingly by the responsible Directorate. Grant funding will also be sought out to assist in the implementation of the actions. Many Actions are already in progress and therefore have funding allocated for implementation. Future climate events and opening of grant funding opportunities may also trigger the ad hoc implementation and resourcing of appropriate Adaptation Actions.

Consultation and Engagement

The CCAP has been developed through extensive cross-directorate workshops involving over 20 staff from across Council. Individual staff involved in these workshops were responsible for developing Adaptation Actions that would mitigate the identified climate risks to Byron Shire.

Following this, further consultation took place via an external peer review process, involving highly skilled members of the community, Council advisory committees, and other experts on Climate Change. Additional internal consultation then took place with the Executive Team prior to presenting to Council for discussion at a Strategic Planning Workshop. The community consultation process is outlined under part c) of the Council resolution above.   


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                        13.11

Report No. 13.11   Preparing for Climate Active carbon neutral certification 2025/26 - establishing Council's emissions boundary

Directorate:                         Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:                   Hayley Briggs, Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Officer

Julia Curry, Sustainability and Emissions Reduction Officer

File No:                                 I2021/860

Summary:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement of the proposed emissions boundary for Council operations, in preparation for becoming certified carbon neutral under the Climate Active standard in 2025/26.

In March 2017, Council resolved to be net zero emissions for its operations by 2025 (17-086). In December 2019, Council further resolved to become certified carbon neutral under the Climate Active national standard by 2025/26 (19-634).

 

To set the framework to deliver on its emissions reduction goals, Council endorsed the Net Zero Emissions Strategy for Council Operations 2025 in June 2019 (19-268) and the Net Zero Emissions Action Plan for Council Operations 2025 in November 2020 (20-628). Under the Governance objective in the Action Plan, Action D5 is to “Develop an emissions disclosure framework for Council staff”. Further, one of the measures under 2020/21 Operational Plan Activity 3.2.1.1 Deliver the Net Zero Emissions Action Plan for Council Operations 2025 is “Report to Council to define Council’s emissions boundary”.

 

The process for achieving Climate Active certification involves a number of steps over several years. Establishing Council’s emissions boundary is step 1 and standard practice for any organisation seeking certification. Consultant ‘100% Renewables’ has been engaged to assist staff with the process.

 

The proposed boundary will increase Council’s emissions footprint significantly. This is to be expected; it is an inevitable part of the journey to Climate Active certification. Staff are unable to estimate by how much it will increase because the source data is yet to be collected (this will take place in 2021/22). Staff will report back to Council after the first year of tracking the new boundary to give Council the opportunity to review progress (as part of the annual emissions report in December 2022).

 

An increased emissions footprint means that more tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent will need to be offset in 2025/26 (and all following years that Council resolves to remain carbon neutral). Staff are presently unable to give an estimate as to the cost of offsetting Council’s emissions footprint. Staff will begin development of an offsetting strategy and costs in the 2021/22 financial year alongside tracking the new boundary and will report findings back to Council as part of the annual emissions report in December 2022. 

 

Additional staff time and resources will be dedicated to setting up new data gathering and reporting systems. The Sustainability Team has factored this into future planning and will absorb most of the additional work.

  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1.      endorses the proposed Climate Active-compliant emissions boundary for Council operations in Table 1 of this report.

2.      notes the attached report from consultant ‘100% Renewables’, Establishing Climate Active-compliant emissions boundary for Council operations (Attachment 1 - E2021/64201).

3.      notes that staff will report back to Council after the first financial year of tracking the proposed boundary (2021/22) as part of the annual emissions report (December 2022).

4.      notes that a discussion of offsetting strategy and its financial implications will be reported to Council as part of the annual emissions report (December 2022).

Attachments:

 

1        Establishing Climate Active-compliant emissions boundary for Council operations - report from 100% Renewables, E2021/64201  

 

         


 

Report

In March 2017, Council resolved to be net zero emissions for its operations by 2025 (17-086). In December 2019, Council further resolved to become certified carbon neutral under the Climate Active national standard by 2025/26 (19-634). One of the measures under 2020/21 Operational Plan Activity 3.2.1.1 Deliver the Net Zero Emissions Action Plan for Council Operations 2025 is “Report to Council to define Council’s emissions boundary”.

On 19 May 2021, the Executive Team endorsed the proposed emissions boundary and resolved that a report to be brought to the Executive Team to confirm the emissions boundary and discuss carbon offsets in 2021/22.

Process for achieving Climate Active Certification

The Sustainability Team has engaged consultant ‘100% Renewables’ to assist Council in becoming certified under Climate Active. The process will comprise the following steps:

1.      Boundary: determine emission sources for Climate Active Inventory (2020/21).

2.      Inventory: collation of data and calculation of carbon footprint (2021/22 onwards).

3.      Offsets: establish offset policy (2021/22 or 2022/23, depending on resourcing) and facilitate purchase of suitable carbon offsets (2025/26).

4.      Trial Year: practice run of calculating emissions in line with Climate Active (2024/25)

5.      Finalise: finalise Climate Active deliverables and publish public statement (2025/26).

Throughout the process, Council will also be working to deliver emissions reduction projects that reduce the size of its carbon footprint.

Completing step 1: determining Council’s emissions boundary

100% Renewables has assisted the Sustainability Team with step 1, drafting an emissions boundary that will meet the Climate Active standard. For 100% Renewables’ full report, see Attachment 1. The boundary includes emissions sources under three scopes:

1.      Scope 1: emissions that are owned or controlled by Council.

2.      Scope 2: emissions from Council’s use of electricity.

3.      Scope 3: emissions that are a consequence of Council’s activities but are not directly owned or controlled by Council.

The proposed boundary includes all the scope 1 and 2 sources we already track (fugitive emissions from landfill and sewage treatment plants, general and streetlight electricity, fleet and bottled gas) and adds missing scope 1 emissions (HVAC refrigerants) and relevant scope 3 emissions. The Climate Active “relevance test” was applied to each emission source to determine if it would be included (see p. 24 of Attachment 1 for a detailed explanation of the relevance test). The proposed boundary is as follows:

Table 1. Proposed Climate Active-compliant emissions boundary for Council operations

Proposed included emission sources

Proposed excluded emission sources

Scope 1 emissions:

·    Refrigerants

·    LPG – stationary

·    Diesel – stationary

·    Diesel

·    Petrol

·    Ethanol

·    Closed landfill

·    Wastewater

Scope 2 emissions include Electricity and Street lighting.

Scope 3 emissions:

·    Scope 3 facilities

·    Water

·    Acetylene

·    Air travel

·    Business accommodation

·    Employee commute

·    Fuel from waste contractors

·    Paper

·    IT equipment

·    IT software

·    Office equipment

·    Food and catering

·    Postage and couriers

·    PopCar

·    Waste

·    Telecommunications

·    Cleaning

·    Pest control

·    Stationery

·    Chemicals

·    Professional services

·    Asphalt

·    Concrete

·    Other road building materials

·    Machinery and vehicle repairs

·    Equipment hire

·    Clothing

·    Non-quantified – hire cars

·    Taxis and Uber

·    Embodied emissions in other purchased goods

Implications of adopting the proposed boundary

Adopting the proposed boundary will have the following implications:

1.      Council will complete the first step towards becoming certified Climate Active carbon neutral and completing resolution 19-634.

2.      Given the significant number of additional emissions sources that Council will need to track, additional staff time and resources will be dedicated to setting up new data gathering and reporting systems. The Sustainability Team will absorb most of this additional work.

3.      The proposed boundary will increase Council’s emissions footprint significantly. This is to be expected. Staff are unable to estimate by how much it will increase because the source data is yet to be collected (this will take place in 2021/22). An increased emissions footprint means that more tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent will need to be offset in 2025/26 (and all following years that Council resolves to remain carbon neutral). Staff are presently unable to give an estimate as to the cost of offsetting Council’s emissions footprint. The Sustainability Team will begin development of an offsetting strategy and costs in the 2021/22 financial year and report findings back to Council.    

Risk

Establishing Council’s emissions boundary in preparation for becoming certified carbon neutral under the Climate Active standard is linked to the following Strategic Risk:

·        Strategic Risk Reference 4: Environmental Resilience. One of the existing controls for this risk is the Net Zero Emissions Action Plan for Council Operations 2025. Establishing Council’s emission boundary is one of the actions in the Plan.

Strategic Considerations

Community Strategic Plan and Operational Plan

CSP Objective

L2

CSP Strategy

L3

DP Action

L4

OP Activity

Community Objective 3:  We protect and enhance our natural environment

3.2

Strive to become a sustainable community  

3.2.1

Work towards Council's zero-emissions target

3.2.1.1

Deliver the Net Zero Emissions Action Plan for Council Operations 2025

Community Objective 3:  We protect and enhance our natural environment

3.2

Strive to become a sustainable community  

3.2.1

Work towards Council's zero-emissions target

3.2.1.2

Prepare Annual Emissions Inventory to determine progress towards 2025 Net Zero Emission Target

Recent Resolutions

·        17-086 – Council resolved to be net zero emissions for its operations by 2025, and to source all of its energy from renewable sources by 2027.

·        19-268 – Council endorsed the Net Zero Emissions Strategy for Council Operations 2025.

·        19-634 – Council resolved to become certified carbon neutral under the Climate Active national standard by 2025/26.

·        20-628 – Council endorsed the Net Zero Emissions Action Plan for Council Operations 2025.

Legal/Statutory/Policy Considerations

There are no legislative considerations when becoming Climate Active certified.

Net Zero Emissions Strategy for Council Operations 2025 – establishing Council’s emissions boundary is an essential step in the process to becoming certified carbon neutral under the Climate Active standard; becoming carbon neutral will fulfil the central purpose of the Strategy.

Net Zero Emissions Action Plan for Council Operations 2025 – establishing Council’s emissions boundary is a measure under the Governance Objective in the Action Plan. 

Financial Considerations

The cost of establishing Council’s emissions boundary has already been absorbed by the Sustainability Team, using pre-existing budget allocation.

This report has no direct financial implications. However, as discussed above at Point 3 under “Implications of adopting the proposed boundary”, there is an indirect financial consideration relating to the increased emissions footprint and resulting increased tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent that will need to be offset to become carbon neutral. Carbon offsetting costs vary widely depending on the location and type of offset project, and it is not yet known by how much Council’s emissions footprint will increase with the proposed boundary therefore staff are presently unable to give an estimate as to the cost of offsetting Council’s emissions footprint. The Sustainability Team will research an offsetting strategy and related costs in the 2021/22 financial year, and report findings back to Council in December 2022 as part of the annual emissions report. That report will be drafted in consultation with Manager Finance.

Consultation and Engagement.

Who was consulted?

How did consultation occur? e.g. email, verbal etc.

Comments/Feedback

External: Consultant 100% Renewables

Email, verbal.

See attached report from consultant.

Manager Open Spaces & Resource Recovery, IS

Email.

Provided leased facilities data.

Manager Utilities, IS

Email.

Provided leased facilities data.

Property Maintenance Coordinator, CCS

Email, verbal.

Provided information on HVAC system. 

Management / Asset Accountant CCS - Financial Services

Email, verbal.

Provided financial data.

Leasing Coordinator, GM

Email.

Provided leased facilities data.

Team Leader Electrical Maintenance, IS

Email.

Provided generator data.

  


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                        13.12

Report No. 13.12   PLANNING - 26.2020.5.1 158 Jonson Street Planning Proposal Submissions Report

Directorate:                         Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:                   Sam Tarrant, Planner

File No:                                 I2021/859

Summary:

This report presents the exhibition outcomes of the 158 Jonson Street planning proposal 26.2020.5.1.

The planning proposal seeks to rezone the site from SP2 (rail corridor) to SP2 (car park).

The planning proposal was placed on exhibition from 10 May to 7 June 2021. Nine (9) public submissions and three agency responses were received.

Most submissions had concerns regarding design and amenity impacts which will be addressed as part of the development application process.

It is recommended that the planning proposal (as exhibited) be sent to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for finalisation.

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 forwards the planning proposal, as contained in Attachment 1 (E2021/9574), to Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for finalisation.

Attachments:

 

1        26.2020.5.1 Planning Proposal Jonson St car park (v2 Public exhibition version and final version for Council), E2021/9574  

2        26.2020.5.1 Combined submissions for attachment to Council report - public version, E2021/85162  

3        26.2020.5.1 Combined agency response, E2021/89363  

4        Form of Special Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest, E2012/2815  

 


 

Report

At the November planning meeting Council resolved to place the planning proposal to rezone 158 Jonson Street on public exhibition.

The planning proposal seeks to rezone the site from SP2 (rail corridor) to a mix of SP2 (car park), E2 Environmental Conservation and E3 Environmental Management.

The planning proposal was on exhibition from 10 May until 7 June 2021. Notification was sent to the adjoining landowners as well as several government agencies as per the Gateway determination.

Nine (9) public submissions were received and are attached to this report (Attachment 1). All submissions objected to the rezoning for the reasons summarised below.

The planning proposal governs the zoning and associated LEP maps only. Design considerations are assessed as part of the development application process, which is currently underway.

Submission issues applicable to the development application process have been recorded and relayed to the development assessment officer.

A development application has been submitted for this site and will be presented to Council in a separate report. The development application will not be determined until the site rezoning has been completed.

The public will also be given an additional opportunity to provide comment when the development application is placed on public exhibition.

Submission Issue(s)

Response

Inappropriate location.

The design goes beyond reasonable development standards and is in opposition of the precautionary principle.

The proposal is at odds with the existing streetscape and the residential character to the east and will detract from the integrity of the protected wetlands to the west.

This is a prime CBD location and should not be used for a car park.

Design of the car park is considered at the development application stage.

The site is located adjacent to the business zone and part of the site is proposed to be zoned E2 and E3.

Providing additional parking space on the peripherals of the town will enable people to park and walk into town which is consistent with the Byron town centre masterplan.

Two storey car park.

The rezoning will enable a two-storey 200+ car park which is excessive for the site. The height will cause light spill and increase noise dispersal.

A 9m height limit already applies to the site. The directly adjacent B2 zoned land has a height limit of 11.5m. Specific design measures can be used to minimise noise and light impacts to adjoining residents, which will be considered as part of the DA process.

Light and noise pollution.

A two-storey car park will cause significant light spill at night and have adverse impacts on the adjoining residents and wildlife in the adjacent wetland.

Noted. Design considerations can be used to minimise noise and light impacts to adjoining residents as part of the associated development application.

Conditions of consent can also be imposed to limit hours of operation and reduce associated impacts on adjoining residents.

The environmental zoned part of the site will enable replanting and provide a buffer to the adjoining wetland.

Increased traffic/roundabout.

The addition of a 200+ cars coming onto the Browning St. roundabout will exacerbate traffic issues in addition to the new Jonson Lane development.

There is no clear pedestrian crossing at the roundabout and this development will make pedestrian access dangerous.

The submitted traffic study does account for the Byron Bypass and new roundabout. It acknowledges that this will generate additional traffic, noting that this will be within the roadway capacity and that acceptable access can be achieved.

Measures to ensure suitable pedestrian access can be conditioned as part of the development application process.

Carpark security.

A fence should be required along the paper road to ensure the site cannot be accessed after hours.

Security and access issues will be considered as part of the development application process.

 

Jonson St. Paper Road.

There is an emergency exit from the Seadrift Complex and emergency vehicle access for Fire/Police/Ambulance is via the Jonson St road reserve between the Proposed Carpark and Seadrift Complex. It is vital that this access and exit always remains clear and unobstructed, and that any proposed development is aware of this.

The existing car park for mitre 10 should be upgraded.

Noted. No changes to the paper road are proposed in this planning proposal.

Formalisation of the access to/from the site will be required should the resulting development application be approved. 

 

Not in keeping with Byron low scale development and character.

The rezoning will enable a massive structure of up to 9 m high with no limit on FSR. It does not fit in the landscape and design of our town placed in a quiet undeveloped part and it should zoned MG market gardens.

The site is privately owned and directly adjacent to business zoned land. FSR is not relevant in the case of a car park. The application of environmental zones on part of the site reduces the footprint which can be used for a car park.

A 9m height limit already applies to the site, which is the same height limit applicable to all residential areas of Byron. The business land directly adjacent has a height limit of 11.5m.

Loss of amenity.

There should be restrictions on the hours the Proposed Carpark operates. If the Carpark were to operate 24/7, the impact of constant lighting, constant vehicle noise, constant vehicle emissions, security and safety issues, etc. would seriously disrupt the nature of this primarily residential neighbourhood, as well as affect the wildlife habitat around the Proposed Carpark.

The design of the car park should minimise visual impact to Seadrift residents with a green or solid easterly facing wall and to mitigate light and noise spill.

The entrance for the car park should remain at the northern end of the site and a gate installed for the paper road to prevent illegal camping and people accessing the site after hours.

The associated retail redevelopment and car park should have limited hours of operation. If approved there should be adequate fencing/walls and tree planting for screening.

The development application will consider design and amenity impacts. Conditions can be included to limit hours of operation.

The site directly adjoins the business zone (B2 Local Centre) which has a height limit of 11.5m. A future car park on the site will be restricted to a 9m height limit.

The Jonson Street paper road that separates the site from the residential area opposite will remain.

 

Car Park will not increase walkability of the town.

Since the carpark will be privately owned, is there a guarantee that parking will not be exorbitantly priced anyway? Or used for workers rather than people going into town?

Secondly, it is very unlikely to affect the town centre as people will wish to park closer to town. They will not walk from such a distance (otherwise they could park in Woolworths carpark anyway).

We do not need any more open space being used for cars.

The Byron Masterplan states that parking areas should be located out of the town centre. This will provide a parking space on the southern end of town enabling pedestrians to walk into town.

In addition, the car park will enable the existing adjacent warehouse to be repurposed.

 

 

Inconsistent with the aims of Byron LEP.

The proposal is inconsistent with the aims of Byron LEP in that it will totally and adversely detract from the amenity of the residential area to the east, particularly in relation to noise, traffic safety, streetscape, camping, tree removal, drainage and the environment.

The proposal is also inconsistent with the DCP Chapter D4.

It is considered that this planning proposal is consistent with the aims of the Byron LEP 2014 — namely that it is responding to the site no longer being utilised for rail infrastructure.

The DCP deals with development applications. This will be examined as part of any subsequent development applications.

Environmental

The proposed E zones are supported, however the area should be replanted with indigenous trees and the E3 area managed so it does not become a fire danger.

Trees should be planted along the paper road to soften the impact to the residential area.

Compensatory planting in the environmental zones with a vegetation management plan will be required as part of the development application (ie. using native vegetation).

Screening of the car park will also be considered to minimise impacts on the adjoining residential apartments.

The planning proposal was sent to RFS, Transport for NSW, Heritage NSW, Biodiversity Conservation Division, Tweed Byron Local Aboriginal Land Council and Arakwal.

Transport for NSW, Heritage NSW and Biodiversity Conservation Division responded and had no objection to the planning proposal.

Biodiversity Conservation Division recommended that prior to finalisation of the planning proposal that Council enters into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) with the applicant that specifies the biodiversity offset requirements and that a vegetation management plan will be prepared for the E2 and E3 zoned areas of the site.

The accompanying ecologist report notes that the vegetation removal on site does not exceed the ‘biodiversity offsets scheme’ threshold. Notwithstanding this, Councils DCP chapter B1 - Biodiversity sets out a framework requiring development to achieve no net loss of biodiversity on-site. In this regard development must be designed to avoid and/or minimise impacts on biodiversity values such as the mapped high environmental value vegetation that occurs on the subject site. Where avoidance and minimisation measures have been clearly considered and implemented, residual biodiversity impacts may be allowable. In these cases, Chapter B1 requires that offset measures must be implemented on-site via a vegetation management plan. The area subject to the vegetation management plan must then be protected from further impacts in perpetuity.

The environmental zones have been included on site so that ecological restoration based on the principles in Chapter B1 can be accommodated on site.

Based on the above information it is considered that a VPA is not necessary in this instance.

Conclusion

No changes to the exhibited planning proposal are recommended. Concerns regarding design, traffic and amenity impacts will be assessed as part of the development application process.

Options

Proceed with the planning proposal as attached noting that a thorough assessment of the design will occur as part of the development application process

Or

Not proceed with the planning proposal and provide reasons for this decision to the applicants.

Next steps

Should Council wish to proceed, the planning proposal will be sent to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for finalisation.

In this instance, Council does not have delegation to make this plan, therefore the role of finalising the proposal will remain with the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

Strategic Considerations

Community Strategic Plan and Operational Plan

CSP Objective

L2

CSP Strategy

L3

DP Action

L4

OP Activity

Community Objective 4:   We manage growth and change responsibly

4.1

Support the visions and aspirations of local communities through place-based planning and management

4.1.3

Manage development through a transparent and efficient assessment process

4.1.3.11

Prepare and assess Planning Proposals and Development Control Plans, and amend Local Environmental Plan maps

Recent Resolutions

·     Res 20-601: Proceed to public exhibition and consider a report post exhibition.

Legal/Statutory/Policy Considerations

Should Council proceed with this planning proposal, an amendment to Byron LEP 2014 will be made.

Financial Considerations

This is an applicant-initiated planning proposal with all costs borne by the landowners.

Consultation and Engagement

As outlined in the report.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                        13.13

Report No. 13.13   Final Coastal Management Program (CMP) Stage 1 Scoping Study for the Southern Byron Shire Coastline and Belongil Estuary - for adoption by Council

Directorate:                         Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:                   Orla Seccull, Coastal & Estuary Officer

File No:                                 I2021/448

Summary:

This report provides the final Coastal Management Program (CMP) Stage 1 ‘Scoping Study for the Southern Byron Shire coastline and Belongil Estuary” for adoption by Council.

An update on the development of CMPs for the Byron Shire Coastline was provided at the Council meeting 22 April 2021. At that meeting, Council resolved (Res 21-164) that the draft Scoping Study be sent to agencies for their review [i.e. those agencies with a role or responsibility associated with the Forward Plan for the remaining stages of the CMP] and that a copy be placed on the web for public feedback.

The agency review and public feedback took place in May and early June 2021. Eleven responses were received from the community and submissions were received from the following State agencies and stakeholders:

·     DPIE – EES (Coast and Estuaries).

·     DPIE – Crown Lands.

·     Department of Primary Industry - Fisheries (Marine Parks).

·     DPIE – National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS).

·     Transport for NSW - Maritime Infrastructure Delivery Office (MIDO).

·     Transport for NSW – Maritime (TfNSW – Maritime).

·     Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal) Registered Native Title Body Corporate (RNTBC) (BOBBAC).

Feedback and agency submissions were assessed and where relevant, amendments have been incorporated into the finalised Scoping Study. A response to each comment and submission received identifying what amendments (if any) were made in the final Scoping Study is provided in the full Assessment of Submissions provided in Attachment 1. Combined agency (and BOBBAC) responses are provided in Attachment 2, and combined community responses are provided in Attachment 3.

In summary:

·     Feedback received from State agencies and stakeholders (BOBBAC) required some amendments be made to the Scoping Study, primarily the provision of additional context and clarification on some aspects (e.g. economic value, the rights and interests of Aboriginal people, reference to adopted studies, plans and policies etc.), as well as amendments to supporting agencies in the Forward Plan.

·     The majority of community feedback received revolved around threatening processes already considered in the Scoping Study, or management options. Development of management options will occur at Stage 3 of the CMP. No amendments were made to the Scoping Study in response to community feedback received.

Council staff also made several amendments to the Scoping Study, primarily relating to the Forward Plan, i.e. reordering and combining/separation of recommended Stage 2 and 3 studies and inclusion of a study already funded and underway that informs other Stage 2 studies.

The final amended version of the Scoping Study is presented in Attachment 4 for Council adoption at this meeting.

The total cost of preparing the CMP (5 stage process_ is estimated to be between $187,000 and $365,000 with the next stage (Stage 2 – FY2021/22) of the CMP expected to cost between $62,000 and $130,000. The range provides for uncertainty in the costs of certain activities as recommended in the Forward Plan.

A budget of $78,000 in the FY2021/22 budget under ledger item 2605.156 ‘Coastline & Belongil Est Scoping Study’ has been allocated to enable the project to continue to Stage 2 of the Coastal Management Program process. This budget is considered sufficient to complete the required Stage 2 investigations with a  grant funding contribution.

  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1.      Notes the submissions received during the public comment period and agency feedback on the draft CMP Stage 1 Scoping Study for the Southern Byron Shire Coastline and Belongil Estuary (Assessment of submissions in Attachment 1 - E2021/90327 and full copy of submissions in Attachment 2 – E2021/87905 and Attachment 3 – E2021/87909).

2.      Adopts the finalised CMP Stage 1 Scoping Study for the southern Byron Shire coastline and Belongil Estuary in Attachment 4 (E2021/90329) incorporating the amendments outlined in the report.

3.      Notes the allocation of $78,000 through the FY2021/22 budget process to enable the project to continue to Stage 2 of the Coastal Management Program process (OP Action 3.3.1.4)

Attachments:

 

1        Assessment of Agency Submissions and Community Feedback - draft CMP Scoping Study Southern ByronShire Coastline and Belongi Estuary, E2021/90327  

2        Combined agency submissions - draft CMP Scoping Study Southern Byron Shire Coastline and Belongil estuary, E2021/87905  

3        Combined community feedback - draft CMP Scoping Study  Southern ByronShire Coastline and Belongi Estuary, E2021/87909  

4        FINAL Coastal Management Program (CMP) Stage 1 Scoping Study for the Southern Byron Shire coastline including Belongil Estuary - COMPILED, E2021/90329  

 

 

 


 

REPORT

Background

Council has commenced preparation of Coastal Management Programs (CMPs) for its coastline. Development of CMPs is partially funded by the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE). CMPs set out the long-term strategy for the coordinated management of the coastal zone by council, public authorities, land managers and the community. CMPs will consolidate the funding and delivery of priority management actions to balance the environmental, cultural, recreational and economic needs of the coastal zone and to adapt to emerging issues such as population growth and climate change.

The development of a CMP is a staged process comprising five stages as per the figure below.

Figure 1: The five stages of developing and implementing a Coastal Management Program (adapted from the Coastal management Manual, NSW Govt, 2018)

Final Coastal Management Program (CMP) Stage 1 Scoping Study for the Southern Byron Shire Coastline

The CMP for the Southern Byron Shire coastline encompasses:

·     Coastal areas from Cape Byron to Seven Mile Beach (to the LGA boundary) including Ti-Tree Lake and Tallow Lake and its catchment.

·     Belongil Creek Estuary to the west of Cape Byron as well as the wider Belongil catchment.

·     Marine areas to 3 nm offshore.

Council engaged Rhelm Consulting as the project consultant for the Scoping Study in partnership with other experienced coastal and estuary specialists including Bluecoast (coastal engineers), H20 Consulting Group (ecological specialists) and Coastal Zone Management and Planning (Angus Gordon, a highly experienced coastal specialist).

Agency review and public comment on the draft Scoping Study

Council at the 22 April 2021 meeting, resolved (Res 21-164) (relevant parts only) that the draft Scoping Study be sent to agencies for their review and that a copy be placed on the web for public feedback

The draft was sent to key stakeholders for review, i.e. those agencies with a role or responsibility associated with the Forward Plan for the remaining stages of the CMP, as well as BOBBAC, Jali Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC) and Tweed-Byron LALC.

The draft was also made available for public comment for 5 weeks on Council’s website with associated media release, social media post, and an email to community members and general community stakeholders who had previously registered interest in the coastal management projects. The agency review and public feedback took place in May and early June 2021 (closing on 11June).

Agency and Stakeholder submission on the draft Scoping Study

Submissions were received from the following NSW Government agencies and stakeholders:

·     DPIE – EES (Coast and Estuaries).

·     DPIE – Crown Lands.

·     Department of Primary Industry - Fisheries (Marine Parks).

·     DPIE – National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS).

·     Transport for NSW – Maritime (TfNSW – Maritime).

·     TfNSW - Maritime Infrastructure Delivery Office (MIDO).

·     Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal) Registered Native Title Body Corporate (RNTBC) (BOBBAC).

Feedback received from State agencies and stakeholders required some amendments made to the Scoping Study, primarily the provision of additional context and clarification on some aspects (e.g. economic value, the rights and interests of Aboriginal people, reference to adopted studies, plans and policies), as well as amendments to supporting agencies in the Forward Plan.

Copies of submissions received from agencies and stakeholders are provided in Attachment 2. A response to each comment received is provided in the full Assessment of Submissions provided in Attachment 1. Table 1 below provides a summary of those submission responses that have resulted in significant amendments being made to the Scoping Study.

Table 1: Comments in submissions from public agencies and key stakeholders resulting in amendments to the final Scoping Study.

Agency

Submission Comments

Response

NPWS

Management Areas

NPWS identified the reserves managed by NPWS, their values and provided relevant Plans of Management.

Amendments made:
- Suffolk Park Reserve removed from the list of reserves managed by NPWS (Section 3.2.1.
- Inclusion of Attachment 1 as provided by NPWS into the data compendium (Appendix D).

NPWS

Scoping study direction

NPWS supports the direction of the CMP and the inclusion of the four Coastal Management Areas (CM Act) in the scope with a preference to minimise demands on staff and the community for participation in consultation/engagement/review.
 
NPWS supports the inclusion of NPWS as a supporting agency in the Forward Plan action lists (S2-4, S2-8 (now S2-3), S3-1 (now S2-10 and S2-11), Add-9).

Noted.

Amendments made:
- NPWS added as a support agency against Items S2-10 and S2-11 (former Item S3-1) in Table 9-2.

DPI Fisheries (Marine Parks)

Vision Statement

The Vision Statement could more clearly identify the importance of the Conservation Values of the study/Program area, which DPI Fisheries regards as a significant factor in the development of the Program.

Amendments made:
- Bold text added to the Vision Statement in Section 2.2: "The Byron Shire’s coast is resilient and adaptive to ensure it retains its iconic natural, conservation and cultural values now and into the future. These values underpin the coast’s Aboriginal cultural heritage, ecological function, amenity, recreational use, local and tourism uses, and they are kept central in the development of future management approaches."

DPI Fisheries (Marine Parks)

Economic value of agriculture

There was discussion around catchment health and practices – particularly for Belongil Creek. It would be useful for context if the nature and economic value of grazing/agriculture could be identified or estimated to inform discussions. (eg is the value of cattle grazing $5000/year or $5 million).

Amendments made:
- Inclusion of the following context in Section 3.4.4 Recreational and Economic Value: "A land use mapping exercise undertaken for the Scoping Study identified a large portion of agricultural land within the study area (approximately 1,293 ha), primarily within the Belongil Creek catchment (approximately 1,060 ha). The majority (approximately 90%) of these agricultural lands are used for grazing, with 1,171 ha of grazing lands within the study area and 946 ha within the Belongil Creek catchment. For the mapping exercise agricultural lands were considered to be grazing (native vegetation and modified pastures), cropping, horticulture and intensive animal/plant production areas as well as rural residential with agriculture areas. Note that plantation forests were not included as an agricultural land use". The economic value of landuses would be explored and considered in Stage 3, if management options have an impact on commercial/business activities.
- Bold text added to Add-3 in Table 9-3: "Economic valuation of the coastal zone (i.e. all cultural, natural and built assets, including beaches themselves as well as commercial and business activities i.e. agriculture)..."

DPIE - EES

Conceptual model of current coastal processes

The Scoping Study meets all the necessary requirements of this tool. DPIE has had the opportunity to provide ongoing comments on several working paper versions of this scoping study throughout its development which have all been incorporated.

Suggested amendment:

DPIE suggests that values in Figure 3-2 – Summary of the current coastal processes be amended to reference data from the current adopted hazard study (WBM BMT 2013).

Amendments made:
- Figure 3-2 and Figure E-2 (Appendix E) have been amended to reflect the adopted BMT WBM (2013) values where available (i.e. for headland bypassing, long-term shoreline behaviour and net longshore transport). The bold text was also added to the paragraph in Section 3.5.1 as follows: "Conceptual sand movement pathways shown in Figure 3-2 are based on adopted relevant studies study (WBM BMT, 2013) carried out within the area."

DPIE - Crown Lands

Related visions for the coastal zone

The ‘Crown land 2031 – State Strategic Plan for Crown land’ vision statement is ‘Crown land supports resilient, sustainable and prosperous communities across NSW.’

Suggested action: May be relevant for Table 2-2.

Amendments made:
- The vision from 'Crown land 2031 – State Strategic Plan for Crown land' (DPIE, 2021) has been added to Table 2-2 and the reference included in Section 10.

DPIE - Crown Lands

State, Regional and Local Level Plans and Strategies

IN Table 3-1, include ‘Crown land 2031 – State Strategic Plan for Crown land’, i.e. DPIE-Crown lands which reflects Government and community aspirations to deliver social, environment and economic benefits from Crown land as well as agency priorities.

Amendments made:
- A summary of 'Crown land 2031 – State Strategic Plan for Crown land' (DPIE, 2021) has been added to Table 3-1.

DPIE - Crown Lands

Rights and interests of Aboriginal people with respect to Crown land

Incorporate and acknowledge the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1984 and the Native Title Act 1993 which provide a framework for recognising the rights and interests of Aboriginal people with respect to Crown land – which may include Crown land within the CMP study area. For example, the Northern end of Seven Mile Beach is subject to an incomplete claim made under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1984.

Up to date land claim information that may affect proposed management options will be sought at Stage 3.

Amendments made:
- Section 3.4.3 amended as follows (bold text): "In recognition of this Native Title, under the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993, has been determined over the majority of the study area, (refer National Native Title Register number NCD2019/001 - Bundjalung People of Byron Bay #3). The NSW Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 and the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993, provide a framework for recognising the rights and interests of Aboriginal people with respect to Crown land."

DPIE - Crown Lands

Section 3.5.3.5 ICOLLs – Belongil Creek

Note that land below the mean high water mark (MHWM) is Crown land.
Belongil Creek is a Crown waterway with submerged Crown land below the mean high-water mark (MHWM). Crown land includes the seabed and subsoil to three (3) nautical miles from the coastline of NSW that is within the limits of the coastal water of the state.
Note: - There is a Crown Lands licence to artificially open Belongil Creek – Licence No 453621.

Amendments made:
- Text in bold added to end of Section 3.5.3.5 - Belongil Creek:
"Belongil Creek is a Crown waterway with land below the mean high water mark (MHWM) being Crown land. Crown land includes the seabed and subsoil to three nautical miles from the coastline of NSW that is within the limits of the coastal water of the state. There is also a DPIE - Crown Lands licence to artificially open Belongil Creek (Licence No 453621)."

DPIE - Crown Lands

DPIE Crown Lands as a support agency in the Forward Plan

DPIE – Crown Lands provides in principle support as a support agency for:
- Table 9-2, S2-8 "Audit of Council's coastal planning framework" (now S2-3).
- Table 9-3 Add-1 "Review and update Part C of the BBE CZMP..." based on information provided by Council 16 June 2021 [i.e. that support "would be limited to provision of data (e.g. land tenure, reserve numbers, relevant strategic plans etc) and attendance at workshops/meetings"].
- Table 9-3 Add – 7 "Shire-wide policy for beach use, access...".

Further information is required as to how DOPIE Crown Land would support Add-3 "Economic valuation of the coastal zone..." in Table 9-3.

Noted.

Amendment made:
- Added “(in principle support)” after Crown Lands as a support agency to Table 9-2 Item S2-3 (previously S2-8), and Table 9-3 Add-1 and Add-7.
- Removed Crown Lands as a Support Agency to Table 9-3 Item Add-3.

TfNSW - Maritime

Stakeholder Engagement Strategy

TfNSW – Maritime requested to be included in any future consultation (via navigationadvicenorth@transport.nsw.gov.au), being responsible for compliance and boating safety on NSW navigable waters.

There is a significant amount of boating (both commercial and recreational) that takes place along the Byron Shire Southern Coastline that should be considered in the study along with compliance and safety matters associated with these activities.

Of particular note:

·    The Pass at Byron Bay – there has been a number of incidents involving vessels in this multi-use area in the past. Continued and sometimes conflicting use (launch for commercial dive vessels, local fishing clubs, government agencies and passive craft (e.g. ocean kayaks, SUPs) requires further consideration and discussion with TfNSW Maritime

·    There is also a boat ramp located at Lennox Head that is utilised by the public, providing an amount of boating activity in this area also.

TfNSW is included in CMP governance and management arrangements in Table 6-1 and will be involved in future stages of the CMP process, refer Appendix A (Community and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy).

The Pass at Byron Bay and the boat ramp located at Lennox Head are both outside of the current study area. Council notes the issues at The Pass at Byron Bay and will consult with TfNSW - Maritime regarding these issues when progressing through the CMP stages relating to the Cape Byron to South Golden Beach study area (Scoping Study prepared by BMT (2020)).

Amendments made:

- Table 6-1 was amended to specify the maritime division of Transport for NSW.

- Table A-4 in Appendix A was amended to reflect an involve/collaborate/involve/collaborate level of engagement with Transport for NSW - Maritime in CMP Stages 2/3/4/5 respectively. It was also amended to specify the maritime division of Transport for NSW.

- MIDO was also added to Table A-4 in Appendix A, with an involve/collaborate/involve/collaborate level of engagement for MIDO in CMP Stages 2/3/4/5 respectively.

BOBBAC (Arakwal)

Two scanned PDF documents were received with handwritten changes to some text, primarily regarding:
- nomenclature.
- Arakwal Jugun boundaries.
- positioning of "Lack of Aboriginal involvement in decision-making and insufficient knowledge sharing…" as the threat 19, i.e. the last in the list of threats (Figure 4-3), and a suggestion for "involvement" to be changed to "engagement".
- BOBBAC missing as a support organisation for S2-6.

Regarding Threat 19: The suggestion to change 'involvement' to 'engagement' in this threat was not made, to keep the wording consistent with the Marine Estate Management Strategy (MEMA, 2018).

Amendments made:
- Nomenclature changes.
- Inclusion of the following text to Section 1.4.2.1 to explain RNTBC: "The Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal) is the Registered Native Title Prescribed Body Corporate (RNTBC) for the Bundjalung of Byron Bay Arakwal People, established in 1996. An RNTBC has prescribed functions under the Native Title Act 1993."
- Inclusion of the following sentence in Section 4.3.2 to clarify the threat numbering system: "The numbering system for the threats in no way denotes a priority order." This numbering provides consistency with the BMT WBM (2020) Scoping Study for the northern coastline (Cape Byron to South Golden Beach)).
- Inclusion of BOBBAC as a support agency for S2-6 "Preliminary Aboriginal cultural heritage and values mapping" in Table 9-2.

Public comments on the draft Scoping Study

A total of eleven responses were received from community members, the majority of which revolved around threatening processes already considered in the Scoping Study (e.g. coastal erosion, climate change, population growth, accessible pathways, stormwater, funding arrangements, entrance opening strategies etc) and associated suggestions for management options. Development of management options will occur at Stage 3 of the CMP.

No amendments were made to the Scoping Study in response to community feedback received.

Copies of community feedback on the draft Scoping Study are provided in Attachment 3. A response to each comment received is provided in the full Assessment of Submissions provided in Attachment 1.

Amendments initiated through review by council staff

Council staff also made several amendments to the Scoping Study comprising:

·     Section 3.5.2.2 Estuarine Waters – Tallow Creek:

Clarification regarding the future consideration of management options at Baywood Chase at Stage 3, i.e. including options other than recycled water use.

·     Section 6.2 (Table 6-2) and Appendix A:

TfNSW - Road and Rail divisions identified added to the stakeholder engagement strategy.

·     Section 9.3 Forward Plan, Table 9-2:

Reordering and combining of several Stage 2 studies in the Forward Plan.

Inclusion in the Forward Plan of a Stage 2 study: (now) S2-9: “Development of an integrated hydrodynamic and water quality model for Tallow Creek as a decision-making tool for Council’s use in managing water levels in Tallow Creek whilst maintaining suitable dissolved oxygen concentrations”. This project has already been funded, is underway, and informs several other aspects of the Forward Plan.

Moving of the study to review Tallow and Belongil Creek entrance opening strategies (then S3-1) from Stage 3 to the end of Stage 2, and division into separate studies for each estuary (now S2-10 and S2-11) cognisant with the level of review and additional associated activities required (e.g. for Tallow Creek, inclusion of cultural knowledge on the processes and management of the estuary and entrance management).

Inclusion of BOBBAC as a support agency for item S2-10 Review of Tallow Creek entrance opening strategy.

·     Appendix C – Inclusion of missing meeting minutes from discussions with Tweed-Byron LALC.

The recommended changes as outlined above based on the feedback and submissions received have been incorporated into the final Scoping Study (Attachment 4).

Stage 1 Scoping Study - completed

Council has now completed the first stage of a five-stage CMP process. The Stage 1 Scoping study has:

·     identified the community and stakeholders and prepared an engagement strategy

·     determined the context of coastal management in the local area

·     established the purpose, vision and objectives of a coastal management program

·     determined the key coastal management issues and the spatial extent of management areas

·     reviewed current coastal management arrangements

·     established roles, responsibilities and governance arrangements

·     identified knowledge gaps and information needs

·     determined where action is required through a first-pass risk assessment

·     determined whether a planning proposal will be prepared to amend the coastal management area maps and the Local Environmental Plan

Importantly, through this process the scoping study has arrived at a forward plan supported by a business case that identifies the program of works required through Stages 2 to 4 of the CMP, as provided in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Forward Plan and associated costs of each future stage of the CMP

Stage

Recommended Studies and Actions

Estimate Cost Range

Stage 2

Coastal Hazard Assessment (2021)

Already funded

Consider mapping of erosion escarpment as an outcome of Coastal Hazard Assessment (2021)

$10,000 - $20,000

Coastal planning framework audit and consideration of coastal vulnerability area mapping

$10,000 - $20,000

Verification of Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Wetlands Mapping

$5,000 - $10,000

Identify water pollution sources

$5,000 - $10,000

Preliminary Aboriginal cultural heritage and values mapping

$10,000 - $15,000

Ongoing implementation of the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy (CSES) in Appendix A

$5,000 - $10,000

Activities involving engagement of Aboriginal cultural knowledge holders

$5,000 - $10,000

Integrated hydrodynamic and water quality model for Tallow Creek

Already funded

Review and update Tallow Estuary entrance opening strategy

$10,000 - $30,000

Review and update Belongil Estuary entrance opening strategy

$2,000 - $5,000

Stage 3

Develop draft coastal management planning controls

$10,000 - $20,000

Identify and assess coastal management measures

$30,000 - $60,000

Prepare a business plan

$15,000 - $30,000

Ongoing implementation of the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy (CSES) in Appendix A

$5,000 - $10,000

Activities involving engagement of Aboriginal cultural knowledge holders

$5,000 - $10,000

Stage 4

Prepare Draft CMP

$30,000 - $40,000

Planning Proposal (only as required) to adopt the coastal vulnerability mapping as a “Coastal Vulnerability Area” of the coastal zone in the Coastal Management SEPP

$10,000 - $20,000

Finalise CMP

$10,000 - $20,000

Ongoing implementation of the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy (CSES) in Appendix A

$5,000 - $15,000

Activities involving engagement of Aboriginal cultural knowledge holders

$5,000 - $10,000

The total cost of preparing a CMP for this study area is estimated to be between $187,000 and $365,000, with the next stage (Stage 2) of the CMP expected to cost between $62,000 and $130,000. The range provides for uncertainty in the costs of certain activities as recommended in the forward program. As the lead agency, Council has the ability to apply for a financial assistance through the state government’s Coast and Estuary Grants Program to assist with the cost of completing Stages 2 to 4, however, this funding applies to the costs of external arrangements for completing technical and planning studies, and generally does not apply to Council’s internal costs in funding and conducting these studies.

All actions recommended in the Forward Plan to prepare the CMP (Stages 2 to 4) are eligible for funding from state government at a ratio of 2:1, i.e. Council is only required to provide one third of the costs to prepare the CMP.

Next Steps

It is recommended that Council:

·     Note the submissions received during the public comment period and agency review of the CMP (Stage 1) Scoping Study for Southern Byron Shire Coastline and the Belongil Estuary.

·     Adopt the finalised CMP (Stage 1) Scoping Study for Southern Byron Shire Coastline and the Belongil Estuary (Attachment 4) incorporating the amendments outlined in this report (Attachment 1).

·     Note the allocation of $78,000 in the FY2021/22 budget under 2605.156 ‘Coastline & Belongil Est Scoping Study’ and OP Activity 3.3.1.4 to enable the project to continue to Stage 2 of the Coastal Management Program process - ‘Continue preparing a Coastal Management Program (CMP) in accordance with the staged process for Cape Byron Southern Coastline (including Tallow and Belongil Creek Catchment)’