Agenda of Moving Byron Advisory Committee Meeting

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)

Committee members are reminded that they should declare and manage all conflicts of interest in respect of any matter on this Agenda, in accordance with the Code of Conduct.

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.

OATH AND AFFIRMATION FOR COUNCILLORS

Councillors are reminded of the oath of office or affirmation of office made at or before their first meeting of the council in accordance with Clause 233A of the Local Government Act 1993. This includes undertaking the duties of the office of councillor in the best interests of the people of Byron Shire and the Byron Shire Council and faithfully and impartially carrying out the functions, powers, authorities and discretions vested under the Act or any other Act to the best of one’s ability and judgment.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 4.1

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services

Report No. 4.1 Active Transport Plan Update

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Judd Cornwall, Traffic & Transport Engineer

Shelley Flower, Road Safety Officer

File No: I2023/955

Summary:

As requested in the last Moving Byron Advisory Committee meeting held on 15 June, this report provides more detail on the work Council staff have undertaken in the mid-life review of the Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) and Bike Plan and discusses future steps for the Committee’s consideration.

Unfortunately, due to Council and Committee meeting timings and the Councillor’s mid-year break, the Committee recommendations have not yet been reported to Council. However, they will be reported at the next Council meeting on 24 August.

The Committee recommendations are as follows:

1. That the Moving Byron Advisory Committee notes the ongoing work by Council staff in reviewing the Bike Plan and Pedestrian Access and Movement Plan and the development of a combined Active Travel Plan

2. That the review considers the following:-

a) Inclusion of all types of trips, not just trips to work;

b) Impacts of E-Bikes and mobility devices;

c) Connecting Byron to Brunswick (IT005) and Ocean Shores to Pottsville; and

d) Connections to proposed land release areas

RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the Moving Byron Advisory Committee support:

1. The draft Active Transport Plan being placed on public exhibition; and

2. Finalisation of the Active Transport Plan based on public exhibition and survey results be reported to the Moving Byron Advisory Committee

Attachments:

1 PAMP & Bike Plan Combined List, E2023/78189 , page 34 ⇩

2 Byron Active Transport Plan, E2023/76375 , page 49⇩

Report

Actions completed by Council staff since the last Committee report include:

1. Review of the PAMP and Bike Plan to identify completed projects.

Refer table 1 below for completed, underway and shovel ready projects. Completed projects are also shown as green lines in the figures below.

Table 2 shows projects under design and as yellow lines in the figures.

Table 3 shows construction ready projects.

Refer to Attachment 1 for PAMP & Bike Plan Combined List spreadsheet for a full list of all Active Transport projects, including incomplete projects.

2. Draft Active Transport Plan prepared as per Attachment 2. This document is very preliminary at this stage and will continue to be developed and presented at each Moving Byron Committee as it is developed further.

Completed Projects

Table 1: Completed Projects (also shown as green in Figures below)

PAMP/ BP ID	Location	Road Name / Project	Type
BA004, BA008	Bangalow	Deacon Street Shared Path Deacon Street, Ashton Street	Shared Path
BB007, BB010, BB027, BB031, BB032, BB036, BB037, BB058, BB059	Byron Bay Central	Byron Bypass Shirley Street, Butler Street, Lawson Street, Browning Street, along rail corridor, across rail line, through park	Footpaths, shared paths, off-road and on-road separated cycle paths
BB061	Byron Bay Central	Gilmore Crescent / Tennyson Street	Shared Path
BB009	Byron Bay Central	Tennyson Street	Shared Path
BB012, BB013, BB081, SP002, SP003	Byron Bay South Suffolk Park	Byron to Suffolk Cycle Way Broken Head Road, Bangalow Road	On-road cycle lane, shared paths
BB010	Byron Bay West	Through private lot (laneway) from Banksia Drive to Bayshore Drive	Shared Path
BB001	Byron Bay West	Ewingsdale Road missing link	Shared Path
IT004	Inter-town	Broken Head Reserve Road	Shared Path
MU026	Mullumbimby	Argyle Street	Footpath
MU007, MU045	Mullumbimby	Stuart Street	Footpaths, on-road separated cycle path
OS009	Ocean Shores	Balemo Drive	Shared Path
MU003	Mullumbimby	Tincogan Street	Footpath

Figure 1: BA004, BA008 - Deacon Street shared path, Bangalow

Figure 2: BB007 to BB059 - Byron bypass on-road cycle way and shared paths - Shirley Street, Butler Street, Browning Street

Figure 3: BB061 - Gilmore Crescent shared path

Figure 4: BB009 - Tennyson Street shared path

Figure 5: BB012 to SP003 - Byron Bay to Suffolk Park on-road cycle way, shared paths and pedestrian refuges, Broken Head Road

Figure 6: BB010 - Banksia Drive to Bayshore Drive shared path

Figure 7: BB001 - Ewingsdale missing link shared path

Figure 8: IT004 - Broken Head Reserve Road, Broken Head shared path

Figure 9: MU026 – Argyle Street footpath, Mullumbimby

Figure 10: MU007, MU045 - Stuart Street on-road cycle way and footpath, Mullumbimby

Figure 11: OS009 - Balemo Drive shared path, Ocean Shores

Figure 12: MU003 – Tincogan Street, Mullumbimby

Projects currently in delivery

Table 2: Projects currently in delivery (shown as yellow in Figures below)

PAMP/ BP ID	Location	Road Name	Type
BB011/ BB073	Byron Bay Central	Lighthouse Road	Footpath
BA005/ BA004, BA017	Bangalow	Raftons Road / Leslie Street	Shared Path
MU047/ MU043	Mullumbimby	Burringbar Street	Mixed traffic (all modes)
MU007/ MU011	Mullumbimby	Fern Street	Shared Path
BB022/ BB051	Byron Bay	Carlyle Street	Footpath (upgrade to shared path)
OS003/ OS002	Ocean Shores	New Brighton Road / Kolora Way	Shared Path

Figure 13: BB011 - Lighthouse Road shared path

Figure 14: BA005 - Raftons Road shared path, Bangalow

Figure 15: MU047 - Talking Streets project – mixed traffic area Burringbar Street, Mullumbimby

Figure 16: MU007, MU011 - Fern Street, Mullumbimby shared path

Figure 17: BB022 - Carlyle Street, Byron Bay shared path

Figure 18: OS003 – Kolora Way shared path, Ocean Shores

Construction Ready Projects (projects awaiting funding)

Table 3: Construction Ready Projects (shown as dark purple in Figure below)

PAMP/ BP ID	Location	Road Name	Type
BA001	Bangalow	Byron Street	Upgrade to Shared Path

Figure 19: BA001 – Byron Street shared path, Bangalow

Projects not completed

There are approximately 267 incomplete PAMP and Bike Plan projects listed in the spreadsheet at Attachment 1.

The main reasons these have not been completed are as follows:

· Limited funding and resources.

· Prioritisation of other infrastructure projects which improve community safety.

· Generally, Priority A items have been prioritised over Priority B & C items. However, where other works were occurring, we have incorporated Priority B & C items to achieve costs savings or form projects that will better obtain grant funding. It has also been difficult to prioritise Priority A projects against other Priority A projects. To improve this, we propose to develop an overarching Shire-wide priority plan.

· The proposed works were not feasible / safe. For example, in the Byron Bypass project, a shared path was provided on Shirley Street, rather than on-road cycleways, as there was insufficient road width due to existing car parking and property boundaries.

Key issues

1. This update is a mid review with the main goal being to combine PAMP and Bike Plan actions into one document and allow the community the opportunity update future needs. This will completed using exisitng staff resources.

If funding were available Council could engage an external consultant to undertake in-depth transport study and research that would lead to a more resolved Active Transport Plan. However, as there is no funding currently available for this, we are proposing to use existing Council staff to manage the essential aspects of this work only (refer Next Steps section below for details). The additional scope that could be undertaken by a consultant includes:

a. Incorporation/review of NSW government transport and infrastructure guidelines (refer details outlined in the Draft Active Transport Plan).

b. Current transport mapping methods (including assessment of future demand based on planning and land developments).

c. Review of newly constructed cycleways (e.g. Suffolk to Byron) to determine their success and assist in the planning for future cycle networks.

d. Detailed pedestrian traffic counts with a breakdown by demographic.

e. In-depth community consultation such as face to face surveys.

2. Ensuring community consultation is targeted and specific including:

a. Selecting survey questions which meet requirements.

b. Ensuring the community is made aware of the public exhibition and a broad response is received.

Next steps

1. Further development of the draft Active Transport Plan.

2. Update existing online mapping (PAMP and Bike Plan maps) to a single Active Transport Network Map. This will be based on:

a. Existing paths and Incomplete projects nominated in the PAMP and Bike Plan.

b. Community feedback received since adoption of the PAMP and Bike Plan (e.g. Connecting Byron to Brunswick (IT005) and Ocean Shores to Pottsville).

c. Review of Federal Village Masterplan to assess active transport aspects and what can be achieved in line with network planning (the other existing Masterplans were reviewed during initial creation of the PAMP and Bike Plan).

d. Shire Disability Inclusion Action Planning (DIAP) to assess accessibility needs.

e. Staff workshop to review mapping and develop a Shire-wide priority plan (incorporating potential future “rail trail”).

3. Community survey on draft Active Transport Plan and map. Including online mapping to allow community to locate comments and additional path aspirations.

4. Review of community feedback, including “ground truthing” and updates to documentation.

5. Reporting on community consultation outcomes to Moving Byron Advisory Committee.

6. Finalisation and adoption of Active Transport Plan by Council.

Strategic Considerations

Community Strategic Plan and Operational Plan

CSP Objective	CSP Strategy	DP Action	Code	OP Activity
5: Connected Infrastructure We have connected infrastructure, transport, and facilities that are safe, accessible, and reliable	5.1: Provide a safe, reliable, and accessible transport network	5.1.3: Active transport - pedestrians and cycleways - Deliver the actions identified in the Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan and in the Bike Plan	5.1.3.2	Review and update 10 year Active Transport program

Recent Resolutions

Resolution 23-075 from Council meeting held on 23 March 2023:

That the Infrastructure Committee supports the Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan and Bike Plan being reviewed, combined into an Active Transport Action Plan and consulted to the community as part of the 2023/24 Operational Plan actions. (Lyon/Westheimer)

Note – the Moving Byron Committee Minutes from 16 June 2023 are to be reported to the 24 August 2023 Council meeting.

Legal/Statutory/Policy Considerations

1. Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Part 2 Division 2 Section 23

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person, in many areas of public life, including employment, education, getting or using services, renting or buying a house or unit, and accessing public places, because of their disability.

2. Council Policy “Planting and landscaping on footpath zones and nature strips within road reserves and drainage easements 2020” sets out the required clearance zones for landscaping to ensure safe use for pedestrians, etc. This will be considered when planning the Active Transport Network Map.

3. Council Policy “Register of roads maintained by Council 2021” states that works should only occur on roads which are Council’s responsibility to maintain. Roads which are not Council’s responsibility are shown in Council’s GIS mapping. The Active Transport Network Map planning will exclude these roads.

4. Council’s “Water Sensitive Urban Design Policy and Strategy 2023” notes the action to identify Council projects that could include WSUD. The Active Transport Plan may need to include consideration of porous path surfaces over impervious surfaces, subject to practicality, safety and cost requirements.

Financial Considerations

As noted in the Key Issues section under item 1, Council does not have the budget to engage a consultant to undertake a more thorough review. The work outlined under the Next Steps section will be undertaken by internal staff.

Consultation and Engagement

Council undertook a significant amount of valuable community consultation in the creation of the PAMP and Bike Plan. The act of combining these two plans into a single Active Transport Plan is to remove duplication and ensure ongoing alignment with community needs.

It is proposed to use the Your Say platform for this round of community consultation including survey questions and an interactive map that the community can place markers on to indicate areas of concern.

Proposed survey questions are as follows (these are the original PAMP questions):

1. Where do you live?

2. What towns (or areas) do you walk, roll or cycle around most within the Byron Shire? This might include the places you live, work, go to school, play sport or visit for recreation.

3. What age group do you belong to?

4. What best describes the reasons you choose to walk (or use a wheelchair, mobility scooter, walking frame or similar) in the Byron Shire?

a. If you answered 'other' - please explain.

5. What best describes the reasons you choose to ride a bicycle in Byron Shire? (please select all relevant choices).

a. If you answered 'other' - please explain.

6. Which modes of travel do you use on footpaths and shared paths in Byron Shire? (please select all relevant choices).

a. Describe the other mode/s of travel you use.

7. If you are a walker, how many times a week would you walk to get where you want to go?

8. If you ride a bicycle, how many times a week would you cycle to get where you want to go?

9. If you are not able to walk or cycle, what other means do you use to get where you want to go?

a. Please explain what other means of travel you use.

10. If you walk, how many times a week would you walk for recreation or exercise only?

11. If you ride a bicycle, how many times a week do you cycle for recreation or exercise only?

12. How many times a week do you use a wheelchair, mobility scooter, walking frame or other types of assistance to get to where you want to go?

13. What are the biggest challenges you face when using the footpath network in Byron Shire?

14. Please describe the other barriers you encounter that are specific to your experiences of walking.

15. What are the biggest challenges you face when cycling in Byron Shire?

16. Please describe the other barriers you encounter related specifically to cycling.

17. What improvements could be made that may encourage you to use Byron Shire's footpath network more?

18. What other improvements would you like to see?

19. What improvements could be made that may encourage you to cycle more in Byron Shire?

20. What other improvements would you like to see?

21. From your experiences, how would you rate the current footpath network for each of the criteria?

22. From your experiences, how would you rate the current cycle network for each of the criteria?

23. Are you a parent or carer (including grandparent or relative) of dependent children? If so, please provide your thoughts on the experience of using footpaths and cycleways to get you to where you want to go in the Byron Shire.

24. What could be done to improve the footpath network within your suburb/town and neighbourhood? (If describing a particular section of footpath, please indicate location using closest available address)

25. What could be done to make the experience of cycling better in your suburb/town, within your neighbourhood and across the Shire? (If describing a particular section of cycleway, please indicate location using closest available address)

26. Would you be likely to walk or cycle more often if these changes were implemented?

27. If there was a bike/foot path in the rail corridor that linked towns, would you use it?

28. Do you have any additional ideas, observations or comments you would like to share?

29. Please provide your email if you would like to be kept updated on the project as it progresses.

BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 4.2

Report No. 4.2 Raftons Road Shared Path Consultation and Direction

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Judd Cornwall, Traffic & Transport Engineer

File No: I2023/956

Summary:

This project aims to provide a new path to create a safe and accessible alternative transport route for the local community. It will link residences with the local community children's centre, businesses, workplaces, schools and services.

The bulk of the path is priority A in Council’s adopted Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP). Staff have included a section of priority C path in Leslie Street to ensure the project is complete link to Bangalow. This will ensure it has good outcomes that will help attract grant funding for construction.

The project entails approximately 500m of shared pathway including a bridge crossing to safely link commuters to the existing pathways. Two options for the Raftons Road pathway section and a single alignment for the Leslie Street section were presented to the community for feedback.

Feedback from the community did not provide a clear preference for the alignment from the options proposed refer to attachments 1 and 2.

The purpose of this report is to gain approval for a scope change based on communications during a site walkthrough with directly impacted residents (refer to attachment 3, Community feedback notes).

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Moving Byron Committee endorses a scope change for the Raftons Road shared footpath to a 1.2m – 1.5m pedestrian path.

Attachments:

1 Option 1 - Raftons Rd Footpath Alignment, E2023/84689 , page 68 ⇩

2 Option 2 - Raftons Rd Footpath Alignment, E2023/84690 , page 69 ⇩

3 Raftons Road Site Walkthrough 1 June 2023 - Community Feedback, E2023/55946 , page 70⇩

Report

This report identifies the project background, issues, and proposes recommendations for the most appropriate way forward.

Key issues

Following the development of feasible concept alignment options, it was identified that either option had significant impacts. One would result in a drastic reduction of the number of available on-street carparking spaces and the other the removal of established trees (in which Koalas have been sighted with supporting evidence) or parking losses.

Options

The shared pathway link extends from the intersection of Rifle Range Road and Raftons Road to approximately 18 Leslie Street (~500m in length). The project is split by a pedestrian bridge directly opposite the Bangalow Community Childrens Centre. Section A runs between Rifle Range Road and the pedestrian bridge and contains two options, Section B runs from the pedestrian bridge to 18 Leslie St and only a single alignment exists for this portion.

Section A

Option 1

This alignment runs along the northern verge of Raftons Road. It has a short deflection into the roadway to avoid conflicting with mature gum trees at the front of 9 Raftons Road. It requires a 15m long pedestrian bridge across a small waterway at the front of 8 Raftons Road. The alignment consists of three road crossings of Rifle Range Road, Palm Tree Crescent, and Raftons Road. A total of 19 street carparking spaces will be lost as part of this option. Established trees could be removed to save the parking, but this outcome is not supported.

Figure 1: Option 1 Alignment

Option 2

This alignment runs along the southern verge of Raftons Road. It requires a 3.5m widening of the southern verge of Raftons Road to accommodate the 2.5m wide shared pathway and to account for the vehicle crossover vertical geometry tie-ins to the existing roadway. It requires a 15m long pedestrian bridge across a small waterway at the front of 8 Raftons Road. This alignment also has three road crossings of Rifle Range Road, Wright Place, and Raftons Road. A total of 34 street carparking spaces will be lost as part of this option.

Figure 2: Option 2 Alignment

Section B (Leslie Street)

Single Alignment

The proposed alignment along the Leslie Street section of the project runs along the Eastern verge of Leslie Street. It requires the removal of several small established trees that are not of ecological significance. A short section of 375mm diameter stormwater pipe will be installed beneath the proposed pathway in addition to two kerb inlet pits and kerb and channel for the approximate 170m length of the alignment.

Figure 3: Leslie Street Section B

Proposed Solution

The majority of community feedback directly related to active use was regarding speeding and safe crossing opportunities. The concerns with the proposed options were the loss of kerbside parking and impacts on community plantings within the road reserve. This link is identified within the current PAMP as a high priority; accordingly, a suitable solution still needs to be found.

Following the consultation process staff now propose a low-impact 1.2-1.5m pedestrian footpath to cater to the current pedestrian demand. This decision also considers the possibility of a high-capacity active link in the vicinity (within the rail corridor) adjacent to Lismore Road, between Rifle Range Road and Granuaille Road. The minimized path width should provide the necessary space to stay within the road reserve without reducing the travel path (road), removing kerbside parking, and allowing us to navigate around community plantings (as shown in the high-level concept below, Figure 4)

Figure 5: Section A 1.5m path visualisation.

Figure 6: Section B 1.5m path visualisation.

Next steps

· Council support option

· Finalise 1.2m-1.5m path design

· Seek grant funding for construction.

Strategic Considerations

Community Strategic Plan and Operational Plan

CSP Objective	CSP Strategy	DP Action	Code	OP Activity
5: Connected Infrastructure	5.2: Connect the Shire through integrated transport services	5.2.2: Public transport - Advocate for public transport services across Byron Shire that are convenient, regular, and easy to access	5.2.2.1	Advocate and apply for grants that improve accessibility to various transport options across the shire

Financial Considerations

Once the project is construction ready staff will seek State funding to construct.

Consultation and Engagement

Staff have reached out to all relevant stakeholders through the original PAMP and Bike Plan consultations. We have also engaged the community through a survey “letter drop” and interested parties have attended a site walk through.

Staff are now proposing a new minimised option which will be presented to the community following its development and feasibility investigations.

Report No. 4.3 Kolora Way - Alternative Scope of Works

Directorate: Infrastructure Services

Report Author: Joshua Walton, Project Engineer

File No: I2023/649

Summary:

Council has previously identified that the installation of a new pedestrian and cyclist access bridge/path across Yelgun Creek adjacent the Kolora Way Bridge on New Brighton Road, New Brighton as a priority project.

A report was presented at the 23 June 2022 Council Meeting regarding the funding allocations for this project. Council resolved (22-322):

1. That Council notes the report.

2. That staff commence the detailed design and planning activities for the Kolora Way Shared Path Project on the basis that the proposed funding in the 2022/23 budget is sufficient to cover market costs relating to planning and design.

The purpose of this report is to highlight issues that have arisen in the planning phase and further discuss alternative scope proposals to council prior to moving forward. Following further investigation, the proposed budget for this project is not sufficient to cover the planning and design costs.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council supports:

1. A ‘Have Your Say’ survey being undertaken to determine community opinion on the Kolora Way Bridge alternate options;

2. A two month one lane bridge trial at Kolora Way as part of the ‘Have Your Say’ process; and

3. The Moving Byron Advisory Committee receives a further report upon completion of items 1 & 2.

Report

Background Information

Council has previously identified that the installation of a shared path and footbridge across Yelgun Creek adjacent the Kolora Way Bridge on New Brighton Road, New Brighton as a priority project.

The project is considered a priority A project as defined in Council’s Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan.

Figure 1 – Excerpt from Council’s Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan showing priority pedestrian connections in New Brighton

The objective of the project is to provide safer access across Yelgun Creek for pedestrians and cyclists of all abilities as well as enable safer access to nearby villages, schools and amenities.

A mapped Coastal Wetland area exists within the proposed shared path project footprint. It was understood upon recommending this project that construction within this wetland area would trigger an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a process which is associated with additional costs and project planning timeframes. However, the exact costs and timeframes were unknown until a Request for Secretaries Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEAR’s) was formally submitted to the NSW Department of Planning, outlining the full scope of the project. This represented a significant risk to the project budget in the design/planning phase.

The Kolora Way Shared Path Project has a total funding allocation of $169,000 in the 2022/23 budget.

Following the Council meeting in, June 2022, Council staff completed a Request for SEAR’s. This request was completed to assess the degree of environmental reporting required to prepare an EIS. Upon receipt of the SEAR’s, Council received an updated quote for completion of an EIS, at a value of $250,000 excl. GST. The current project budget is insufficient to cover the costs of the EIS.

Options

1. Increase the project budget

2. Not proceed with the project

3. Consider alternate options

It is noted that recent bridge inspections have highlighted significant upcoming costs to renew Helen Street footbridge. The super structure is in good condition, but all timber above this needs to be replaced. Detailed estimates have not been prepared but it is likely to in the region of $500,000 and is required in next financial year.

Given this and the additional funds to bring Kolora Way footbridge to a construction ready project, staff have investigated alternative options, as per option 3 above. These are detailed within the key issues section of this report.

Key Issues

Pedestrian Safety Across the Kolora Way Bridge

This project was triggered as a response to a request from a local resident to address pedestrian safety on Kolora Way and it is priority A project within Council’s Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan.

Helen Street Footbridge

The Helen Street Footbridge has been assessed as having a Class 4 condition report.

A Class 4 Condition Report is defined as ‘Poor: Asset is in poor condition or is faulty. It needs urgent attention to return it to a useable condition and or significant renewal/rehabilitation is required to reduce risk’, as per Councils ‘Transport Asset Management Plan.’

Helen Street footbridge does have funding in the current financial year, however, it is insufficient to complete the needed works and higher priority works are required on Orana Road Bridge, therefore, these funds need to be reallocated. The designs for the bridge repairs are proposed for completion this financial year and construction is proposed in next financial year.

Council Officers have a high-level estimate for a full replacement of all parts of the bridge above the superstructure. As this bridge is above Yelgun Creek. Further planning will need to be undertaken to assess the accuracy of this figure, plus various approvals.

The decking on Helen Street Footbridge is currently a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists (see images below).

Canowindra Court Detour

As an alternative option staff have reviewed the impacts of not proceeding with the Kolora Way footbridge and proving an alternate safe route for pedestrians and bikes.

The potential Canowindra Court detour option away from Kolora Way Footbridge is shown in the image below.

A desktop review of the proposed footpath infrastructure shows the below constraints:

· The proposed construction may involve vegetation removal.

· Community land will be utilised in some locations.

· Constraints may limit the footpath to 1.2m wide in some areas.

Further investigation will be required if a concept design process is supported.

To aid consideration of this alternate route, various trip options have reviewed and are provided below.

The image below provides various trip routes and their distances:

A picture containing text, map

Description automatically generated

These trip routes have been considered against three scenarios, from the starting location to the intersection of Redgate Road and New Brighton Road:

Scenario 1 – Pedestrian Bridge is built across Yelgun Creek.

Scenario 2 – ‘Canowindra Court Detour’ is constructed including paths along trip routes B, plus C.

Scenario 3 – ‘Canowindra Court Detour’ is constructed including paths along trip routes B, plus D.

Example 1 - Larelar Court

There are 23 Properties on Larelar Court, the trip distance options are provided below. If the proposed Canowindra Court detour was constructed the 23 properties on Larelar Court would have a minimum detour of 860m compared to the Kolora Way route.

Scenario	Trip	Distance to the end of Redgate Road (m)
1	E	500
2	B + C	1360
3	B + D	1910

Example 2 – Natan Court

There are 40 Properties on Natan Court, the trip distance options are provided below. If the proposed Canowindra Court detour was constructed the 40 properties on Natan Court would have a minimum detour of 570m compared to the Kolora Way route.

Scenario	Trip	Distance to the end of Redgate Road (m)
1	F	650
2	A + C	1220
3	A + D	1720

Example 3 Shara Boulevard

There are 160 Properties on On Shara Boulevard & Streets Branching Off Shara Boulevard (Banool Circuit, Gira Place, Hart Court & Eloura Court), the trip distance options are provided below.

If the proposed Canowindra Court detour was constructed the 40 properties on Shara Boulevard would have a minimum detour of 400m compared to the Kolora Way route.

Scenario	Distance to the end of Redgate Road (m)
1	700
2	1100
3	1700

Example 4 – Elizabeth Avenue

There are 60 Properties on Elizabeth Avenue & Streets Branching Off Elizabeth Avenue (Gloria Street, Clifford Street and Philip Street) the trip distance options are provided below.

If the proposed Canowindra Court detour was constructed the 60 properties on Elizabeth Avenue would have a minimum detour of 400m compared to the Kolora Way route.

If the proposed Canowindra Court detour was constructed the 60 properties on Elizabeth Avenue and connecting streets would benefit from the Canowindra Court detour.

Scenario	Distance to the end of Redgate Road (m)
1	1000
2	950
3	1500

This review shows that the main purpose of the Kolora Way Footbridge would be to avoid an 850m detour for 23 properties, a 570m detour for 40 properties and a minor detour of 400m for 160 properties.

High level costs estimate to complete this project are $1,400,000. This does not include the essential works required on Helen Street Footbridge.

An 850m detour is not small, but 570m and 400m could be considered small. It maybe more appropriate to spend this $1,400,000 on infrastructure that benefits a greater number residents than 23 properties or infrastructure that benefits all these residents and more.

Therefore, staff believe that the Canowindra Court detour and additional paths are more appropriate solution. The finance section provides further details on high level cost estimates.

The main advantages of the Canowindra Court Detour, are:

• The crossing for pedestrians and cyclists over the canal is facilitated by existing infrastructure.

• Allows for funding to be spent on interconnectivity of South Golden Beach.

• Directs pedestrians and cyclists away from the Kolora Way bridge crossing.

• Provides cost savings (see finance section).

Further analysis is required for staff to provide an accurate estimate for the works proposed. However, part of the recommendation provided by council officers includes the appropriation of funds for scoping the proposed detour.

One Lane Bridge Kolora Way

To further support this option staff have been investigating an additional option to create a one lane bridge at Kolora Way and allow pedestrians cross on existing infrastructure.

This options still requires further investigation to confirm sight distances are acceptable and a supporting 40km/h speed limit would be support by TfNSW. There is value in trialling this option, if feasible, as part of a public consultation process.

An example layout is provided below.

Next steps

The recommended next steps are as follows:

· Install temporary direction priority at Kolora Way Bridge for 2 months.

· Gather public opinion in relation to alternative ideas. This could be in the form of a ‘Have Your Say’.

· Complete draft planning processes for alternative scope of works, including concept estimation and design for Canowindra Way detour.

· Report back to the Moving Byron Advisory Committee.

Community Consultation

Council staff recommend, prior to the commencement of detailed design process for either options a ‘Have Your Say’ survey be sent to residents, targeted in the above study area, to ascertain the frequency and mode of transport used to commute from their property to New Brighton. This ‘Have Your Say’ survey would be supported by a letter drop to residents, informing them that a Council survey may directly affect them.

It is important to note that by not completing the Kolora Way Footbridge project, Council would be avoiding constructing within an environmentally sensitive area.

If the Canowindra Way Detour is supported the community would all be notified via a letter drop of details pertaining to safest pedestrian routes for transit from South Golden Beach to New Brighton. As well as receive informative brochures in relation to this council decision.

Previous Council Resolution

A report was presented at the 23 June 2022 Council Meeting regarding the funding allocations for this project. Council resolved (22-322):

1. That Council notes the report.

Financial Considerations

Options	Detailed Design ($)	Construction ($)	Total ($)
Kolora Way Footbridge	250,000	1,150,000	1,400,000
Detour Through Carowindra Drive (not including cost of Helen Street Footbridge Renewal)	100,000	700,000	800,000
Expected Cost Savings from Detouring Through Carowindra Drive	150,000	450,000	600,000

The alternative scope of works is based on initial assumptions made by staff and will need to be properly estimated, to calculate an accurate estimate of project costs.

Strategic Considerations

Community Strategic Plan and Operational Plan

CSP Objective	CSP Strategy	DP Action	Code	OP Activity
Community Objective 1: We have infrastructure, transport and services which meet our expectations	1.1: Provide a road network which is safe, accessible and maintained to an acceptable level of service	1.1.3: Prioritise road network asset renewal and upgrade programs in line with Community Solutions Panel values (SP)	1.1.3.16	Deliver Kolora Way Footpath and Bridge Upgrade

Legislation

Provision of active transport infrastructure is a legitimate function of local government under the Local Government Act 1993. To the extent that the provision of active transport infrastructure provides community members with cost effective infrastructure, leading to safer commutes.

Resolving as recommended demonstrates that Council is carrying out its functions as best possible within Council resources and capacities as competing priorities permit.

Venue	Conference Room, Station Street, Mullumbimby
Date	Thursday, 31 August 2023
Time	2.00pm