Image of Byron Shire Lighthouse. Image of Byron Shire Council logo.Agenda

Ordinary Meeting


 Thursday, 14 December 2023


Agenda Ordinary Meeting

held at Council Chambers, Station Street, Mullumbimby

commencing at 9:00am

 

 

Public access relating to items on this agenda can be made between 9:00 and 10:30 am 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.

 

 

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

BUSINESS OF Ordinary Meeting

1.    Public Access

2.    Apologies

3.    Attendance by Audio-Visual Link 

4.    Requests for Leave of Absence

5.    Declarations of Interest – Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary

6.    Tabling of Pecuniary Interest Returns (Cl 4.14 Code of Conduct for Councillors)

7.    Adoption of Minutes from Previous Meetings

7.1       Ordinary Meeting held on 23 November 2023

8.    Reservation of Items for Debate and Order of Business

9.    Notices of Motion

Nil

10Mayoral Minute

11.  Petitions

11.1    Petition expressing objection to the Proposed Development of Tyagarah Sanctuary at 29 Buckleys Road Tyagarah........................................................................................ 9

12.  Delegates' Reports

12.1    Cape Byron Marine Park Advisory Committee meeting 22 November 2023..... 11

12.2    NSW Coastal Conference held 30 October to 3 November 2023....................... 13

13.  Staff Reports

General Manager

13.1    Proposed lease of former Byron hospital site......................................................... 24

13.2    PLANNING - DA 10.2021.114.1 - Light Industrial Development, ("Fed Sheds") at  467 Federal Drive, Federal................................................................................................ 30

Corporate and Community Services

13.3    Section 355 Guidelines Update................................................................................. 50

13.4    Grants November 2023............................................................................................... 53

13.5    Council Investments - 1 November 2023 to 30 November 2023......................... 57

 

Sustainable Environment and Economy

13.6    Housing Options Paper Submissions Report.......................................................... 65

13.7    Update Resolution 22-685 Rural Land Use Strategy - 
Review Scoping Report............................................................................................ 115

13.8    Flying-fox Camp Management Plan 2024-2029 for Council endorsement...... 120

13.9    Former Mullumbimby Hospital Site - Project Update........................................... 129

13.10  PLANNING - DA 10.2022.248.1 – Multiple Occupancy Comprising 14 Dwelling Sites and Associated Infrastructure at 16 Whian Road, Eureka.................................. 137

13.11  PLANNING - DA 10.2023.194.1 - Proposed demolition of existing dwelling (part of dual occupancy (detached)), associated swimming pool and outbuildings; and proposed new dwelling (part of dual occupancy (detached)), swimming pool, earthworks and landscaping – 150 Tandy's Lane Brunswick Heads................ 186

13.12  Wallum Subdivsion DA 10.2021.575.1 - Response to Council Resolution 23-454...................................................................................................................................... 210

Infrastructure Services

13.13  Brunswick Heads Parking Study - Outcomes....................................................... 211

13.14  Single-use Packaging and Materials Policy.......................................................... 225

13.15  s7.11 and s7.12 Contributions Plans Review Update......................................... 231

13.16  Approval for Supplier of Automated Flooded Road Signage.............................. 243

13.17  Tender - Suffolk Beachfront Holiday Park Long Term Precinct Dwelling Installations...................................................................................................................................... 248

13.18  Byron Bay Drainage Upgrade - Concept Design Approval................................. 254

13.19  Council Land at Belongil........................................................................................... 264   

14.  Reports of Committees

Corporate and Community Services

14.1    Report of the Arts and Creative Industries Advisory Committee Meeting held on 19 October 2023.............................................................................................................. 273

14.2    Report of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 16 November 2023............................................................................................................................. 279

14.3    Report of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Meeting held on 19 October 2023............................................................................................................................. 283

Sustainable Environment and Economy

14.4    Report of the Biodiversity Advisory Committee Meeting held on 16 November 2023...................................................................................................................................... 286

14.5    Report of the Housing and Affordability Advisory Committee Meeting held on 16 November 2023.......................................................................................................... 289

14.6    Report of the Coast and ICOLL Advisory Committee Meeting held on 21 November 2023............................................................................................................................. 292

Infrastructure Services

14.7    Report of the Water and Sewer Advisory Committee Meeting held on 16 November 2023............................................................................................................................. 295

14.8    Report of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on 21 November 2023... 299   

 

15Questions With Notice

15.1    Mullumbimby’s future water supply......................................................................... 305   

16.  Confidential Reports

General Manager

16.1    Confidential - Annual Review of General Manager's Performance Agreement...................................................................................................................................... 308

 

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

Petitions                                                                                                                                   11.1

Petitions

 

Petition No. 11.1    Petition expressing objection to the Proposed Development of Tyagarah Sanctuary at 29 Buckleys Road Tyagarah

Directorate:                         Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:                   Shannon Burt, Director Sustainable Environment and Economy

File No:                                 I2023/1870

                                       

 

Council is in receipt of a petition containing 19 signatures which states:

“I wish to express my opposition to the proposed development of 'Tyagarah Sanctuary" at 29 Buckleys Rd, Tyagarah as described in the private advertisement on page 17 of "Echo" magazine Volume 38 #211st November 2023”.

Comments from Director Sustainable Environment and Economy:

Council Resolution 23-429 resolved to include the land known as 29 Buckleys Road, Tyagarah for further investigation as part of the recently exhibited Housing Options Paper public comment period.

This petition relates to a public notice placed in the Echo by the landowner pre-emptive of this, and the public comment period for submissions to be made to the Housing Options Paper thereafter.

  

RECOMMENDATION:

1.      That the petition regarding opposition to the proposed development of 'Tyagarah Sanctuary" at 29 Buckleys Rd, Tyagarah be noted.

2.      That the petition be referred to the Director Sustainable Environment and Economy.

Attachments:

 

1        Petition expressing objection to the Proposed Development of Tyagarah Sanctuary at 29 Buckleys Road Tyagarah - 19 Signatures ~ submission to Housing Options Paper_Redacted, E2023/124123  

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Delegates' Reports                                                                                                           12.1

Delegates' Reports

 

Delegate's Report No. 12.1      Cape Byron Marine Park Advisory Committee meeting 22 November 2023

File No:                                     I2023/1920

 

  

 

I am the Alternate for Cr Coorey on this Committee, which meets at the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) office in Byron Bay. I attended via Teams and was late due to a clash with a meeting with high school students in Council’s YouthSay Program.  It’s so good to hear from these not-yet-voters. 

Matters discussed at the Cape Byron Marine Park (CBMP) Advisory Committee included: 

1.      Department of Primary Industries (DPI) Fisheries administer Vehicles on Beaches, as that is associated with beach fishing. Visitors from Queensland are used to signage and barriers to instruct them where to drive, or not, on beaches. They do not respond to maps. 

2.      DPI Fisheries also administer fishing at sea. They map Offence Hotspots within the Marine Park. They presented annual numbers of inspections: 315, of which 51 (16%) were non-compliant. 

3.      Southern Cross University is undertaking a project to investigate the impacts of visitors at Nguthungulli. There are five dive boats out of Brunswick Heads and one from Byron Bay. The newer boats are bigger, so numbers of visitors are up. Reports of interference with wildlife, such as manta rays and turtles are growing. Pascal Scherrer is running the “Nguthungulli Visitor Management” study. 

4.      Marine Parks explained their permit system (like traffic lights): 1. no permission; 2 full permission; and 3 needs a permit. Currently, commercial permits include 12 surf and SUP schools. Non-commercial permits include 17 for events; 14 for research; 13 for recreational horse-riding; 7 for works (like geobags); and 1 “other”. 

5.      The Committee needs to appoint a Chair from amongst its members. 

 

Signed:    Cr Duncan Dey

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Delegates' Reports                                                                                                           12.2

Delegate's Report No. 12.2      NSW Coastal Conference held 30 October to 3 November 2023

File No:                                     I2023/1921

 

  

 

Thanks Council, for sponsoring me to attend the 30th NSW Coastal Conference in Newcastle in October and November. It was also the National Coast to Coast Conference.  Theme was “one coast, one community”. 

The Awabakal and Worimi peoples are the Traditional Custodians of land and waters within Newcastle LGA. 

The conference papers and presentations can be downloaded from: 

https://www.coastalconference.com/project/papers-and-presentations/ 

Costs to the public (ie to Council) for me to attend were: 

Early bird conference registration $930; 

My car to & from Newcastle $510; 

Accommodation in Newcastle $474; 

total cost $1,914. 

I am very grateful for the knowledge I acquired. I share highlights below. 

Most presentations were in concurrent sessions (session A, B, C or D). 

Monday: Pre-conference Workshop, with three themes. 

Theme 1: Unlocking Science – Estuary Reporting, chaired by Dept of Planning & Environment (DPE) staff 

1.      Estuary Report Card

These are online for each estuary, at: 

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/water/estuaries/monitoring-and-reporting-estuaries/estuary-report-cards 

The state is looking for “no adverse change” from 2015. Assessment is done on 177 estuaries in three sectors of NSW (north, central, south). One sector per year means each estuary is updated every third year. Six estuaries are excluded, including the mighty Clarence River. 

Stressors do not include ‘pharma’, just simple factors like the two forms of chlorophyll, and turbidity. The factors for future Report Card will be revised in 2026. 


 

2.      Human Centre Design

... begins with understanding human needs and ends with solutions to address them. 

3.      Empathy mapping. 

4.      SEED

This online portal is at: 

https://www.seed.nsw.gov.au/ 

SEED is the NSW Government’s central resource for Sharing and Enabling Environmental Data. It was developed in a collaborative effort between NSW government agencies to provide an accessible and reliable platform for environmental data. 

Theme 2: Navigating Estuary Health Measurement, chaired by DPE staff 

5.      NSW has 184 estuaries.  Fifty Councils are developing Coastal Management Programs (CMP’s). 

Avoca Lagoon (ICOLL) has 1187 hectares of catchment and 70 ha of estuary. It has a reputation as the state’s worst estuary. It was mined for rutile and still has deep dredge holes of 300 to 400 m3. About 25% of the catchment is urban and there are STP inputs. Enterococci numbers are always above thresholds for primary and secondary contact. 

Avoca Lagoon is opened 3 or 4 times per year to reduce flooding. 

Group Activity 1 - knowledge gaps: (i) current and future impacts of Sea Level Rise (SLR); (ii) impacts of STP inputs; and (iii) impacts of stormwater inputs. 

Group Activity 2 – threat & risk assessment. 

Group Activity 3 – management actions: develop a MER Plan (Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting). 

Theme 3: Coast and Marine Team, chaired by DPE staff 

6.      Online portals for coastal data include: 

a)      SEED: https://www.seed.nsw.gov.au/  [see point 4 above] 

b)      Australian Ocean Data Network (AODN): https://portal.aodn.org.au/ 

c)      ELVIS (elevation and bathymetry): https://elevation.fsdf.org.au/ 

d)      NSW Beach Profile Database: http://www.nswbpd.wrl.unsw.edu.au/photogrammetry/nsw/ 

e)      Aus Seabed (bathymetry): https://ausseabed.gov.au/data 

And for those who have an account: 

f)       ESRI Story Maps:  https://storymaps.arcgis.com/ 

And a tool for wave modelling, using “data from offshore wave buoys and global climate models”: 

g)      https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/water/coasts/research/ocean-and-coastal-waves (and choose the “Extreme Value Analysis”)

Most wave buoys have two or three decades of data. Wave history prior to that can be “hind-cast”. That means correlating recent historic weather data to the wave data that resulted from it, then using older weather data to hind-cast a wave record. This expands the record out to about eighty years, ie to encompass the stormy years 1940-70’s. 

DD comment: the state has developed so much data and so many modelling tools, I would think they could analyse our Coast without the need for consultants. 

Tuesday: the Conference proper. 

7.      Welcomes

Aunty Cheryl and Uncle Ray Smith welcomed us to country.  Aunty Cheryl sang, really well. 

Professor Bruce Thom mentioned the two conferences’ histories and that 50% of Australia’s population lives within 80 km of our coast. He noted the first CMP adopted in NSW was in 2020 for Stockton Beach, just north of Newcastle, ie across the mouth of the Hunter River. It is now receiving mass sand nourishment.  He encourages membership (for $35) of the Australian Coastal Society. 

8.      Associate Professor Hannah Power, University of Newcastle. 

She spoke about predicting extreme wave runup. “Capture” means two waves combining. Behaviour varies at beaches, for example according to whether the beach is contained or open. Response in estuaries depends on entrance shape. “Sunny Day Flooding” is water levels rising on king tides or big waves when there is no rain. 

9.      2.1 B Senator Peter Whish-Wilson. 

He talked about the film “Tasmania’s Troubled Waters”. Giant Kelp and Golden Kelp were the first EPBC listed habitat (Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act = federal Act of 1999). They are part of the Great Southern Reef.  They suffer from invasive species and loss of habitat. 

10.    2.2 A - Phebe Bicknell, Alluvium Consulting. 

Adaptation Pathways, to cope with uncertain climate conditions. Methodology allows exploration of a range of actions and elimination of less suitable actions. Worked example in Victoria with a planning horizon of 2040 = 0.2 m Sea Level Rise (SLR); 2070 = 0.5 m SLR; 2100 = 0.8 m SLR. 

Describing pathways provides a communication tool to engage stakeholders. 

DD comment: yes, consultants should ask society about its future. 

11.    2.3 A – Aysin Dedekorkut-Howes, Griffith University. 

Queensland’s QCoast 2100 Program and Coastal Hazards Adaptation Strategy (CHAS). 

12.    2.4 A – Peter Horton, Horton Coastal Engineering. 

This presentation was defensive. Peter built the recent concrete walls on Collaroy Beach in Sydney. The 7m vertical wall and 20m-wide rockwall were 80% privately funded. 

13.    3.1 A – Natallie Patterson, Royal Haskoning DHV. 

She discussed advantages of rockbags over sandbags. Examples include Barrie Crescent in Stockton. She thinks legislation should change to enable rockbags, especially because they can be re-used. 

14.    3.2 C – Tim Dilworth & Mars Oram. 

They used hardwood posts and logs to create mangrove and fish habitat in the Coomera River, Gold Coast (the river’s south bank, about 1km upstream of the highway). They relied on cross sections taken at 10m stations along the riverbank.  Logs deflect flow away from the bank, which was eroding. The work was done by barge, so the bank would not be disturbed. 

15.    3.3 D – Oxana Repina, University of Wollongong. 

She used 6 models to compare 40 years of shoreline change on Narrabeen-Collaroy Beach in Sydney. The first 20 years was used for calibration and the second 20 for testing. The best result was for the 1H-Moose model - it had been developed for that beach after all. 

16.    3.4.1 D – Madison Carberry, DPE. 

They undertook water quality monitoring after the 2022 floods, for 25 parameters in 20 waterways across 28 Local Government Areas. Priorities were Northern Rivers and Hawkesbury-Nepean River. 

17.    3.4.2 D – Alexandra Maskell, JBPacific. 

She examined effects of storm clustering, where storms follow in succession (in the same season) using Wave Buoy data. Modellers of beach erosion should consider the impacts of consecutive smaller events as well as of rarer large events. 

18.    4.1 C – Roger McLean, University of NSW. 

He revisited the 1974 storms including extreme events in Brisbane, Lismore, Darwin, 23-29 May (which drove the ship Sygna onto Stockton Beach just north of Newcastle), and 3-16 June.  Coastal students has set up transects on Bengello Beach near Moruya prior to the 1974 storms. The dune scarp from 1974 is still visible on that beach. 

19.    4.2 C – Indra Jayewardene, Many Hydraulics Laboratory. 

Storm damage over the last three decades, included June 2016. He estimates the “mothers day” storm of 1987 was a 1-in-2-year ocean event and 2009 1-in-40-year. He observed that the north entrance wall of the Clarence River was damaged by north-east wave direction in May 2009. 

20.    4.3 C – Ben Hague, Bureau of Meteorology. 

ANCHORS = Australian National Collection of Homogenized Observations of Relative Sea Level. 

see: https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/gdj3.136 

It’s a new national tide gauge-based sea level dataset for monitoring sea level changes around Australia. It provides coastal sea levels at hourly resolution with homogenization performed on annual means. The homogenization uses a two-step process that involves the detection of steps in the data (inhomogeneities) followed by a correction applied to remove that change. Data starts from about 1960. 

ANCHORS enables forecasting. For example, Melbourne will have low areas flooded with 0.7m SLR. Compared with other ports, Melbourne has lower variability in its high tides (due to Port Phillip Bay). 

DD comment: I hope our consultants are examining this for the Byron Bay Drainage Design. 

21.    4.4 A – Uncle Lennie Anderson (Worimi Nation) and Charlene Wellard (City of Newcastle). 

In the past, 14 cabins were put on sacred land then followed by power and sewer at Burrabihngarn (Stockton area). Since 2010 such projects must consult with the registered land title holder. The Land Council can’t go beyond advising who that is.  AHIMS falls short. 

Council has a Worimi Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP). Worimi Land Council is doing an Aboriginal Cultural Assessment. The NPW Act of 1974 and LG Act of 1993 only protect Objects and Artifacts. Worimi were recognised as native title holders in 1995.  They then ‘gave’ the title to NPWS, so all people could enjoy it. 

Wednesday: Field Trip #4 (full day). 

22.    Coastal Geomorphology and Sediments of the Newcastle to Port Stephens Region

It was fascinating to have so much knowledge and insight shared, much based on this long sandy south-east facing stretch of coast. Do we all realise sea level was 120m lower just 20,000 years ago, as it had been in several previous ice ages? And that it is currently nearly as high as it has ever been? See the attached graph, derived in 2014. 

This geomorphological history explains the massive inner and outer barrier dunes behind Stockton Beach. They were placed during high sea levels, which may have matched hotter weather. That in turn includes bigger storms. 

They are big dunes and spread a long way inland. Here’s the north end of the beach: 

 

A sandy beach with blue nets

Description automatically generated

Thursday: more presentations. 

23.    Teagan Shields, University of Melbourne. 

Indigenous Knowledge is saving our iconic species. The 3 interconnected domains for assessing Culturally Significant Entities (CSE’s) are: country, kin, culture.  CSE’s are species or ecological communities with cultural or customary value. They are central to indigenous knowledge. Collaborative management, between western science and indigenous knowledge. 

A case study on Bundjalung country examined 194 species and suggests management actions including (i) being on country, (ii) burning, (iii) streamflow, and (iv) <missed it L>. 

She recommends ILUA’s with ongoing updates, changing as ‘the space’ changes. 

24.    7.1 C – Angela Maharaj, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW). 

The National Climate Risk Assessment and National Adaptation Plan, for 11 zones federally. Steps are to (i) prioritise risks in 2023, and (ii) examine those with highest risks in 2024.  NCRA Hazards are: 1.5 to 2⁰C temperature rise, plus SLR 20 to 25cm for 2050, and 38 to 60cm for 2100. 

25.    7.2 A – Thomas Dunlop, University of NSW. 

Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for Estuaries. Compared to rockwalls, NbS’s create habitat and improve water quality. For example, logs promote oyster growth on adjacent rocks. Four stages are (i) establishment; (ii) growth; (iii) recovery and mortality; and (iv) functionality. This will enable predictive modelling.  He thinks it can be applied to saltmarsh and elsewhere. 

26.    7.3 C – Tim Smith, University of the Sunshine Coast. 

Current focus at the micro-scale occupies policy while macro-scale drivers are ignored, eg financing. Socio-ecological vulnerabilities include the occupation of floodplains by poorer people. He showed a graph of trends in wealth. Urgent support is required for systemic changes like investing in action, not in paper. Mental Health benefits of access to coast are elaborated in: 

https://www.usc.edu.au/about/structure/schools/school-of-law-and-society/sustainability-research-centre/src-projects/coastal-governance-embracing-vulnerability-and-change 

We are still doing science as usual.  A way forward is proposed at: 

https://www.futureearthcoasts.org/ 

DD comment: this was the best presentation of the week. It matches my view that long-term coastal management should simply prevent investment in Coastal hazard areas. 

27.    7.4 C – Marc Daley, DPE. 

Triggers and thresholds should permeate CMP’s, not just dates. Monitoring is required for triggers and thresholds. It’s best to tie into existing monitoring setups.  He recommends listing the triggers and thresholds in a CMP, for example in a case study at Byron Bay. 

DD question: are we doing this? 

28.    8.1 C – Robbi Bishop-Talyor, Geoscience Australia. 

We have 37 years of satellite imagery but with pixels representing 25m squares.  Gaps on topography of the intertidal zone can be filled using these pixels especially for north-east Australia. Each pixel is either wet or dry. That change happens at a known tide level and hence can be used for mapping. 

29.    8.2 B – Pam Dean-Jones, NSW Coastal Council. 

The Coastal Council surveys members each year since 2018 on implementation and gets about 100 responses (standard set of 47 questions). It’s a valuable channel for Council’s to use for feedback. 

In November 2022 there were 6 certified CMP’s and in November 2023 there are 10. 

About 50 CZMP’s will cease in December 2023. 

The state has not yet mapped Vulnerable Areas of the coast. 

30.    8.3 B – Kirsten Gerathy, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers. 

It’s 5 years since laws were changed to integrate coast into planning. Resilience and Hazards SEPP. There are two pillars – the second is the four mapped areas. 

31.    8.3 D – Simon Rowe, Ocean Watch Australia. 

In 2014 the Australian Government recognised OceanWatch as the national organisation responsible for the delivery of its marine Natural Resource Management (NRM) related programs. Jurisdiction extends to 200 Nm seaward (Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone). 

32.    8.4.1 A – Dana Lanceman, University of NSW. 

Blue carbon restoration also restores wetland services like flood mitigation, and nutrient sorption.  They measured traits as indicators of function (ie services).  Traits include stem height or diameter.  Saltmarsh traits take less than 5 years to develop.  For Sporobolus, it’s about 30 years.  Grey Mangrove traits peak at 12 years then decline. 

33.    8.4.2 A – Chris Owers, University of Newcastle. 

Supratidal forests are typically Melaleuca and Swamp Oaks.  Mapping by Digital Earth Australia (DEA).  See also Global Mangrove Watch, Australia Saltmarsh Watch. 

34.    9.2 C – Julian O’Grady, CSIRO. 

National probabilistic coastal inundation hazard assessment tool: 

https://coastalrisk.com.au/home 

and an article about it: 

https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/Articles/2021/March/coastal-hazard-assessment-tool-wins-national-environment-and-sustainability-award 

The tool applies ‘bathtub’ water to the coast using storm tide, with ocean overtopping and backflow into stormwater pipes, plus catchment rain. Input data includes: water levels; ground levels; drainage systems; geomorphology and erodibility; coastal protection structures; local knowledge. Catchment input is on a 5km2 grid. It derives probability that land will be flooded, for various Climate Change scenarios. It includes storm surge and wave runup. 

DD comment: with modelling tools like this, we could analyse our Coast without consultants. 

35.    9.3 A – Shaun Morris, North Coast Local Land Services, Natural Asset Protection team. 

Emigrant Creek project on 700m of oxbow near its junction with Maguires Creek.  The catchment is farmed and puts nutrients and sediment into the Creek. They used a composite of rocks and logs. This provided ‘corrugation’ (ie hydraulic roughness) so energy wouldn’t be transferred downstream. Connections use hemp rope. The “snag hotels” emulate a log jam. The inside bend is accreting and is well vegetated. 

36.    9.4 B – Yanyan Zhang, Royal HaskoningDHV. 

They renovated several stormwater outlets on beaches. Many had defects, some were undersized. 

At South Steyne in Sydney, they lined the old pipe and covered it in concrete seating. 

At Fairy Bower nearby, they used stainless steel pipes as there was no access for heavier materials. The driving issue was sand ingress into the pipes. 

At Balmoral in Sydney Harbour, they added three deflectors at the outlet, as it faces seaward. 

At Willyana Cove, they extended the existing pipe into deeper water. 

At Whale Beach in Sydney, they will add a rock apron to counteract beach erosion. 

At Foresters Beach on the so-called Central Coast, they will add a drop structure & scour protection. 

At Ramsay Street Collaroy, they replaced old gate valves with “duckbill valves”.

Photo of duckbill valve with water

Here is a typical duckbill stormwater valve: 

Friday: more presentations. 

37.    10.1 – Roger Christie, Propel (social media specialist). 

Important to participate, less risky than “watch and wait”. Don’t talk at people, it’s about listening. Propel espouses 5 drivers of digital reputation and recommends having a clear purpose - see their Purpose Pyramid. 

38.    10.2 – Alexa Stuart, of Rising Tide and Newcastle’s Young Citizen of the Year. 

Engaging Youth Voices. For Newcastle youth, access to beaches is really important.  Youth also need their own spaces. She enjoys the influence of peers and mentors.  She asks: What do we value more, somebody’s real estate or the public’s beaches. 

DD comment: this is young music to my old ears. 

39.    11.1.1 D – Tom Oliver, UNSW Canberra. 

Studied the June 2022 event at Bengello Beach (see also number 18 above). There was retreat and loss of foredune but no major loss of cross-sectional volume. 

40.    11.1.2 D – Robbi Bishop-Talyor (for Rachel Nanson), Geoscience Australia. 

Two-part seabed geomorphology classification scheme: 

https://www.ausseabed.gov.au/resources/news 

This ‘tool’ examines the seabed offshore, down to 70m depth. An example was able to classify underwater dunes as having once been coastal. As they would have formed recently, such dunes could contain archaeological information. 

41.    11.2 C – video on Worimi Conservation Lands. 

Adapting to Climate Change where there are middens, artifacts, and 4WD’s.  Saltwater will intrude into freshwater lagoons and billabongs. In some places, change can be slowed with sand fencing. Climate Change is changing traditional timing relationships, like the timing of the mullet run. 

Sadly in recent history, eight families were relocated from Soldiers Point on Port Stephens to Karuah Reserve inland, because the Point was ‘required’ for observing naval traffic in the Port. 

42.    12.1.1 D – Tom Doyle, DPE. 

Dunes in NSW are modified by (i) adding development, (ii) shifting the sand, or (iii) removing vegetation. He studied 48 dunes on the NSW coast. Conclusions : a) that modified dunes contain less sand; b) that lowering dune elevation makes them more vulnerable; and c) that it’s best to use the local natural form for re-establishing a dune profile. 

At Berri Beach south of Sydney, they eradicated bitou bush by bull dozing a trench and burying it.  Sand volume was thus retained. 

43.    12.1.2 D – Tom Murray, Griffith University. 

Minjerribah (Stradbroke) was one island until 1896 when the ocean broke through its centre. Bribie Island has a more recent breakthrough. The location of the mouth of the Nerang River is now pinned by rockwalls. 630,000 m3 of sand is pumped north per year.  Its delta is still building northwards. 

44.    12.2 C – Sally Whitelaw, City of Coffs Harbour. 

Their CZMP for the Shire’s open coast was certified in 2013. It mapped 9 hazard lines: for timing (now, 2050, 2100) and likelihood (very likely, medium, unlikely).  Properties east of the “yellow line” (2100, unlikely) get a Section 10.7 Certificate. 

For the estuary, Council added flood levels established by the ‘bathtub’ method. 

Their Policy was adopted without much objection. Problems arose later, when trying to put that approach into the LEP and DCP. With the Coastal Reforms of 2015, the project was abandoned. 

In 2018 the CZMP lines were refined where the coast was solid bedrock. Also in 2018, Council proposed a planning proposal that structures must avoid or be able to withstand coastal hazards. This was adopted in August 2022 and by DPE in August 2023.  The lines are now in a SEPP. 

45.    12.3 C – Dave Hanslow, DPE. 

Two more tools, for managing inundation in estuaries. The first addresses Nuisance Inundation, otherwise known as Sunny Day Flooding: 

https://www.mhl.nsw.gov.au/NuisanceInundation  

The second tool addresses SLR, of which there is already 25cm since 1880: 

https://www.mhl.nsw.gov.au/SLR 

Within the SLR tool, select a location (relevant tide gauge); select a threshold level (m AHD); lastly select a future scenario. 

Estuaries have so much low-lying land around them. It is estimated that 75,000 properties will be impacted by 1m of SLR. 

Thresholds could range across: (i) just the ingress of seawater into stormwater pipes; or (ii) flooding because the pipes are full; or (iii) the level at which overland flow paths are impacted. 

46.    12.4 B – Nicola Johnstone, DPI-Fisheries. 

The Marine Estate goes to 3km offshore. The Marine Estate Management Authority (MEMA) crosses four agencies and has a 10-year Strategy 2018-28 with nine Initiatives. 

Next year. 

The 2023 event will be held in Eurobodalla Shire (south coast of NSW). 

 

Signed:    Cr Duncan Dey

Attachments:

 

1        Field Trip graph, E2023/125079  

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - General Manager                                                                           13.1

Staff Reports - General Manager

 

Report No. 13.1     Proposed lease of former Byron hospital site

Directorate:                         General Manager

Report Author:                   Matt Meir, Solicitor

Claire McGarry, Place Manager - Byron Bay

File No:                                 I2023/1768

Summary:

This report is about the proposed lease between Council and Social Futures Ltd regarding the former Byron hospital site.

  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorises the General Manager to negotiate and settle changes to the proposed lease to Social Futures Ltd regarding 10-12 Shirley Street, Byron Bay, subject to the following principles:

1.      A 20-year term is required to help secure an “anchor subtenant” for the site.

2.      The penalty for the head tenant not meeting key performance indicators is termination of the lease rather than full commercial rent (at request of head tenant).

 

 


 

Report

This report suggests changes to the proposed lease regarding the former Byron hospital site and recommends delegation of authority to the General Manager to negotiate final terms.

Context

As Councillors are aware, the land comprising the former Byron hospital site is currently being redeveloped into a community hub and university campus, via a mix of Council and grant funding. The new premises are expected to be completed by mid-2024.

By a competitive tender process and series of previous resolutions (the most recent being resolution 21-229), Council has committed to leasing the refurbished premises to non-profit community services provider, Social Futures Ltd.

This commitment currently takes the form of an agreement for lease between Council and Social Futures, which the parties signed in August 2021.

Currently:

·    Under the agreement for lease, the lease is for a term of 10 years, with an opportunity for Council to grant a second, 10-year term if Social Futures desires.

 

·    The intention is for Social Futures to sublet the premises to a range of subtenants, including various non-profits and other community service providers, at a lower rate than market value in order to retain and/or attract important services otherwise priced out of the Shire.

 

·    In response, Social Futures is offered a rent incentive via a further agreement, which discounts the lease’s nominal rent to a below-market rate if Social Futures hits the KPIs around tenancy mix and community / social benefit. The rent Social Futures actually pays will allow Council to recover its costs from the site’s redevelopment.

 

·    In this way, Council will effectively provide a non-market commercial rent option to small, non-profit firms that otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford rental premises in the Byron Bay town centre.

Two issues

Council and Social Futures have been negotiating the lease and the proposed rent discount arrangement periodically since 2021. In recent weeks, Social Futures’ leadership have indicated to Council that there are two challenges presented by the status quo above.


 

Lease term

The first of these is the proposed 10-year lease term.

The financial model for the site developed over time by community, Council and Social Futures is reliant on an ‘anchor tenant’ renting approximately 50% of available square metreage for a university campus. This tenancy needs to have the ability to pay something approaching the market value of its space, which allows Social Futures to pay its rent to Council and maintain the sinking fund for the building required by the head lease. 

In this context, Council and Social Futures have spoken with potential university providers about the opportunity this site presents.

As part of the discussions, potential anchor tenants have indicated that in order to make the business case for the required investment in the reconfiguration and fit out of their section of the site, a 20-year tenure would be required.

However, Social Futures cannot legally sublet part of the premises to a university for 20 years when the former only has a ten-year term.

Rent

As noted above, the lease is currently drafted so that the rent would reflect the site’s market rent. A further agreement between Council and Social Futures would then provide the rent the latter would actually pay, subject to it subletting the premises in the required way.

Social Futures have advised Council that as long as the former hospital site’s commercial rent is contained within the lease, this potential liability must be included on Social Futures’ books. This places material restrictions on the other projects that Social Futures is able to pursue.

Requests

Social Futures have indicated that without alterations to the lease term and how the rent is recorded, Social Futures’ occupation and management of the site is imperilled.

In recent meetings with the General Manager, Social Futures’ leadership have requested that:

·    The lease term be extended to 20 years.

 

·    Only the actual rent Social Futures will pay is recorded in the lease and the penalty for not meeting key performance indicators change from a full commercial rent being payable, to a termination of the lease.


 

Analysis

Lease term

The report writers regard the proposed lease extension as carrying a relatively low risk for Council in net terms. This is because while the proposed extension binds Council and Social Futures together for a longer time – and so heightens the incentive for both parties to work well together – this is more than offset by the assumed benefit Council and Social Future will derive from securing an anchor tenant.

The low risk of the proposed lease extension is further mitigated by the existing obligations on Social Futures under the lease. These obligations are substantial. Foremost among these, and as noted above, is that Social Futures’ rent is tied to its ability to secure suitable non-profits for the building. The building’s tenancy composition is also a discrete obligation under the lease. Beyond this, there are further obligations, including various financial reporting requirements.

Together, this oversight provides a suitable context for Council to extend Social Futures’ proposed term so that the site’s chosen financial model can be realised.

Rent

The lease’s use of the market rent, combined with a separate agreement providing for a potential discount in rent, was part of Council’s approach to mitigating the risk of the lease being assigned and enabling the assignee to make a windfall profit (the argument being that if the lease contained a discounted rent in the first instance and was then assigned, the assignee could potentially make a windfall profit by subletting the relevant parts of the premises for market rent while only paying a below market rent).

Staff view this risk as having a low chance of materialising. There are three main reasons for this. The first is the nature of Council and Social Futures’ relationship. While no one can say with certainty how things will look across 20 years, the parties’ relationship would need to deteriorate significantly for Social Futures to look to transfer its interest in the site.

Secondly, neither entity exists for the purpose of profit. Both have entered the relationship for the purpose of providing space for other non-profits to provide much-needed services in Byron Bay. Profit maximisation isn’t driving either party’s willingness to pursue this project. 

Thirdly is the balance of the lease terms. The provisions are complex, but essentially, they:

·    Don’t allow Social Futures to transfer its interest without Council having the first right to end the lease, or alternatively, Council approving the transfer.

 

·    Would require any transfer to account for the existing building occupants.

 

·    Wouldn’t automatically relieve Social Futures of its obligations under the lease even if it did transfer its interest.

Given Social Futures’ representations regarding the real and present difficulty created by the retention of the market rent in the lease, staff regard this risk as needing to be managed ahead of the low risk of placing the proposed discounted rent amount into the lease.

Staff note, too, that the vast majority of Council leases (whether regarding land owned by Council or Crown land Council manages) provide for a below market rent to non-profit tenants. While the former hospital site is arguably more prominent than other Council sites due its location and redevelopment, the policy of providing below market rent to non-profit firms is the rule rather than the exception.

Recommended response

Staff recommend that:

·    Social Futures’ lease term be extended to 20 years to enable it to sublet part of the premises to an anchor tenant and enable investment in the building.

·    The lease rent is set at the rate Social Futures will actually pay, with a termination clause for failure to meet key performance indicators.

Next steps

Prior to Social Futures’ recent representations to Council on the above matters, the parties had worked well together to largely settle the existing lease and separate agreement providing for Social Futures’ rent discount.

If Council resolves according to the above principles, further work will be required between Council and Social Futures to give effect to the proposed lease changes.

This work will take some time. It is important but not urgent given the current estimate that the redeveloped premises won’t be available for occupation until the middle of next year.

Strategic Considerations

Community Strategic Plan and Operational Plan

CSP Objective

CSP Strategy

DP Action

Code

OP Activity

1: Effective Leadership

1.5: Empower community leadership through collaboration, capacity building, and cultivating community driven initiatives

1.5.2: Collaboration and capacity building - Collaborate with stakeholders to build community capacity

1.5.2.2

Continue redevelopment of the former Byron Hospital site

Recent Resolutions

·        21-229 (tender award to Social Futures regarding Byron hospital site).

Legal/Statutory/Policy Considerations

Council’s land comprising the former Byron hospital site is classified operational land under the Local Government Act 1993. Council is free to lease this land for 20 years, as well as enter an agreement regarding the future lease of the land.

Regarding the rent, Council’s adopted fees and charges provide that the cost of a lease (i.e., the rent) is determined by a “market valuation/competitive process”. The right to manage the premises was subject to an open tendered by Council in 2021. The proposed rent discount’s substance was on the public record as part of this tender.

Financial Considerations

N/A – lease negotiations can be finalised with existing staff resources.

Consultation and Engagement

Extensive and ongoing between Byron Shire Council, Social Futures and the project’s Community Advisory Group.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - General Manager                                                                           13.2

Report No. 13.2     PLANNING - DA 10.2021.114.1 - Light Industrial Development, ("Fed Sheds") at  467 Federal Drive, Federal

Directorate:                         General Manager

Report Author:                   Ralph James, Legal Counsel

Chris Larkin, Manager Sustainable Development

File No:                                 I2023/1796

Summary:

Development Application No. 10.2021.114.1 sought consent to demolish the existing dwelling on the land and construct three buildings to use for light industrial purposes comprising eight tenancies of varying floor areas, six (6) with mezzanine levels, and car parking for 26 vehicles, motorbike spaces and two loading zones.  The subject site is within the heart of the village and sits opposite the Federal Hall. The land has an area of 4000 m2 and is zoned RU5 Village which permits a range of uses including light industry. 

 

The application was reported to Council on the 15 December 2022. Council resolved to refuse the application.

 

On 28 February 2023 the Applicant commenced proceedings in Class 1 of the Land and Environment Court’s jurisdiction appealing Council’s refusal of the development application (Proceedings No 2021/44517).

 

A conciliation conference pursuant to section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 was held on 7 August 2023.

 

The matter was unable to be resolved during the conference and for a period of time thereafter.

 

On 9 October 2023 the Court terminated the conciliation conference as the parties were not able to reach an in principle agreement.

 

The matter is fixed for hearing before a Commissioner of the court on 2 and 3 April 2024.

 

Since the termination of the conciliation conference discussions between the parties’ experts have continued.

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 the General Manager be authorised to enter into a s34 Conciliation Agreement approving development application 10.2021.114.1, subject to appropriate conditions to be finalised under delegation.

 

Attachments:

 

1        CV of Jeff Mead Planning Expert, E2023/124030  

2        Letter from Planning expert Jeff Mead, E2023/124385  

3        CV of Andrew Norris Wastewater and Stormwater Expert, E2023/124029  

4        Letter from Andrew Norris Principal Engineer Martens as to Wastewater and Stormwater contentions, E2023/123834  

5        10.2021.114.1 - Master LEC_Federal DA00-DA69 -  "Fed Sheds"  Amended plans, E2023/120654  

6        Re notification letter sent to submitters, E2023/125076  

7        Confidential - Submissions, E2023/127474  

8        Draft Conditions of Consent, E2023/127562  

9        Confidential - Legal advice from Marsdens Law Group, E2023/127061  

 


 

Report

Background

 

Development Application No. 10.2021.114.1 was refused by Council on 15 December 2022 for the following reasons:

 

1.      Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the EP&A Act 1979 the proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the RU5 Village Zone under Byron LEP 2014.

 

2.      Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the EP&A Act 1979 the proposed development is inconsistent with Clause 6.6 of the Byron LEP 2014 in terms of services to the property including stormwater management.

 

3.      Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the EP&A Act 1979 the proposed development is inconsistent with the provisions under Chapter B3 Services under Byron DCP 2014 in terms of onsite sewage management system (including the covered nature of the application area, the lack of allocation of land for a reserve application area, and the inadequate buffer to boundaries) and stormwater management (including stormwater being piped to a locality with pre-existing flood problems).  

 

4.      Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the EP&A Act 1979 the proposed development is inconsistent with the provisions under Chapter E6 Federal under Byron DCP 2014 in terms of character, bulk and scale, and the village centre area provisions.

 

5.      Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(b) of the EP&A Act 1979 the proposed development will have an unacceptable environmental impact in terms of the onsite sewage management system.

 

6.      Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(b) of the EP&A Act 1979 the proposed development is out of character with the built environment and is not compatible with the Village Character of Federal.

 

7.      Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(c) of the EP&A Act 1979 the site is not suitable for the development.

 

8.      Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(e) of the EP&A Act 1979 the proposed development is not in the public interest having taken into account the Federal Village Masterplan.

 

In essence the size and bulk and scale of the proposed building was considered out of character with the Village, whilst the measures for managing stormwater and effluent disposal onsite were considered inadequate.

 

The original proposal was to construct 3 buildings for light industrial use comprising eight tenancies of varying floor areas, six (6) with mezzanine levels, and car parking for 26 vehicles, motorbike spaces and two loading zones. The subject site is within the heart of the village and sits opposite the Federal Hall. The land has an area of 4000 m2 and is zoned RU5 Village which permits a range of uses including light industry.

 

Access and egress to the development is proposed via two new vehicle crossovers in a one-way direction through the site with all vehicles entering and leaving the site in a forward direction.

 

The development proposed stormwater storage tanks beneath each building and on-site sewage management and a land application area was proposed below the car park with effluent to be treated by way of a tertiary system.

 

For details on the original assessment of the application see Council (Planning) Meeting of 11 August 2022 and Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - Thursday, 15 December 2022 (infocouncil.biz)

 

The buildings, although compliant with the 9 metre height limits due to their design and appearance to Federal Drive, were considered somewhat overbearing having regard to the church and hall opposite the site, and other surrounding development in Federal.

 

On 28 February 2023 the Applicant commenced proceedings in Class 1 of the Land and Environment Court’s jurisdiction appealing Council’s refusal of the development application (Proceedings No 2021/44517).

 

The General Manager approved Legal Counsel’s recommendation the Marsdens Law Group be instructed to appear for Council in the proceedings.

 

Council’s Contentions in the proceedings were:

 

Objectives of the Zone RU5

 

The proposal failed to specify the nature of the proposed use of the factory units beyond a general description of the proposed development as “light industry” (excluding artisan food and drink industry). The building typology is generic in terms of the types of uses it may accommodate and it has not been demonstrated that future uses will be consistent with the zone objective. 

 

Streetscape and Character

 

The proposed development is not consistent with the streetscape and existing and desired future character of the Federal Village.

 

Stormwater Management

 

The proposed development does not incorporate adequate arrangements for stormwater drainage as required pursuant to clause 6.6 of BLEP 2014. It is also not possible to assess the potential impacts of the development on water quality.

 

Wastewater Management

 

The proposed development does not incorporate adequate arrangements for the disposal and management of sewage as required pursuant to clause 6.6 of BLEP 2014.

 

Insufficient Information

 

The development application should be refused because insufficient information has been provided to enable a proper assessment of the proposed development in terms of future uses, lighting and stormwater management

 

Suitability of Site

 

The site is not suitable for the proposed development having regard to the contentions raised above.

 

Public Interest

 

The development application should be refused because the proposed development is not in the public interest having regard to the contentions raised above, and the submissions made to the Respondent.

 

Conciliation Conference

 

A conciliation conference pursuant to section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 was held on 7 August 2023. At the conciliation conference Council's contentions were advanced by external experts Jeff Mead (Planning) and Andrew Norris (Stormwater/Wastewater).

 

At the Conciliation Conference the Commissioner took oral statements from 6 resident objectors.

 

In principle agreement was not able to be reached during the conference and for a period of time thereafter.

 

The main issues which were not resolved included the built form of the shed and stormwater management.

 

On 9 October 2023 the Court terminated the conciliation conference.

 

The matter was listed for a further directions hearing on 16 October 2023. On that day the Court made the following orders:

 

1.      The proceedings are fixed for hearing on 2 and 3 April 2024 commencing on site at 10:30am and returning to the Land and Environment Court in Sydney.

 

2.      The proceedings are listed for a further directions hearing on 4 December 2023.

 

3.      Under rr 31.19 and 31.20 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (‘UCPR’), the Court makes the following directions regarding expert evidence:

 

a.      Jeff Mead (Respondent’s planning expert) and Derek Sinclair (Applicant’s planning expert) are to confer in relation to Contentions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 under r 31.24 UCPR and prepare a joint expert report;

 

b.      Andrew Norris (Respondent’s stormwater expert) and Derek McKenzie (Applicant’s stormwater expert) are to confer in relation to Contention 3 under UCPR r 31.24 and prepare a joint expert report;

 

c.       Andrew Norris (Respondent’s wastewater expert) and Jo Whitehead (Applicant’s wastewater expert) are to confer in relation to Contention 4 under UCPR r 31.24 and prepare a joint expert report;

 

d.      The joint expert reports are to be filed and served by 4 March 2024.

 

Since the termination of the conciliation conference discussions between the experts have continued to the point where the applicant has further refined the plans for the three sheds by lowering the bulk and scale of the building and amending the roof lines from gables to hipped roofs consistent with other buildings in Federal Drive.

 

Further, the stormwater management and onsite sewage management has also been amended.

 

The amended plans are contained in attachment 5.

 

Resolution of the contentions

 

Planning

 

As was outlined above Council's expert in the discipline of Planning was Jeff Mead.

Mr. Mead’s CV is attachment 1.

 

On 27 November 2023 Mr. Mead provided a letter to Council setting out his view as to the Planning contentions. That letter is attachment 2.

 

In understanding Mr. Mead’s comments Councillors should refer to the list of contentions referred to above.

 

Wastewater and Stormwater Management

 

As was outlined above Council's expert in the disciplines of Wastewater and stormwater management was Andrew Norris.

 

Mr. Norris’ CV is attachment 3.

 

On 20 November 2023 Mr. Norris provided a letter to Council setting out his view as to the wastewater and stormwater contentions. That letter is attachment 4.

 

The following sets out the contentions Mr. Norris refers to and (in red) the comments he makes in relation to them:

 

 

 

Stormwater Management

 

3.       The development application must be refused because the proposed development does not incorporate adequate arrangements for stormwater drainage as required pursuant to clause 6.6 of BLEP 2014. It is also not possible to assess the potential impacts of the development on water quality.

 

Particulars

 

a)      Clause 6.6 of BLEP 2014 provides as follows:

 

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—

(d)     stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,

 

This particular is resolved as the consent authority can be satisfied, on the basis of the Updated Stormwater Plan provided, that the site stormwater management solution has been prepared in accordance with relevant Council controls, the LEP and industry best practice approaches to stormwater quality and quantity modelling.

 

b)      Clause 6.5 of BLEP 2014 provides as follows:

 

6.5 Drinking water catchments

 

(1)     The objective of this clause is to protect drinking water catchments by minimising the adverse impacts of development on the quality and quantity of water entering drinking water storages.

 

(2)     This clause applies to land identified as “Drinking water catchment” on the Drinking Water Catchment Map.

 

(3)     In deciding whether to grant a development application for development on land to which this clause applies, the consent authority must consider the following—

 

(a)     whether or not the development is likely to have any adverse impact on the quality and quantity of water entering the drinking water storage, having regard to the following—

 

(i)      the distance between the development and any waterway that feeds into the drinking water storage,

 

(ii)      the on-site use, storage and disposal of any chemicals on the land,

(iii)     the treatment, storage and disposal of waste water and solid waste generated or used by the development,

 

(b)     any appropriate measures proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate the impacts of the development.

 

(4)     Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that—

 

(a)     the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any significant adverse impact on water quality and flows, or

 

(b)     if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or

(c)     if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact.

 

This particular is resolved as the consent authority can be satisfied, on the basis of the Updated Stormwater Plan provided, that the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any significant adverse impacts on water quality and flows. The MUSIC model has demonstrated that the developed site shall generate no greater load of priority pollutants TSS, TN and TP than the undeveloped site. The DRAINS model has demonstrated that the post development flows from the site shall not exceed pre development flows for the range of storms up to the 1% AEP event.

 

c)      Clause B3.2.3 in Chapter B3 of Part B of BDCP 2014 contains the following relevant objectives and performance criteria:

 

B3.2.3Stormwater Management

 

Objectives

 

1.       To promote on-site stormwater management practices that support the ‘pre-development’ hydrological regime (surface flow, streams and groundwater).

 

2.       To ensure that new development does not reduce the effectiveness of existing drainage patterns (including built infrastructure).

 

3.       To minimise the impacts of stormwater runoff from a site on adjoining properties.

 

4.       To provide an acceptable level of protection against personal injury and property damage due to localised stormwater runoff.

 

5.       To promote on-site retention, detention and infiltration of stormwater.

 

6.       To promote stormwater harvesting and other forms of innovative water conservation.

 

7.       To promote better integration of stormwater management into development proposals.

 

8.       To ensure that on-site stormwater management facilities can be economically maintained, and that adequate arrangements are made for on-going maintenance.

 

9.       To provide for the ongoing environmental health of receiving waters;

 

10.     To ensure that stormwater management systems protect ground and surface water and other ecological values;

 

11.     To achieve best practice stormwater treatment targets for stormwater quality.

 

                      Prescriptive Measures

 

1.       Development Applications

 

Development applications must contain sufficient information to assess whether the proposed stormwater system is effective and feasible, both within the site and in its connection to the public drainage system.

 

Plans showing the method of draining the land are to be in accordance with the Northern Rivers Local Government Development Design and Construction Manuals, Byron Shire Council Comprehensive Guidelines for Stormwater Management and relevant Australian Standards. Sample drawings developed as part of the Northern Rivers Local Government Development Design and Construction Manuals provide guidance on the type of information that should be included in stormwater management plans for subdivision works. AS/NZS 3500.3:2003 Plumbing and drainage

- Stormwater drainage is the relevant Australian Standard at the time of writing this document. Appendices C and K of AS/NZS 3500.3:2003 provide guidance on the type of information that should be included in stormwater management plans for building works.

 

7.      Stormwater Quality and Treatment

 

b)  Applications for subdivisions and developments involving an area of land greater than 2,500m2 must provide measures to address the “key” pollutants in accordance with Table B3.2 for all stormwater flows up to 25% of the 1 year ARI peak flow from the development site.

 

This particular is resolved as the consent authority can be satisfied, on the basis of the Updated Stormwater Plan provided, that the stormwater management system satisfies clause B3.2.3 of Chapter B3 of Part B of Byron DCP 2014. The MUSIC model demonstrates the water quality objectives, and the DRAINS model demonstrates the flow objectives, have been satisfied.

 

d)      The analysis of stormwater quality control design appears in error in that it is inconsistent with the wastewater assessment, and therefore does not adequately address Table B3.2 of BDCP 2014.

 

The Updated Stormwater Plan and the wastewater system as described in the Whitehead Letter, as documented jointly on Plan DA40, resolve the past inconsistency between the stormwater and wastewater solutions on the site.

 

e)      Specifically, the reported reuse rates (Table 2.2 of the Stormwater Management Plan) include errors so that the daily reuse rate does not correspond with the annual reuse rates. The daily rate (being the lower of the two rates) does not correspond with the wastewater assessment in that the stormwater assessment is assuming use on 7 days per week, whereas the wastewater assessment assumes 6 days per week. The On-site Sewage Management Feasibility Assessment (Rev E) (“OSSM Report”) further modifies the design by assuming effluent reuse for toilet flushing, which shall further reduce the stormwater demand.

 

The Updated Stormwater Plan and the wastewater system as described in the Whitehead Letter, as documented jointly on Plan DA40, resolve the past inconsistency between the stormwater and wastewater solutions on the site.

 

f)       The MUSIC modelling assumed landscape irrigation at a rate of 516kL/year. The landscaped area in the development is given on Drawing No. DA40 as 1,354m2. This equates to an irrigation rate of 4ML/ha/year, which is high. It is unclear whether this is appropriate for the landscaping treatment proposed on site or whether the model should be adjusted.

 

The Updated Stormwater Plan adopts industry standard reuse rates for external irrigation assuming 75% of landscaping is irrigated.

 

g)      The floor of the raingarden / detention basin is 173.0m AHD and the 1 in 100 year water level in the basin is 173.71m AHD (Floodworks plan SK-04). The floor level of Building C is as low as 172m AHD (Drawing No. DA30) and the levels in the carpark vary from 174.5m AHD (north-west corner) to 171m AHD (at its south-west corner) as shown on Drawing No. DA20.2. The basin is accordingly unable to receive water from much of the site. It will therefore not perform as modelled in the water quality and quantity assessment, and shall be ineffective with regards to both the water quality and water quality functions proposed.

 

The Updated Stormwater Plan and Plan DA40, resolve the past design flaws by relocating the raingarden to a position to which the majority of the site can drain.

 

h)      Having regard to the above matters, it has not been shown that the proposed development incorporates adequate arrangements for stormwater drainage and the impacts of the development on water quality cannot be appropriately assessed. There is no power to grant consent to the development application having regard to clauses 6.5 and 6.6 of BLEP 2014.

 

The Updated Stormwater Plan, DRAINS model and MUSIC model allow for the adequate assessment of the site stormwater solution. Further, the updated design allows for the conclusion that the solution now proposed is adequate and acceptable in accordance with BDCP and BLEP.

 

i)       Additionally, the design of the basin is considered inappropriate from a safety and aesthetic perspective having regard to the following matters:

 

(i)      The proposed basin includes a vertical drop of 1m from the adjacent car park to the basin floor (as shown on Floodworks plan SK-04). No provision has been made for safety fencing or vehicle barriers.

 

(ii)     The top of wall around the basin is at 174.01m AHD. At the southern end of the basin, the survey indicates a level of approximately 170.5m AHD. The difference in height of 3.5m is not reflected in the shadow diagrams provided, nor is it included in any of the cross-sections of the site. This structure is likely to be quite imposing given the setback from the western boundary is only 3m.The exclusion of the basin from the majority of plans wrongly presents a 6.3m setback from the boundary. Instead, the basin shall be a significant structure setback only 3m from the boundary. The basin design and operational requirements are likely to be incompatible with the landscaping shown on the application plans. In this regard, trees are generally incompatible with a raingarden, and certainly incompatible with a “sealed” raingarden as is proposed.

 

(iii)     The raingarden / detention basin section presented on SK04 of the plans prepared by Floodworks shows the ground level adjacent to the basin at approximately 172.8m AHD adjacent to the overflow weir. The natural ground level in this area is approximately 170.5m AHD. Either the Applicant is proposing considerable filling (and then retaining walls to reach natural levels on adjacent sites) or SK04 misrepresents the site situation. This discrepancy needs to be clarified in order to properly understand this aspect of the proposed development.

 

Item (i) of the particular remains unresolved. The updated design (see SK-04 of the Updated Stormwater Plan) retains a > 1.0 m drop from the carpark level to the basin surface. A note that a ‘Handrail for Level Change Greater Than 1m’ has been provided. However, this is considered inadequate for a carpark. The requirement for a W-Beam safety barrier should be considered by Council Engineering staff and, in our opinion, should be imposed as a condition of consent.

 

Staff have considered this comment and have addressed it in the draft conditions of consent.

 

Items (ii) (iv) are resolved by the Updated Stormwater Plan.

 

Wastewater Management

 

4.       The development application should be refused because the proposed development does not incorporate adequate arrangements for the disposal and management of sewage as required pursuant to clause 6.6 of BLEP 2014.

 

Particulars

 

a)      Clause 6.6 of BLEP 2014 provides as follows:

 

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—

 

(c)     the disposal and management of sewage,

 

This particular is resolved as the consent authority can be satisfied, on the basis of the wastewater management solution detailed in the Whitehead Letter and on Plan DA40, that adequate arrangement have been made for the management of sewage as required pursuant to clause 6.6 of BLEP 2014.

 

b)      Clause B3.2.2 in Chapter B3 of Part B of BDCP 2014 provides the following relevant objectives and prescriptive measures in relation to on-site sewage management:

 

               “B3.2.2 On-site Sewage Management

 

                 Objectives

 

1.       To ensure that on-site sewage management systems are designed and operated to ensure protection of ground and surface water, including drinking water supplies;…

 

3.  To ensure on-site sewage management systems that service or are required for industrial, commercial and rural industries are appropriately designed.

 

5.       To minimise public health risk including the spread of disease by micro- organisms;

 

6.       To prevent degradation of soil and vegetation including soil structure, salinisation, water logging, chemical contamination and soil erosion; and

7.       To ensure that neighbouring properties are not adversely affected by effluent or effluent management systems.

 

   Prescriptive Measures

 

1.       Residential, commercial and industrial development that produces sewage and is not to be connected to the urban sewage system must comply with the Council’s Design Guidelines for On-Site Sewage Management for Single Households.

 

2.       A detailed on-site sewage management report may be required with a development application depending upon the scale of the development, the size of the land and distances to watercourses. A report is generally required with a Development Application for systems that service rural dwellings on land less than 1 hectare, rural and rural residential subdivisions creating lots smaller than 5 ha, rural tourist and commercial developments…

 

This particular is resolved as the consent authority can be satisfied, on the basis of the wastewater management solution detailed in the Whitehead Letter and on Plan DA40, that the wastewater management solution provided satisfies the requirements of Clause B3.2.2 in Chapter B3 of Part B of BDCP 2014.

 

c)      The wastewater assessments submitted in support of the development application are considered deficient having regard to the following matters:

 

(i)      Whitehead’s peer review queries the claimed TN and TP removal in the wastewater treatment system. While the claimed rates may be reasonable for domestic sewage treatment system receiving sewage from a single dwelling, they are unlikely to be achieved in a blackwater only system from a commercial development.

 

(ii)     The OSSM Report includes the design assumption that greywater will be treated and used for toilet flushing. This is inconsistent with the stormwater assessment, which assumes 900L/day (7 days per week) of stormwater will be consumed, in part, for these purposes.

 

(iii)     It is claimed that the absorption system beneath the carpark shall achieve nutrient assimilation. The mechanism for this claimed nutrient removal is not explained. The most likely actual outcome is that mobile nutrients (nitrogen species in particular) will migrate from the absorption area and either move off site, or down profile to the underlying groundwater.

 

(iv)    No evidence is presented for a commercially available treatment system capable of treating a commercial development’s greywater stream to a standard acceptable for toilet flushing in a commercial premises. Similarly, there is no analysis provided demonstrating that a system is available to treat the blackwater generated to the standard assumed in the OSSM Report for disposal system design.

 

(v)     Recycling of greywater for toilet flushing may also significantly increase the salt content of the generated effluent. No analysis of the salt balance within the absorption system has been made.

 

(vi)    No description of the likely monitoring and maintenance requirements of the greywater reclamation system has been provided. While such a detail may be appropriately provided at the stage of applying for an approval under section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 for a typical treatment solution such as an AWTS, it is necessary to be provided for assessment at the development application stage where the solution relies on advanced treatment solutions, the technical and commercial feasibility of which is unclear. Should the maintenance and operational requirements of the proposed effluent reclamation plan be unachievable within the commercial context of the proposed development, the result would be an approved development which could not be feasibly serviced.

 

(vii)   The proposed Analysis of LTAR in Table 4 of the OSSM Report is incorrect. The author has incorrectly converted mm/day to m/day resulting in LTARs being adopted for 0.5m/day permeability rather than the measured rate of 0.05m/day (51 – 56mm/day).

 

(viii)   No consideration has been made as to the impact of the loading of the absorption field with a car park (and parked vehicles) over time. It is likely that the continual loading of the saturated soils in the absorption area will lead to consolidation of underlying clay (and possible pavement issues) and thereby a significant decline in the permeability of the underlying soils. It is possible this will lead to catastrophic failure of the absorption system. While the Applicant has identified sufficient area to provide for a reserve field (designed on soil hydraulics only), the reserve area is similarly impacted by the overlying car park and could be similarly compromised.

 

(ix)    The proposed layers of 50mm drainage cells, and the effluent distribution pipework applying effluent to them, shall have no ability to be serviced or maintained should they accumulate sediments or wastes or be compromised in any other way as a result of the operation of the sewage treatment system. The only way that remedial works could be undertaken in the absorption area would be to excavate the concrete carpark. This is not considered to be a best practice system design, particularly on a site with known, highly reactive soils.

 

(x)     The OSSM Report assumes 35% of wastewater is blackwater. While this may be a split appropriate for a residence, there is no analysis to justify how this is an appropriate assumption for a commercial operation.

 

(xi)    Available suitable treatment systems include a reverse osmosis system. Such systems generate a highly saline brine stream which cannot be applied to a land application system. This highlights the inadequate and incomplete analysis of the overall system as it is presented for approval.

 

(xii)   It is likely that a licence under the Water Industry Competition Act 2006 (“WICA”) shall be required for the reticulation of the treated effluent to the commercial premises for the purposes of toilet flushing. This is a matter which requires further assessment prior to the determination of the development application. The need for a WICA licence, and conditions on such a licence, may significantly impact upon the viability of the proposed development.

 

(xiii)   The risk assessment presented does not address the risk of toilet flushing effluent being of inadequate quality for this purpose. No provision has been made for the monitoring of the effluent to ensure public health risks are addressed. The disposal system design detailed in the OSSM Report “Exhibit 3” includes “layered compacted fill” beneath the drainage cell area for all areas of the carpark in fill. Engineered fill will have hydraulic properties that are very different from the natural underlying soils.

 

The wastewater management solution detailed in the Whitehead Letter and on Plan DA40, is a full redesign of the solution previously proposed. The amended design uses conventional onsite solutions to achieve an appropriate site design. Modifications to the site development layout has facilitated the creation of irrigation areas suitable for conventional subsurface irrigation and removed the reliance on the effluent absorption system under the carpark and the reliance on toilet flushing effluent reuse. Proposed sewage treatment systems are conventional and acceptable in the context of the site.

 

d)      The car park / drainage cell design provided on page 29 of the OSSM Report indicates cut and fill to provide final car park grade of 6.25 %. However, this detail is not indicated on development plans provided by Building Studio (e.g. Drawing DA20.1 Amended Site Layout and Car Parking Plan), which show no change in grade from natural.

 

The amended onsite wastewater solution described in the Whitehead Letter and Plan DA40 do not raise the issues raised by the previous OSSM Report.

 

e)      Furthermore, the Report on Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Geotech Investigation Pty Ltd includes a series of recommendations that are inconsistent with the requirements for the construction of an effluent absorption system beneath the car park. These include:

 

(i)      Section 5.1 requirement for the compaction of the subgrade prior to filling or construction of pavement. This will create a hardpan (impermeable layer) through which effluent migration shall be greatly reduced. The geotechnical requirements for the construction of the car park are therefore at odds with the requirements for the construction of an effective absorption system.

 

(ii)     Fill material is to be well compacted, which again will result in greatly reduced permeability and likely lead to short-to-medium term hydraulic failure of the absorption systems.

 

(iii)     Section 5.2 – the soils of the site are identified as being highly reactive. Due to this, Section 5.5 recommends that soil moisture should be controlled to limit moisture content change. This is at odds with the proposed use of the area for effluent absorption.

 

(iv)    Section 5.5 recommends that underground services should be made flexible to accommodate movement due to the soil’s reactivity. The proposed absorption cells with pipework throughout for effluent distribution is likely to be vulnerable to damage with the highly reactive soils and the use of the area as an effluent absorption area. This further compounds concerns regarding the inability of the infrastructure to be access for maintenance.

 

The geotechnical recommendations for the carpark are no longer of consequence for the onsite wastewater solution as the solution described in the Whitehead Letter and Plan DA40 do not rely on effluent absorption beneath the carpark.

 

f)       Having regard to the above, the consent authority cannot be satisfied that the proposed development incorporates adequate arrangements for the disposal and management of sewage as is required pursuant to clause 6.6 of BLEP 2014. There is no power to grant development consent in the absence of satisfaction as to that matter.

 

The consent authority can now be satisfied that the proposed development incorporates adequate arrangement for the disposal and management of sewage as required pursuant to clause 6.6 of BLEP 2014.

 

Insufficient Information

 

5.       The development application should be refused because insufficient information has been provided to enable a proper assessment of the proposed development.

 

Particulars

 

a)      The development application provides limited details in terms of the proposed use, which does not allow a proper assessment of the potential impacts of specific land use(s). It is inappropriate to “manage” potential uses through the crafting of conditions of development consent.

 

b)      The development application provides no details as to the proposed lighting for the site and therefore a proper assessment of impacts cannot be undertaken.

 

c)      The Applicant’s XP-SWMM model has not been provided for assessment.

 

The Updated Stormwater Plan does not rely on the past reference XP-SWMM model, the DRAINS model provided adequately addresses matters of site hydrology and hydraulics for stormwater management purposes.

 

Suitability of Site

 

6.       The development application should be refused because the site is not suitable for the proposed development having regard to the contentions raised above.

 

As it relates to wastewater and stormwater the Updated Stormwater Management Plan, Whitehead Letter and Plan DA40 demonstrate the suitability of the site for the development proposed.

 

2.5       Submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

 

Amended plans notification

 

Attachment 6 is a copy of the letter which was sent on 17 November 2023 to all previous submitters.  

 

The notification period was from 17 November 2023 to 1 December 2023 (by 5:00pm).

This period was extended to 9:30 am on 4 December 2023.

 

Council received 15 submissions in favour of the amended development and 40 against.

 

Copies if the submissions are Confidential attachment 7.

 

Draft conditions of consent

 

Attachment 8 contains the current draft of the conditions of consent based on the amended plans and the experts’ comments together with input from staff.

 

Recent Resolutions

 

22-374

22-735

 

Legal/Statutory/Policy Considerations

 

Prospects of success

 

Staff sought legal advice from Council’s external solicitors as to Council’s prospects of succeeding in the Land and Environment Court appeal if Council were to continue to defend its refusal of the development application, having regard to the amended plans and the experts’ opinions.

 

That advice is contained in confidential attachment 9.

 

 

 

 

Adverse costs

Costs are at the Court’s discretion, subject to any applicable rules or legislation including the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Land and Environment Court Rules 2007.

Costs are awarded to compensate a successful party, not to penalise the losing party.

In civil proceedings, the discretion is also subject to the Civil Procedure Act 2005.

The usual rule is that costs follow the event unless the Court considers another order should be made.

In Class 1 proceedings, the usual rule may not apply.

Costs orders must not be made in Class 1 proceedings, unless it is ‘fair and reasonable’ in the circumstances to do so. Examples of the circumstances in which it may be ‘fair and reasonable’ to award costs are:

• a party acted unreasonably in the proceedings;

• a party maintained a defence which had no reasonable prospects of success.

Section 34 Conferences

 

Conciliation in the Court is undertaken in accordance with Section 34 of the Court Act (otherwise known as a Section 34 Conference).

 

Section 34 Conferences, as articulated by the Chief Judge in (2008) 19 ADRJ 72, provide:

 

“for a combined or hybrid dispute resolution process involving first, conciliation and then, if the parties agree, adjudication. The conciliation involves a Commissioner with technical expertise on issues relevant to the case acting as a conciliator in a conference between the parties. The conciliator facilitates negotiation between the parties with a view to their achieving agreement as to the resolution of the dispute. If the parties are able to reach agreement, the conciliator, being a Commissioner of the Court, is able to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreement.”

 

The Court’s practice note encourages parties to consider using Section 34 Conferences to resolve disputes or narrow the scope of issues in dispute. The parties should properly prepare for each conference with this purpose in mind.

 

In accordance with Section 34(1A) of the Court Act it is the duty of each party to proceedings where a conciliation conference has been arranged to participate, in good faith, in the conciliation conference.

 

Duty of the Expert Witness

 

The role of the expert witness is to assist the Court. Their overriding duty is to the Court and not to his or her client. Importantly, the expert witness is not to be an advocate for a party.

The views of an expert may change depending on the information provided to them.

 

The Expert Witness Code of Conduct, contained at Schedule 7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules sets out the duties of the expert witness when giving evidence in court and/or when providing evidence in a report or statement.

 

Key concepts within Expert Witness Code of Conduct include:

 

·        Overriding duty to assist the court impartially on matters relevant to expertise;

 

·        Duty is to the court and not to any party;

 

·        Not advocate for a party;

 

·        Duty to work cooperatively with other experts;

 

·        Exercise independent and professional judgment;

 

·        Endeavour to reach agreement with other experts;

 

·        Must not act on an instruction or request to withhold agreement;

 

Financial Considerations

Current professional legal costs of the proceedings together with an estimate of professional legal costs should Council resolve to continue to defend its refusal is contained in Confidential attachment 9. So too is a discussion as to adverse costs.

DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL DONATIONS AND GIFTS

 

Has a Disclosure Statement been received in relation to this application

No

Have staff received a ‘gift’ from anyone involved in this application that needs to be disclosed. Where the answer is yes, the application is to be determined by the Director or Manager of the Planning, Development and Environment Division.

No

Provide Disclosure Statement register details here: Not applicable

 

 

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                  13.3

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services

 

Report No. 13.3     Section 355 Guidelines Update

Directorate:                         Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:                   Cynthia McDermott, Social and Cultural Planning Project Officer

File No:                                 I2023/616

Summary:

Section 355 of the Local Government Act 1993 allows a council to delegate certain functions to committees of council. Council currently has nine facilities managed by Section 355 Committees (s355 Committees). These Committees should operate in accordance with the s355 Committee Guidelines.

Updates have been made to the s355 Committee Guidelines which require endorsement by Council.

The key update is the addition of Point 7.10. This amendment enables Council and local emergency management services fee-free access to s355 managed buildings during emergency situations where the facilities are required, for example for use as a recovery centre.

Additional minor updates have also been included to simplify the Guidelines and to assist with implementation.

  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council endorses the updated Section 355 Guidelines at Attachment 1 (E2022/83249).

Attachments:

 

1        Section 355 Committee Guidelines November 2023, E2022/83249  

 


 

Report

Section 355 of the Local Government Act 1993 allows a council to delegate certain functions to Committees of Council. Council currently has nine facilities managed by Section 355 Committees (s355 Committees).

Updates have been made to the s355 Committee Guidelines and require endorsement by Council.

The key update is the addition of Point 7.10. This amendment enables Council and local emergency management services fee-free access to s355 managed buildings during emergency situations where the facilities are required, for example for use as a recovery centre.

The recent disaster events experienced in Byron Shire highlight the need to include this amendment in the Guidelines. The amendment will support both Council and s355 Committees to have clear expectations in an emergency and during recovery.

Amendments

The following additional minor updates have also been made to simplify the Guidelines and assist with implementation:

-     Clarification of risk management and insurance coverage for volunteers and hirers.

-     Adjustments to information on purchasing of goods and services, in line with Council’s updated Procurement Guidelines (2023).

-     Addition of information on asset disposal.

-     Clarification that the Guidelines apply to all Committees, including those using online booking platforms such as SpacetoCo.

-     Removal of references to redundant processes, dates, and figures.

Strategic Considerations

Community Strategic Plan and Operational Plan

CSP Objective

CSP Strategy

DP Action

Code

OP Activity

1: Effective Leadership

1.5: Empower community leadership through collaboration, capacity building, and cultivating community driven initiatives

1.5.3: s355 Committees - Support the management of community halls to delegated s355 committees

1.5.3.1

Support Council volunteers with the management and operation of community halls

Financial Considerations

If Council agrees to the changes suggested in this report, specifically by adding point 7.10, it would mean that the Section 355 Committee won't receive any income when a facility covered by the guidelines is used during emergency situations. In such cases, there won't be any alternative revenue for the committee during the emergency period and Council during this period, would be responsible for the associated costs. Ultimately, the decision rests with Council as the facility owner.

According to Section 377(1)(e) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council cannot delegate the authority to the General Manager to determine fees. Additionally, there are limits to the amount the General Manager can waive as a debt. It's possible that the debt incurred for using a facility during an emergency, like a recovery centre for example, could surpass the General Manager's authority to waive.

To avoid creating a debt in emergency situations, it would be better for the Council to establish a fee of $0.00 for each facility, specifically designated for emergency situations (e.g., declared natural disaster events). This way, no financial obligation would be incurred during such emergencies.

If Council approves the updated S355 Guidelines presented in this report, the proposed $0 fee for facility use during emergencies will be included in the Draft 2024/2025 Fees and Charges. Council in such cases will be responsible for operating expenses (e.g., cleaning and utilities) during the period the building is used for emergency purposes.

Legal/Statutory/Policy Considerations

Section 355 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that a council may appoint a committee and delegate under Section 377 certain functions to a committee, including the authority for the care, control, and management of community buildings. 

Consultation and Engagement.

Feedback from s355 volunteers obtained throughout the year has informed the proposed amendments.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                  13.4

Report No. 13.4     Grants November 2023

Directorate:                         Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:                   Donna Johnston, Grants Coordinator

File No:                                 I2023/1818

Summary:

Council is waiting on determination of eight grant applications which, if successful, would provide funding to enable the delivery of identified projects.  This report provides an update on grant applications.

  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council notes the grant submissions report for the month of November 2023 (Attachment 1 #E2023/127134).

Attachments:

 

1        Grant submissions as at 30 November 2023, E2023/127134  

 


 

Report

Currently Council has eight grant applications awaiting determination (refer to Grants Submissions as of 30 November 2023 - Attachment 1, E2023/127134.

Successful applications

The Expression of Interest for the Australian Government Growing Regions Program – Round 1 was approved to progress through to full application. Full application closes 15 January.

Funding body

Funding scheme

Project name

Total project
value $

Amount requested 
$

Council
$

Australian Government

Growing Regions Program – Round 1 (EOI)

Byron Bioenergy Facility

$24,636,000

$12,318,000

$12,318,000

Unsuccessful applications

No grants announced.

Upcoming Grant opportunities

Get NSW Active 2024/2025 | Transport for NSW

For this year’s program, there is $60 million in total grant funding available to local councils to deliver projects that enable more people to walk or bike ride. Of the $60 million funding, $10 million is for projects that enable walking or bike riding to school, with the remaining funding for broader active transport projects. 

Projects under consideration include:

·    Market Street (Bangalow) footpath – design

·    Beach Avenue (South Golden Beach) shared footpath – design

·    Byron Street (Bangalow) footpath – construction

Disaster Ready Fund | NSW Government EOI

The Australian Government has established the Disaster Ready Fund (DRF), to help communities protect themselves against the impacts of natural hazards across Australia.  Expression of Interest applications are made to NSW Reconstruction Authority who then assess and invite applicants to progress to a full application.  Full applications are then submitted to the Commonwealth by the NSW Government.

25 to 50% Council co-contribution is required which makes it a challenging process.  Staff are currently exploring options to try and leverage the NSW Infrastructure betterment funding to support additional elements of the Preferred Byron Bay Drainage Strategy.

Community Strategic Plan and Operational Plan

CSP Objective

CSP Strategy

DP Action

Code

OP Activity

1: Effective Leadership

1.3: Ethical and efficient management of resources

1.3.1: Financial Management - Ensure the financial integrity and sustainability of Council through effective financial management

1.3.1.9

Coordinate grant applications to support the delivery of Council projects and services within management plans, masterplans, strategic plans, council resolutions and high priority actions from feasibility studies; and support the management of successful grants

Legal/Statutory/Policy Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

If Council is successful in obtaining the identified Grants, this would bring funding sought to approximately $25 million which would provide significant funding for Council projects. Some of the Grants require a contribution from Council (either cash or in-kind) and others do not. Council’s contribution is funded.

The potential funding is detailed below:

Funding applications submitted and

awaiting notification (total value)                             $25,258,683

Requested funds from funding bodies                        $12,805,110

Council contribution cash                                              $12,453,573

Council co-contribution in-kind                                               $4,500

Other contributions                                                                           $0

 

Funding determined in November 2023:

Successful applications                                                         $0 (total project value)
Unsuccessful/withdrawn applications                                    $
0 (total project value)

Consultation and Engagement

Cross-organisational consultation has occurred in relation to the submission of relevant grants, and the communication of proposed grant applications.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Corporate and Community Services                                  13.5

Report No. 13.5     Council Investments - 1 November 2023 to 30 November 2023

Directorate:                         Corporate and Community Services

Report Author:                   James Brickley, Manager Finance

File No:                                 I2023/1955

 

  

Summary:

This Report includes a list of investments and identifies Council’s overall cash position for the period 1 November 2023 to 30 November 2023 for information.

This Report is prepared to comply with Section 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021.  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council notes the report listing Council’s investments and overall cash position as of 30 November 2023.

Report

Council has continued to maintain a diversified portfolio of investments. As of 30 November 2023, the average 90-day bank bill rate (BBSW) for the month was 4.27%. Council’s performance for November 2023 was 4.30%.

Interest rates have been steady over recent months. Due to investments made when rates were higher, Council is performing above the average BBSW. The table below identifies the investments held by Council as at 30 November 2023.

Schedule of Investments held as at 30 November 2023

Purch Date

Principal ($)

Description

CP*

Rating

Maturity Date

Fossil Fuel

Type

Int. Rate

Current Value ($)

15/11/18

1,000,000.00

NSW Treasury Corp (Green Bond)

N

AAA

15/11/28

N

B

3.00%

935,620.00

20/11/18

1,000,000.00

QLD Treasury Corp (Green Bond)

N

AA+

22/03/24

N

B

1.78%

996,220.00

 

28/03/19

1,000,000.00

National Housing Finance & Investment Corporation

Y

AAA

28/03/29

N

B

2.38%

904,960.00

 

21/11/19

1,000,000.00

NSW Treasury Corp (Sustainability Bond)

N

AAA

20/03/25

N

B

1.25%

960,600.00

 

27/11/19

500,000.00

National Housing Finance & Investment Corp

Y

AAA

27/05/30

N

B

1.52%

415,610.00

 

15/06/21

500,000.00

National Housing Finance & Investment Corp

Y

AAA

01/07/31

 

N

B

1.99%

500,630.00

 

06/09/21

1,000,000.00

Northern Territory TCorp

N

Aa3

15/12/26

N

B

1.40%

1,000,000.00

16/09/21

1,000,000.00

QLD Treasury Corp (Green Bond)

N

AA+

02/03/32

N

B

1.83%

772,360.00

30/10/23

850,000.00

Bank Australia Ltd

P

BBB

30/10/26

N

FRN

5.72%

850,000.00

01/09/23

2,000,000.00

NAB

P

AA-

01/04/24

Y

TD

5.00%

2,000,000.00

04/09/23

2,000,000.00

NAB

N

AA-

04/12/23

Y

TD

4.95%

2,000,000.00

04/09/23

2,000,000.00

NAB

N

AA-

04/12/23

Y

TD

4.95%

2,000,000.00

05/09/23

2,000,000.00

Beyond Bank

P

BBB

06/12/23

N

TD

4.95%

2,000,000.00

14/09/23

1,000,000.00

NAB

N

AA-

12/01/24

Y

TD

4.90%

1,000,000.00

12/09/23

2,000,000.00

NAB

N

AA-

12/12/23

Y

TD

4.85%

2,000,000.00

19/09/23

2,000,000.00

NAB

N

AA-

19/12/23

Y

TD

4.90%

2,000,000.00

20/09/23

1,000,000.00

Bank of QLD

P

BBB+

22/01/24

Y

TD

4.75%

1,000,000.00

25/09/23

2,000,000.00

Bank of QLD

N

BBB+

24/01/24

Y

TD

4.85%

2,000,000.00

26/09/23

2,000,000.00

NAB

N

AA-

22/12/23

Y

TD

4.90%

2,000,000.00

28/09/23

1,000,000.00

Judo Bank

P

BBB-

04/01/24

N

TD

4.85%

1,000,000.00

04/10/23

2,000,000.00

Judo Bank

N

BBB-

03/01/24

N

TD

4.90%

2,000,000.00

09/10/23

2,000,000.00

NAB

N

AA-

08/01/24

Y

TD

4.85%

2,000,000.00

19/10/23

1,000,000.00

AMP Bank

P

BBB

18/01/24

Y

TD

4.85%

1,000,000.00

25/10/23

1,000,000.00

Police Bank

P

BBB

22/02/24

N

TD

5.00%

1,000,000.00

25/10/23

1,000,000.00

Police Credit Union

P

BBB

22/02/24

N

TD

5.00%

1,000,000.00

30/10/23

2,000,000.00

NAB

N

AA-

29/01/24

Y

TD

5.00%

2,000,000.00

01/11/23

1,000,000.00

NAB

N

AA-

30/01/23

Y

TD

5.00%

1,000,000.00

08/11/23

1,000,000.00

Auswide Bank

N

BBB

07/02/24

N

TD

5.05%

1,000,000.00

20/11/23

1,000,000.00

NAB

N

AA-

19/02/24

Y

TD

5.00%

1,000,000.00

27/11/23

1,000,000.00

Westpac Tailored

P

AA-

27/11/24

N

TD

5.40%

1,000,000.00

29/11/23

1,000,000.00

Bank of QLD

P

BBB+

02/04/24

Y

TD

5.20%

1,000,000.00

N/A

25,588,939.16

 

CBA Business Saver

P

AA-

N/A

Y

CALL

4.35%

25,588,939.16

 

N/A

3,170,069.35

 

CBA Business Saver – Tourism Infrastructure Grant

N

AA-

N/A

Y

CALL

4.35%

3,170,069.35

 

N/A

10,533,423.95

 

Macquarie Accelerator Call

N

A

N/A

Y

CALL

3.97%

10,533,423.95

 

Total

80,142,432.46

 

 

 

 

 

AVG

4.30%

79,628,432.46

 

Note 1.

CP = Capital protection on maturity

 

 

 

N = No Capital Protection

 

Y = Fully covered by Government Guarantee

 

P = Partial Government Guarantee of $250,000 (Financial Claims Scheme)

 

 

Note 2.

Fossil Fuel ADI

 

N = No investment in Fossil Fuels

 

Y = Investment in Fossil Fuels

 

U = Unknown Status

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note 3.

Type

Description

 

 

B

Bonds

Principal can vary based on valuation, interest payable via a fixed interest, payable usually each quarter.

 

FRN

Floating Rate Note

Principal can vary based on valuation, interest payable via a floating interest rate that varies each quarter.

 

TD

Term Deposit

Principal does not vary during investment term. Interest payable is fixed at the rate invested for the investment term.

 

CALL

Call Account

Principal varies due to cash flow demands from deposits/withdrawals. Interest is payable on the daily balance.

Environmental and Socially Responsible Investing (ESRI)

An additional column has been added to the schedule of Investments to identify if the financial institution holding the Council investment has been assessed as a ‘Fossil Fuel’ investing institution. This information has been sourced through www.marketforces.org.au and identifies financial institutions that either invest in fossil fuel related industries or do not. The graph below highlights the percentage of each classification across Council’s total investment portfolio in respect of fossil fuels only.

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

Council may from time to time have an investment with a financial institution that invests in fossil fuels but is nevertheless aligned with the broader definition of Environmental and Socially Responsible investments. When this occurs, the investment will be marked as no fossil fuels given the investment purpose.

During the month of November 2023 as an example, Council undertook an investment with Westpac Bank as a tailored deposit.  The investment proceeds are utilised for environmental purposes as this investment in Climate Bond Ceritifed.

With the lifting of the NSW Treasury Corporation loan borrowing covenant on Council’s investments, growth has recommenced in acquiring investments not aligned with fossil fuels.  Council’s portfolio reached its lowest point in August 2023 at 15% but as at 30 November 2023, the portfolio has already increased to 22%.

Investment Policy Compliance

The below table identifies compliance with Council’s Investment Policy by the proportion of the investment portfolio invested with financial institutions, along with their associated credit ratings compared to parameters in the Investment Policy. The parameters are designed to support prudent short and long-term management of credit risk and ensure diversification of the investment portfolio. Note that the financial institutions currently offering investments in the ‘ethical’ area are still mainly those with lower credit ratings (being either BBB or not rated at all i.e., credit unions).

Investment policy compliance

 

 

% should not exceed the following

ACTUAL

 

 

 

 

 

AAA to AA

A1+

100%

71%

Meets policy

A+ to A-

A1

60%

13%

Meets policy

BBB to NR

A2,NR

40%

16%

Meets policy

 

The investment portfolio is outlined in the table below by investment type for the period 1 November 2023 to 30 November 2023:

Dissection of Council Investment Portfolio as at 30 November 2023

Principal Value ($)

Investment Linked to:

Current Market Value ($)

Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)

33,000,000.00

Term Deposits

33,000,000.00

0.00

25,588,939.21

CBA Business Saver

25,588,939.21

0.00

3,170,069.35

 

CBA Business Saver – Tourism Infrastructure Grant

3,170,069.35

 

0.00

10,533,423.95

Macquarie Accelerator

10,533,423.95

0.00

7,850,000.00

Bonds/Floating Rate Notes

7,336,000.00

(514,000.00)

80,142,432.51

Total

79,628,432.51

(514,000.00)

Council’s overall ‘cash position’ is not only measured by funds invested but also by the funds retained in its consolidated fund or bank account for operational purposes. The table below identifies Council’s overall cash position for the month of November 2023 as follows:

Dissection of Council’s Cash Position as at 30 November 2023

Item

Principal Value ($)

Current Market Value ($)

Cumulative Unrealised Gain/(Loss) ($)

Investments Portfolio

Term Deposits

33,000,000.00

33,000,000.00

0.00

CBA Business Saver

25,588,939.16

 

25,588,939.16

 

0.00

CBA Business Saver – Tourism Infrastructure Grant

3,170,069.35

 

3,170,069.35

 

0.00

Macquarie Accelerator

10,533,423.95

 

10,533,423.95

 

0.00

Bonds

7,850,000.00

7,336,000.00

(514,000.00)

Total Investment Portfolio

80,142,432.46

79,628,432.46

(514,000.00)

Cash at Bank

 

Consolidated Fund

                                                                         

3,107,776.29

 

3,107,776.29

 

0.00

Total Cash at Bank

3,107,776.29

3,107,776.29

0.00

Total Cash Position

83,250,208.75

 

82,736,208.75

 

(514,000.00)

Strategic Considerations

Community Strategic Plan and Operational Plan

CSP Objective

CSP Strategy

DP Action

Code

OP Activity

1: Effective Leadership

1.3: Ethical and efficient management of resources

1.3.1: Financial Management - Ensure the financial integrity and sustainability of Council through effective financial management

1.3.1.6

Maintain Council's cash flow

Legal/Statutory/Policy Considerations

In accordance with Section 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021, the Responsible Accounting Officer of Council must provide Council with a monthly report detailing all monies it has invested under section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993.

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

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

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

Financial Considerations

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

 

  

 

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                          13.6

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy

 

Report No. 13.6     Housing Options Paper Submissions Report

Directorate:                         Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:                   Shannon Burt, Director Sustainable Environment and Economy

Sharyn French, Manager Environmental and Economic Planning

File No:                                 I2023/1949

Summary:

The purpose of this report is to present feedback and recommendations coming from the public comment period of the Byron Shire Housing Options Paper.

Council Resolution 23-429:

·    Supported the period for public comment on the Housing Options Paper from 9 October 2023 to 6 November 2023.

·    Noted that a submissions report on the Housing Options Paper public comment period will be presented back to Council in December 2023.

·    Resolved that the following additional lands be investigated for inclusion:

o 29 Buckleys Road, Tyagarah

o 75 New City Road, Mullumbimby

o 64 Corkwood Crescent, Suffolk Park

o Council owned land including the property on Vallances Road and any depot or other flood free land.

Previous Resolutions 22-247 Residential Strategy Refresh, 22-739 After the Floods Discussion Paper, 23-165 IPC and Short-Term Rental Accommodation and 23-315 Housing Targets Commitment Department of Planning still apply also as they relate to and inform the Housing Options Paper and 2020 Residential Strategy Refresh.

In particular, Resolutions 23-165 and 23-315 note the Minister for Planning and Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) requirement for Council to have a final Residential Strategy 2024 updated and submitted to DPE no later than 31 March 2024.

This report is presented in a number of parts for ease of review and understanding of the issues raised.

·    Background

·    Community Engagement

·    Submissions

·    Department of Planning and Environment letter 2 November 2023

·    Other State Agency Feedback

·    Lands subject to resolution 23-429 (9)

·    New Lands Assessment (Submissions from owners on sites identified in the Strategy

·    Other matters for consideration

o Resilient Lands Strategy (Resolutions 23-303 and 23-429)

o Contributions Plans Review (Resolutions 21-240 and 23-387)

o Aboriginal Housing On Country (Resolution 23-509)

o Affordable Housing Delivery and Contributions Plan Scheme 2 (Resolution 23-429)

·    Residential Strategy Refresh (Residential Strategy 2024)

·    Housing Options Paper Recommendations

·    Next Steps

  


 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1.      Adopts the Housing Options Paper including existing mapped lands and updates a) to d) and Recommendations below to enable staff to complete the 2020 Residential Strategy Refresh:

a)      New Dwelling Yield Assumptions

b)      Certain New Lands for inclusion

c)      Updates to policy and associated actions in 2020 Residential Strategy to address the issues raised during the public comment period where relevant to the 2020 Residential Strategy Refresh

d)      The changes needed to the body, content, format and name of the 2020 Residential Strategy to refresh it. 

2.      Supports the inclusion of new sites/lands in the 2024 Residential Strategy as identified in Tables 1 and 2 of this report and Attachment 16 (E2023/127137). These lands are to be notified on Council web page and letters to adjoining owners for the period December 2023 – January 2024.

3.      Does not support inclusion of sites/lands in the 2024 Residential Strategy identified in Tables 1 and 2 of this report and Attachment 17 (E2023/126871).

4.      Acknowledges the sites/lands, identified in Table 3 of this report, inside the North Coast Regional Plan 2041 urban growth boundary that do not need to rely upon the 2024 Residential Strategy and that these can proceed to an owner-initiated planning proposal at the landowner’s discretion.

5.      Supports the inclusion of sites/lands identified in the Resilient Lands Strategy in the 2024 Residential Strategy and associated actions to confirm a collaborative approach to the planning and development of these sites with State Agencies, Landowners and other stakeholders involved at the relevant time.

6.      Notifies State agencies of the decision of Council and agrees to continue to work with them on their submissions.

7.      Notes that staff will update the 2020 Residential Strategy as per the report and recommendations adopted in 1.

8.      Notes that a Final updated 2024 Residential Strategy will be presented to Council February 2024 for approval to submit to the Department of Planning and Environment.

9.      Notes its submission needs to be made before 31 March 2024 to meet Department of Planning and Environment requirements as per Resolutions 23-165 and 23-315.

10.    Agrees to receive further updates on a number of recent and related housing resolutions mentioned in the report at future meetings of Council.

Attachments:

 

1        Residential Strategy 2020 as adopted by Council Res 20-686, E2020/100650  

2        Housing Options Paper - Public Exhibition Version - September 2023, E2023/95937  

3        Website analytics - Have your say on future housing options in Byron Shire, E2023/127107  

4        Housing Options Paper - Engagement Report, E2023/127449  

5        Confidential - Community General Submissions numbered 5 TO 100, E2023/127451  

6        Confidential - Community General Submissions numbered 101 TO 200, E2023/127452  

7        Confidential - Community General Submissions numbered 201 TO 292, E2023/127453  

8        Confidential - Community General Non online submissions, E2023/125988  

9        Confidential - Submissions from landowners for New Sites, E2023/127736  

10      Confidential - Submissions from landowners for sites already existing in the Housing Options Paper, E2023/127755  

11      Confidential - Submissions 3 Properties further investigation Res 23_429, E2023/123833  

12      Confidential - Submissions from Resident and Business Groups, E2023/125971  

13      Confidential - Resilient Lands Strategy Submissions, E2023/125978  

14      Department of Planning and Environment Letter dated 2 November 2023, E2023/115592  

15      Agency Submissions, E2023/127448  

16      Summary Table - Requests to include new sites in the Residential Strategy (Supported), E2023/127137  

17      Summary Table - Requests to include new sites in the Residential Strategy (Not Supported), E2023/126871  

18      Summary table - Submissions relating to sites already identified in the Housing Options Paper, E2023/127142  

19      Confidential - Submissions for Sites within Urban Growth Boundary, E2023/127722  

 


 

Report

Background

Report No 13.11 - Byron Shire Housing Options Paper was presented to 28 September 2023 Council meeting. This report provided a detailed background on, and specific resolutions to explain the work completed to date on Council’s 2020 Residential Strategy Refresh. Copy of 2020 Residential Strategy Attachment 1.

 

Specifically, the report introduced the Byron Shire Housing Options Paper (Attachment 2)

The Housing Options Paper as exhibited explores what has changed since 2020 and explains how this impacts the 2020 Residential Strategy. It outlines the options for how housing could now be delivered whilst responding to these changes.

In addition to the above, under the North Coast Regional Plan 2041 (nsw.gov.au) an implied housing target has been set by the DPE and Minister for Planning (Resolution 23-315) for Byron Shire as follows:

In order to meet our implied housing target by 2041, Council has identified 4 Keyways housing supply will be delivered over the next 20 years.

Each of these Keyways are explored in the Housing Options Paper in more detail, with the preferred Keyways recommended to meet the DPE housing target (Resolution 23-315) being a mix of infill, new release and vacant land supported by living differently specific to each locality.

The preferred Keyways, as exhibited, combine to provide for up to 6,695 new homes in the Byron Shire over the next 20 years. This exceeds the DPE 2041 implied housing target.

Community engagement

·    Housing Options Paper was open for public comment from 9 October 2023 to 6 November 2023. There were some late submissions also.

·    Print media

·    Have your Say Page and Social Media (Attachment 3)

·    Online submissions

·    Landowners of new release, vacant and removed land identified notified 

·    Individual meetings with community and landowners

·    Staff telephone hotline

Presentations were made to:

·    20 September – Community Roundtable

·    21 September – Housing & Affordability Advisory Committee

·    4 October – Byron Town Centre Master Plan

Four in-person consultation sessions were held in Byron Bay, Mullumbimby, Brunswick Heads and Bangalow on 30 & 31 October with around 85 people attending these.

The primary purpose of the sessions was to inform members of the public about the proposed changes. This included a presentation outlining the changes and a facilitated question and answer session. People could also submit questions online via a QR or via an iPad. People were also invited to provide feedback by locality using feedback frames.

 

 

Community Submission Summary

See Attachment 4 Housing Options Paper Engagement Report for the details of feedback received.

Overall, 286 submissions were received during the public comment period. These are categorised as follows: 

·    Community General, Attachments 5, 6, 7 & 8

·    Landowners (new sites and supporting existing sites in the Housing Options Paper), Attachments 9 &10

·    Three sites proposed in Resolution 23-429 (9), Attachment 11

·    Resident and Business Groups, Attachment 12

·    Resilient Land Strategy landowners, Attachment 13

Generally, there was broad acceptance that Council needs to provide for diverse housing options to meet the needs of the community.

However, the level of acceptance for the extent of proposed change and how that housing should be delivered (i.e. by greater density by infill, release of new land or development of existing residential zoned land) was subject to a wide range of viewpoints which varied from locality to locality.

Key themes to emerge from the public comment period and submissions received are summarised below with a staff comment.

1.    Policy Directions and Outcomes

Feedback

Multiple submissions noted that they understood the housing situation in the Byron Shire and the need to take action to develop new housing including medium-density options. Generally, there was support for new housing in areas that are flood-free, close to bike trails or the rail trail, close to town, eco-village structures, with community space and that are family-friendly.

On the other hand, multiple submissions were also received opposing any more housing, with concern that creating more housing will not address the affordability problem in the Shire and that growth conflicts with respecting the character of existing towns and villages.

Others submitted that the options have not been comprehensively assessed and therefore cannot be supported, and some felt that there needed to be more consultation about any proposed height increases and a focus on community-led solutions.

 

 

Staff comment

Council remains concerned about the housing crisis in the Shire. This is having a significant social and economic impact on the community and requires action by all levels of government as well as the broader community.

There are many resolutions of Council relating to housing, the declared housing emergency, current housing issues and responses to all.

As we know recent factors such as bushfires, COVID19 and flooding exacerbated an already pressurised housing market in Byron Shire and wider northern rivers region.

There have been many steps to develop the Housing Options Paper to inform the 2020 Residential Strategy Refresh. These have been reported to Council on numerous times, most recently September 2023.

Council has also been proactive and facilitated projects and implemented change, where able, to respond to the changing housing needs of the community.

Housing Affordability Initiatives - Byron Shire Council (nsw.gov.au)

To this end, the Housing Options Paper recommendations once endorsed will set a clear plan for housing in the Shire through to 2041. It will enable the 2020 Residential Strategy Refresh to reflect current social, economic, and environmental considerations. It will provide pathways, to enable housing choice, diversity, and affordability to meet the current and future needs of the community.

By definition a ‘residential strategy’ is a document to guide the location, type and form of housing within an area. It addresses how to cater to a growing population with changing housing needs while ensuring housing is available to ‘all’ in the future. It supports and is supported by other levels of planning.

The 2020 Residential Strategy as adopted by Council achieved the above definition. However, as detailed in the report to Council in September 2023, a refresh of this Strategy is needed.

Further details on the 2020 Residential Strategy Refresh are provided in this report.

2.    Housing Targets

Feedback

Multiple submissions made specific comments on the ‘housing target’ in the Housing Options Paper, in particular noting concern that Council’s preferred keyways to meet this significantly exceeds the NSW Government target. It was also noted that Council has already supplied more housing than required in the past and the Shire is already above the NSW 10-year average population increase.

Others felt Council’s housing target should be reduced to align with infrastructure capacity and that Council should push back on, or reject, the NSW Government housing targets, with a more realistic target being set that reflects the unique nature of the area and potential impacts on the environment and wellbeing. Others did not agree with Council exceeding the NSW Government target by such a significant amount and submitted the imposed growth targets lacked research and analysis.

It was noted it would be helpful to have:

·    the total of the current number of homes in each locality along with the number of proposed new homes

·    details about the assumptions underlying the projected housing numbers

·    maps with street name

Staff comment

The Housing Options Paper as exhibited used a high dwelling yield assumption to calculate future dwelling supply projections to meet our implied housing target across the Keyways. A number of submissions made comment on this. There was concern that in doing so Council had gone over and above in terms of future housing supply given past housing supply.

It should be noted that the dwelling yield assumption used to inform the Housing Options Paper was the same used in the 2020 Residential Strategy, adopted by Council.  The dwelling yield assumption applied for new release was in the order of 26 dwellings per hectare. The DPE did not object to this approach back then.

In response to community feedback, and questions from the DPE about the dwelling yield assumptions in the Housing Options Paper, a change to our blanket approach to dwelling yield is now proposed.

What a change in approach will look like is a range of different dwelling yield assumptions applied via the Local Environmental Plan Residential zones and development standards across the infill, vacant and new release land Keyways in the towns and villages

As show in the image above, this approach will deliver better housing diversity more directly via a mix of dwelling typologies, delivered through variations to lot size, floor space ratio and height, nuanced to suit the circumstances of the town, village, or site. Masterplans and or Place Plan controls will be used to inform the specific approach applied.

The delivery of these dwelling yield assumptions via LEP Dwelling Density Controls is consistent with the North Coast Regional Plan 2041 and that being used by other councils to meet their dwelling targets. For Byron Shire, it will ensure the right type of housing in the right locations.

Examples of this include: The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019 - NSW Legislation and Tamworth Regional Local Environmental Plan 2010 (2011 EPI 27) - NSW Legislation

The revised recommended dwelling yield assumptions that will now be used to meet our implied housing target and inform Masterplan, Place Plan and LEP controls are summarised below:

 

Investigation Area Dwelling Yield Assumptions

Scenario

Dwellings/ha

S1

26 Dwellings/ha

S2

21 Dwellings/ha

S3

16 Dwellings /ha

These dwelling yield assumptions are represented in the images below – comparatively.

Figure: Lot layout 15-25 dwellings per hectare

Typical characteristics of this residential density range are:

·      Predominantly a mix of detached dwelling houses, semi-detached dwellings and dual occupancies with some secondary dwellings.

·      Focused areas of small lot dwelling houses (i.e. attached, abutting and semi-detached dwellings, multi-dwelling houses with secondary or studio dwellings on lots

·      Single and double storey dwellings.

·      Mainly suburban streetscapes, the occasional urban streetscape

Images: Streetscape and examples 15 dwellings per hectare

Figure: Lot layout 20 -25 dwellings per hectare

Typical characteristics of this residential density range are:

·    Consists of predominantly small lot housing forms (including detached, semi-detached and attached or abutting dwellings and secondary or studio dwellings) with some multi-dwelling housing and some manor homes.

·    Generally single and double storey dwellings.

·    Incorporates some laneways and shared driveways.

·    Be designed to provide for activation of the public domain, including streets and public open space through the orientation and design of buildings and communal spaces.

·      Some urban streetscapes, some suburban streetscapes.

 

Images: Streetscape and examples 20 dwellings per hectare


 

Figure: Lot layout 25-30 dwellings per hectare

Typical characteristics of this residential density range are:

·    Consists of predominantly small lot housing forms (including detached, semi-detached and attached or abutting dwellings and secondary or studio dwellings) with some multi-dwelling housing, manor homes and residential flat buildings located close to the local centre and public transport

·    Generally single and double storey with some 3 storey buildings

·    Incorporates laneways and shared driveways

·    Be designed to provide activation for the public domain including streets and public open space through the orientation and design of building and communal spaces

·    Mainly urban streetscapes, some suburban streetscapes

Image: Streetscape and examples 25 dwellings per hectare

Images: Streetscape and examples 30 dwellings per hectare

Staff are aware that dwelling yield assumptions although a useful planning tool to measure outcomes like implied housing targets (as set by DPE), should not be applied as blanket controls across areas or sites, as this results in a monoculture rather than variety of built form with respect to character, environment, and other matters such as site constraints and infrastructure capacity.

To this end, 2020 Residential Strategy included Policy 2: Improved housing choice, diversity and equity and associated directions and actions. The Tables on Pages 51 & 52 of this Strategy show how it was intended to deliver on a Byron Shire Housing and Lot Typology Mix through planning controls. The controls were to apply to each residential zone to achieve a recommended mix of lots and housing typology. As that Strategy was not endorsed by the DPE this work was not able to be progressed.

It is recommended that the revised dwelling yield assumptions described above, and changes needed to the associated Policy and actions in the 2020 Residential Strategy to deliver on these, be included in the 2024 Residential Strategy.

3.      Flood

Feedback

Multiple submissions raised concerns about further fill or housing development on the floodplain, with concerns about how this would impact existing and future residents. It was also felt that the Housing Options Paper does not adequately consider the lessons from the 2022 floods in particular the recommendations in the 2022 NSW Independent Flood Inquiry and Council’s own After The Floods: Settlement Discussion Paper.

It was noted that Floodplain Risk Management Study needs to be updated with the 2022 flood data levels. It was submitted that any residential development already approved should be reassessed using the 2022 flood data. Also, clarity is needed on how Council’s development approval process will be tailored to make approvals contingent on the suitability of the house for the block particularly for flood-prone land.

A number of submissions also identified the need to prioritise housing for flood-impacted people.

Staff Comment

The current requirements of the North Coast Regional Plan, Settlement Guidelines and Urban Growth Area Variation Principles have been used to inform the Housing Options Paper.  Location and settlement form has also had regard to hard (primary) and manageable constraints which include flood hazard risk and other flood planning considerations (e.g. Climate Change).

The 2020 Residential Strategy includes principles for ‘suitable-for-use urban lands’ including that the land is safe from hazards or risks such as high flood hazard, coastal erosion, tidal inundation, slip, dunal movement, extreme bushfire and slopes greater than 20%.

Lands included in the Housing Options Paper have been assessed using the above as well as the following flood-related criteria:

·    Land identified in adopted flood studies with a medium or high future flood hazard risk (based on 2100 Climate Change)

·    Land within a Fill Exclusion Zone

It is acknowledged that the NSW Government has supported, either in full or in principle, the recommendations of the 2022 Flood Inquiry and noted some will require further work on implementation, including further consultation with local and Commonwealth governments.

It is also acknowledged that further work and updates to Council’s current flood management plans is needed to incorporate the 2022 flood data levels (once this information is publicly available); but is also dependent on State Government making formal policy decisions about the 2022 Flood events and releasing updated flood planning and development requirements for use by councils.  This will assist with Council’s review of DCP flood planning controls, which is currently underway.

In the meantime, the DPE is working with councils to determine how the planning for hazards is to occur, including flooding at the Strategy and or masterplan/rezoning stage.

It is recommended that a new or updated action be included in the 2024 Residential Strategy to address the issue of current and future flood planning more clearly, having regard to 2023 Flood risk management Manual and latest policy guidance.

Further, housing for the flood displaced remains a priority for Council. It forms part of ongoing discussions with the Reconstruction Authority and their Housing Taskforce. This includes looking at short medium- and long-term housing solutions – like the future of the temporary housing villages in Mullumbimby, Bayside and Brunswick Heads. Further updates will be reported separately to Council on this and will address concerns raised in submissions on same.

4.    Housing In Rural Areas

Feedback

Multiple submissions noted that consideration should be given to the rezoning of rural land to create additional housing supply. This includes:

·    innovative co-living arrangements

·    alternative housing options (e.g., tiny houses, share houses)

·    exploring how small neighbourhood centres could be created within rural areas

·    considering the development of one or more new towns

·    creating more housing in existing village areas such as Billinudgel, Federal and Ewingsdale

·    more terrace style, shop-top and other medium-density housing along the rail trail.

·    Three potential areas between Mullumbimby and Byron were suggested as being suitable:

o End of Quarry Lane, Ewingsdale

o 70 Foxes Lane, Tyagarah

o Dingo Lane/McAuley’s Lane, Myocum

·    Council owned and operated tiny villages (similar to existing pod sites) to provide affordable housing at the following locations:

o Myocum north of Possum Shoot

o North of Mullum along rail trail

Staff comment

Some of the matters/suggestions raised in submissions are already possible under existing planning controls like expanded dwellings, co- living/multiple occupancy development. Modular housing is a form of building construction that can also be permitted subject to approvals. Some of the matters can be dealt with relatively easily by a new or revised Policy Statement or Action. Some matters however like new towns, new release areas and tiny villages are more complex and may not be able to be realised in the short term due to inconsistencies with the North Coast Regional Plan 2041 and or infrastructure capacity constraints. All feedback received will otherwise be reviewed as part of the 2020 Residential Strategy Refresh.

 

5.    Infrastructure

Feedback

Multiple submissions queried whether there is sufficient infrastructure capacity to support the project housing growth, with particular concern about how infrastructure upgrades will be funded. There is particular concern for:

·    sewer infrastructure capacity (e.g., sewerage treatment plants)

·    water supply capacity

·    stormwater system capacity

·    road network capacity

·    provision of car parking and public transport It was suggested that the transport strategy should be adopted concurrently with the refreshed Residential Strategy.

Comments were also received that any infrastructure options such as water supply and sewer should not punish the environment (e.g., problems created by West Byron STP), with new homes being required to have passive solar, water tanks and solar panels to reduce impact on infrastructure in the future.

Staff comment

There are different developer contribution regimes in place for local government:

Local infrastructure contributions, also known as developer contributions

These are charged by councils when new development occurs. They help fund infrastructure like parks, community facilities, local roads, footpaths, stormwater drainage and traffic management.

There are 2 forms of local infrastructure contributions:

·      Section 7.11 contributions: Charged where there is a demonstrated link between the development and the infrastructure to be funded. Councils prepare contributions plans that specify what infrastructure will be provided and approximately how much it will cost. This is used to calculate a contribution rate, usually charged per dwelling or per square metre. Councils that want to charge a contributions rate above the threshold set by the minister (PDF, 290 KB) must submit their plans to IPART for independent review, amend per the minister’s advice, and approve the plans. Section 7.11 was previously known as section 94.

·      Section 7.12 levies: are an alternative to s7.11 contributions and are charged as a percentage of the estimated cost of the development. The maximum percentage that can be charged in most areas is 1%. There are a small number of areas that charge a higher percentage. Section 7.12 was previously known as section 94A.

Water and Sewerage Developer Contributions (s64 Development Servicing Charges)

These are applied under Section 64 of the Local Government Act 1993. This enables Council to levy developer charges for water supply and sewerage.

These charges are an upfront charge, to recover part of the infrastructure costs from servicing new and existing developments. 

·    Developer servicing charges provide:

·    A source of funding for infrastructure required for new urban development or growth.

·    Pricing signals regarding the actual cost of urban development.

A Development Servicing Plan for both Water Supply and Sewerage needs to be prepared by any NSW Local Water Utilities (LWU) who propose to levy s64 charges for water supply and/or sewerage.

The diagram below shows how the inputs into a Residential Strategy are connected to and inform the development contributions plans of Council.

Source: Audit Office

Council has existing DSP, s7.11 and 7.12 plans in place.

A review of the DSP and s7.11 and s7.12 contribution plans is being progressed parallel to the 2020 Residential Strategy Refresh. See below for further comments.

Otherwise, water and sewerage infrastructure capacity and ability to connect to existing infrastructure has been confirmed for land in the urban growth boundary. Planning for future growth does include an allowance for climate change in relation to water security. New water and sewerage infrastructure to connect unserved / new properties however will need to be planned in detail including the capacity of existing systems to receive the additional loads created. Some of this modelling has already occurred and shows capacity for new release areas, with and without works. Funding of new infrastructure is also an issue that needs to be resolved through the development service plan review and at State level.

6.    Affordable Housing

Feedback

Multiple submissions made comments about the importance of the supply of affordable and social housing and submitted that this should be a focus of the Residential Strategy. Concern was expressed about whether any new housing would be affordable particularly given land values. Others noted that there is no social housing in the plan and it is unclear how many homes will be rental and to buy housing aimed at the lower end of the market including those with very low incomes. In particular, suggestions were made that:

·    A percentage of any new housing supply should be social housing or affordable housing

·    New subdivisions should have a minimum of 30% affordable housing contribution

·    The Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme should be extended to include new release

·    Areas and increased infill areas in Brunswick Heads, Ocean Shores and Myocum

·    The development of Council’s own land is the only way to ensure affordable housing (e.g. Model used by Ballina to develop housing)

·    Council should advocate to the NSW Government for more public housing

·    There must be a focus on housing for essential workers and volunteers

Staff comment

One of Council’s key initiatives to help deliver affordable housing for our community is to collect contributions from landowners when their land is upzoned.

An upzoning is defined as a change of zone to enable residential development or a change of planning controls (such as floor space ratio) which enables greater residential density on a site.

In Byron Shire there are several ways to do this.

•        Local Environmental Plan 2014 Additional local provisions Clause 6.7 - Affordable housing in residential and business zones to enable imposing conditions relating to providing, maintaining or retaining affordable housing (currently operational).

•        Voluntary Planning Agreements with negotiated terms for affordable housing contributions as part of the early implementation affordable housing project.

•        Affordable Housing Contribution Scheme for lands that undergo an upzoning.

Council’s Affordable Housing Contribution Policy, 2020 includes the following statements of intent in relation to affordable housing as they apply to the Residential Strategy:

4.6    supports the Residential Strategy in identifying affordable housing contribution scheme investigation areas where a need and a general likely viability to contributions are established.

4.7    seeks the concurrent application of a SEPP 70 Affordable Housing Contribution Scheme clause over land subject to an upzoning.

4.8    supports, where appropriate, use of LEP Maps to help illustrate what is the preferred affordable housing contribution form for certain land

4.10 supports engaging with developers on Planning Agreements for the provision of affordable housing however, acceptance of an offer to enter into a Planning Agreement is at the absolute discretion of Council.

4.11 commits to implementing LEP 2014 Additional local provisions Clause 6.7 Affordable housing in residential and business zones to enable imposing conditions relating to providing, maintaining or retaining affordable housing.

4.12  commits as part of the Residential Strategy monitoring and review ongoing research, analysis and monitoring of local needs for affordable housing in the Shire.

4.13 respects in setting contribution rates, the NSW government policy position of a need for a developer’s ability to achieve an investment return in order to maintaining a sustainable development market and continued housing supply.

4.14 guides the Residential Strategy to set a minimum affordable housing contribution rate for areas based on Council’s understanding of development feasibility.

It is proposed that land upzoned through inclusion in the 2020 Residential Strategy Refresh will be subject to the requirements of the Affordable Housing Contribution (AHC) Policy.  Upzoned land will be included in a new Affordable Housing Contribution Scheme (AHCS) to help deliver affordable housing for our community, as deemed appropriate and fit for circumstances.  Steps in the process summarised below.

Staff intend to commence feasibility assessments of all new land identified in the Housing Options Paper as a precursor for inclusion in the 2024 Residential Strategy and new AHCS 2 for Byron Shire.  From a timing standpoint, finalisation of AHCS 2 will need to align with the State government’s endorsement of the 2024 Residential Strategy.

Further, a review of the above AHC Policy is due next year. This review needs to include reference to the Residential Strategy 2024, and other matters of policy not currently addressed like: target groups for housing, types of housing needed, mechanisms for dedication and implementation of the dedication once received.

In response to Council land being used to pilot development for affordable, key worker and community housing there are two live projects attempting to do this:

57 Station Street Mullumbimby

Affordable housing project in Station Street Mullumbimby - Byron Shire Council (nsw.gov.au)

Former Mullumbimby Hospital Site

Mullumbimby Hospital redevelopment - Byron Shire Council (nsw.gov.au)

See below for further comments.

7.    Living on Country

Feedback

Multiple submissions noted that the Residential Strategy should include consideration of housing for local Aboriginal people as a matter of priority including:

·    actions about how Arakwal people can access affordable land and housing particularly additional areas on the East of the Pacific Highway and in the proposed Saddle Road precinct

·    need for consultation with Minjungbal people and Native Title holders in the area

Staff comment

The above comments are acknowledged and will be further actioned by staff under Resolution 23-509. See below for further comments.

8.    Environment

Feedback

Multiple submissions raised concern about the impact of future housing growth on the natural environment and biodiversity of the Shire. It was noted that the environment is highly valued by those who live in the area. Others noted that the Housing Options Paper does not adequately consider climate change risk and sea-level rise and how this will impact where housing should be located in the future. It was submitted that the Housing Options Paper should be delayed until the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into the planning system and the impacts of climate change on the environment and communities has been completed.

 

 

Staff comment

The North Coast Regional Plan 2041 sets out clear requirements for where urban housing is to occur and how. The Environment is a major consideration in the Plan.

The 2020 Residential Strategy already includes consideration of the environment, biodiversity and climate change and adaptation in the policy statements and actions.

It is recommended that a new or updated actions be included in the 2024 Residential Strategy to address the current and potential environment, climate change and resilience considerations more clearly.

9.    Short Term Rental Accommodation

Feedback

Multiple submissions made comments about short-term rental accommodation (STRA) and the need to consider the impacts of tourism more generally in the refresh of the Residential Strategy. In particular, this included:

The Housing Options Paper does not consider the supply of housing to be returned to permanent housing after September 2024 when the new STRA rules start.

Council should ensure any new homes are not converted to STRA including prohibiting STRA in new subdivisions.

Council should audit the use of granny flats to ensure these are not being used for STRA.

Staff comment

Changes for non-hosted STRA were endorsed by the NSW Government in September 2023. There will be a 12-month transition period for the community and industry to prepare. The new day caps will take effect on 23 September 2024.

Report No. 14.1     Deputy Secretary NSW Planning requirements of Byron Shire Council to address Independent Planning Commission Advice Report on Byron Shire Short Term Rental Accommodation in relation to Housing Supply 26.2020.1.1 Late Items Agenda of Ordinary (Planning) Meeting - Thursday, 10 August 2023 (infocouncil.biz) talks to the relationship between STRA and housing supply as per the IPC Findings Report endorsed by the Minister for Planning.

In addition to the above, there are various resolutions of council that relate to STRA, including monitoring and enforcement of rules around use.

Notice of Motion No. 9.3 Short Term Rental Accommodation Consent Conditions

Agenda of Ordinary (Planning) Meeting - Thursday, 9 March 2023 (infocouncil.biz)

Report No. 13.10 Update Resolution 23-056 Short Term Rental Accommodation Consent Conditions Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - Thursday, 26 October 2023 (infocouncil.biz)

10.  Infill Key way

Feedback

There was mixed feedback about the options relating to infill development. It was noted that Council’s assumptions underlying Option 1B need to be spelt out.

Multiple submissions supported the reduction of the minimum lot size to create a mix of housing that better meets people’s housing needs including affordability.

This includes more one- and two-bedroom homes near amenities. There was also support for greater density subject to infrastructure being upgraded to deal with additional demand.

However, other submissions raised concerns that communities are already at capacity and the existing character and identity of villages should be respected.

It was submitted that deducing the minimum lot size and increasing building heights would not maintain the local character of neighbourhoods and adversely affect amenity.

Specific concerns were raised about increased stormwater runoff from smaller lots and implications for managing stormwater and flooding impact. There was also some concern that smaller lot sizes, and the creation of apartment-style living, would create “Gold Coast slums” and destroy the natural environment and current way of life, with negative outcomes for people’s wellbeing.

Other submissions noted the need to undertake a detailed infrastructure analysis to confirm capacity. Other submissions noted that established homes have not been designed for infill (e.g., granny flat boom has resulted in noise and parking issues) and consideration needs to be given to Council’s efforts in recent years to increase infill through granny flat development.

Staff comment

Infill, density, and infrastructure are discussed in this report.

It is also acknowledged that additional flood affected areas in the Shire warrant identification in the Strategy as an “Infill Exclusion Area”.  This should apply to areas where flood hazard characteristics may restrict any future planning for infill at a greater density. 

11.  New release Keyway

Feedback

Multiple submissions stated support for new investigation areas for housing especially in flood-free areas, areas that are already cleared, are near the rail-trail or close to town. It was noted that there was a preference to create new villages rather than densify existing ones.

However, other submissions were opposed to the use of farmland for housing particularly in Brunswick Heads, Bangalow and Billinudgel or submitted that any use of significant farmland should be very limited, with additional planning controls being developed by Council before rezoning proceeds.

It was noted that this land was important for future food security. Some raised concerns that the proposed investigation areas have not adequately considered for constraints and more information is needed about the position of the NSW Government agencies.

Others raised concerns about the development of rural land for multiple occupancies and noted that conversion to community title has been a way to subvert the Rural Land Use Strategy and that any more residential development on RU1 and RU2 land should be stopped, other than where there is an existing dwelling.

This will help preserve the agricultural capacity of the land. Others submitted any new subdivisions must:

·    Prohibit dogs and cats

·    Provide adequate wildlife corridors

·    Manage all stormwater and runoff.

Staff comment

Divergent views on new release lands as a keyway have been received.

Specific sites have been assessed against the North Coast Regional Plan 2041 and or identified in the Resilient Lands Strategy. Comments on the future planning of these areas has been made elsewhere in the report or in response to submissions generally. 

The 2020 Residential Strategy already includes requirements for structure plan preparation for new release areas to address planning, design, infrastructure, environment, and community needs.

It is recommended that these principles be updated as new actions in the 2024 Residential Strategy.

Commentary made about rural land multiple occupancies and community title conversation is noted. This pathway already exists in the Byron Shire LEPs and DCPs.

Restrictions on subdivision as suggested are a matter for a development application.

12.  Vacant land Keyway

Feedback

Several submissions were received about the options for vacant land. There was general support for this option, with particular support for increasing densities on existing zoned vacant land. It was also noted that any increase in density requires detailed consideration of land capability and impacts.

 

Staff comment

The above comments form part of the Housing Options Paper recommendations.

13.  Living differently Keyway

Feedback

Multiple submissions were received in general support of this option with feedback that more information is needed to fully understand this option, particularly incentives.

Comments were made that Council should:

·    Provide incentives and guidance for living differently including splitting existing homes into a secondary dwelling

·    Include granny flats as a way forward

·    Acknowledge and explore living in vans / sleeping in cars as a valid low footprint way of living and consider creating designating areas for this type of living

·    Consider how to change existing rules to increase underutilised homes and to enable people to age in place

·    Re-install the train to provide more options

·    Include options to encourage more affordable housing

·    Better use existing community assets and buildings

·    Consider houseboats, caravans and tiny homes as an option

·    Create a matching service

·    Consider new solutions such as a community land trust and rent-to-buy options

·    Consider new construction modes such as pre-fabricated, modular homes

·    Consider pavilion homes where the kitchen and laundry are communal

·    Focus on innovative housing for lower-income groups that are at risk of being marginalised by increasing housing prices

·    Several submissions also noted that this option suggests the way we are living now is inappropriate.

Concern was also raised that increasing density by turning a single-family house into a home for multiple residents will not enable Council to capture additional rates for demands on infrastructure. Others noted that it will be difficult to create dual-key housing and ensure that it is not used for STRA.

Staff comment

The feedback received and suggestions for Living Differently are acknowledged.

Some of the suggestions raised are already possible under existing planning controls like expanded dwellings, co living/shared housing development, dual key housing. Modular housing is a form of building construction that can also be permitted subject to approvals, and in certain circumstances caravans and movable dwellings are permitted on certain lands.

Council will need to further expand on and explore what inter-generational and intentional co living, Fonzie Flats, look like for Byron Shire.

Is multi-generational living the future of housing? | Modus | RICS

Cohousing Australia - Transition Australia

Are ‘Fonzie flats’ the answer to Australia’s housing crisis? | Architecture & Design (architectureanddesign.com.au)

Also, what changes to policy/legislation/ Building Codes is needed to support these, or incentives to landowners to convert existing stock over.

Some of the matters can be dealt relatively easily by a new or revised policy or action. Some matters however like implementing different governance models on development e.g., build to rent, rent to own, and shared equity is more complex, and can impact a developments viability. These are also out of scope for a council to require on private land.

The further investigation of new and suitable types of, and changes to controls and regulations to support Living Differently in Byron Shire will be a new action in the 2024 Residential Strategy. Council may also look to pilot some forms thereafter on its own land or through an expression of interest with private landowners.

14.  Town and Village Specific issues Summary

Town and village specific issues raised included:

·    New housing must be safe

·    Infrastructure must be adequate to support growth

·    Village character must be respected and retained

·    There should be a consistent height across the Byron Town Centre CBD

·    Need for more opportunities for housing in the Town Centre

·    Impacts of STRA need to be considered

For the most part these issues are addressed under similar headings elsewhere in the report. See Attachment 4 Housing Options Paper Engagement Report for full details and feedback received.

The comments in relation to the Byron Bay Town Centre heights however relate to the Business zones that were subject to a previous planning control review by Council. This reviewed informed LEP and DCP updates and also introduced Design Excellence controls for the Byron Bay Town Centre.

For the most part the Business Zone has a height control of 11.5m except for those parts of the town centre deemed better to retain 9m due to an interface with the adjoining residential zone or scenic / amenity considerations from Main Beach.

This is a Housing Options Paper to inform the refresh of the 2020 Residential Strategy, whereas the Business zones are subject to the Business and Industrial Lands Strategy.

Notwithstanding the above, the Housing Options Paper includes a defined residential area that wraps around the Byron Town Centre for development standard review (See Map 4 in Housing Options Paper, Attachment 2) to optimise housing potential close to the Town Centre. It may be that those areas that retain the 9m height limit in the Business zone can be reviewed again then. This will be a decision about project scope when and if the project is funded by the DPE. A grant application is pending.

15.  Specific Sites Feedback

Divergent views have been expressed on several sites already included in the Housing Options Paper. These have been taken into consideration by staff in making their recommendations about these sites.

 

See Attachment 4 Housing Options Paper Engagement Report for full details and feedback received.

 

Department of Planning and Environment Feedback

A submission was received from the Department of Planning & Environment (DPE) on 2 November 2023, Attachment 14. It is under consideration.

The submission commends Council on revisiting its strategy approach to deliver housing and strongly encourages it to pursue options within the existing planning framework which will help increase housing supply and ensure Council fulfils its commitments to the Minister for Planning.

In particular, the submission notes:

·    The refreshed Residential Strategy must be consistent with all relevant State planning policies, plans and directions.

·    The Strategy should also incorporate options to increase housing supply and diversity that help support community needs.

The Strategy should plan for increased density within the existing urban growth boundary to meet the infill targets in the North Coast Regional Plan 2041. This will be critical to establishing new release areas on important farmland.

·    Any new investigation areas outside the existing urban growth boundary must hazard-free and be assessed against the State Guidelines for suitability. Density in these areas must be maximised.

·    The Strategy must include a staging and sequencing plan and monitoring program.

·    The Strategy should identify key infrastructure works required to support growth as well as further infrastructure servicing strategies that are needed to support future planning proposals.

·    The Strategy should recognise recent changes to short-term rental accommodation rules and the impacts this will have on future housing supply, and Council should consider whether certain forms of tourist and visitor accommodation are appropriate in some residential areas to support tourism. 

·    The Strategy should include an evidence base.

·    Consultation with the State agencies should be undertaken before finalising the Strategy refresh.

The letter also states – ‘that Council has committed to adopt and submit the Residential Strategy for the Department’s approval by March 2024 and reaffirms the importance of Council delivering to its commitments and the milestones nominated to the Minister to enable increased housing supply’.

Other State Agency Feedback

A meeting with relevant state government agencies including (Planning, Primary Industry, Environment, Coastal, Transport and Reconstruction Authority) occurred 15 November 2023.

The objective of the meeting was to bring State agencies together with Council to discuss Councils ‘Housing Options Paper’ and the revised Housing Strategy refresh options for both infill and new release keyways.

This feedback is needed to enable Council to finalise the Housing Strategy Refresh for submission to the DPE.

Attachment 15 Agency feedback. Not all Agency feedback was provided in time for inclusion in the report.

Any Agency feedback received after this report was written, will be considered prior to finalising the 2020 Residential Strategy Refresh as per the report recommendation.

Generally speaking, the agencies at the meeting were supportive of the Housing Options Paper Keyways approach and made high level comments where relevant to their agency on the land identified for future housing on the Maps.

Once adopted by Council and submitted to the DPE for final review, further changes may still be required to address Agency submissions where there is a difference of opinion, to enable DPE ‘Strategy endorsement’.

Notwithstanding the above, Council will need to continue to consult with the DPE to finalise the Residential Strategy 2024. This will ensure State Policy is met and the level of technical information required is adequate for sign off.


 

Lands subject to resolution 23-429 (9)

9.      a)      Further investigates additional land identified by land holders for potential                      inclusion in the Strategy, including but not limited to the land identified in                       Buckleys           Road Tyagarah, 75 New City Road Mullumbimby and 64 Corkwood             Crescent Suffolk Park.

       Submissions were received from each landowner or their representative which are in Attachment 11 Staff also meet with each landowner or their representative during the public comment period.

       Following a review/investigation of these lands, as per the resolution, the New City Rd and Corkwood Cres sites were supported for inclusion in the Strategy and the Buckleys Rd site was not supported, refer to Attachments 16 (supported sites) and 17 (not supported site), for further details.

Table 1: Lands subject to Res 23-429 supported and not supported

Sites Supported

Sites Not Supported

75 New City Road, Mullumbimby

Buckleys Road Tyagarah

64 Corkwood Crescent, Suffolk Park

 

b)    Further investigates all Council owned land including the property on Vallances Road and any depot or other Council owned, flood free land.

       Given the amount of work involved in (b) and the complexities around council land management and use, it is recommended that this item be included as an updated action in the 2024 Residential Strategy.

       In relation to the two sites listed specifically in the resolution, comments are provided below:

Vallances Road

The site is currently owned by the sewer fund and is classified as operational land for the purposes of sewerage treatment works and other council operations as identified. This classification and primary use of the site remains necessary and current.

As to the Housing Options Paper: inclusion of any land into the Housing Options Paper (to inform the Residential Strategy Refresh) has been based on the specific lands ability to meet the Department of Planning requirements for inclusion in a Strategy under the North Coast Regional Plan 2041 and Settlement Planning Guidelines as current. This site does not meet the requirements and as such is not included.

Further, any new or additional uses of the site must consider potential/proposed expansion of the Brunswick Valley STP (or other operational use of the land) in terms of land area requirements and also the buffer zone requirements around an STP that must be maintained.

Otherwise, the existing dwellings on the site are currently being used and repaired for the purpose of council staff housing. As you can appreciate in this current market, recruiting and retaining key staff is also a challenge for council, and being able to provide housing has been one way to secure key skilled staff that otherwise would not be able to move here to work.

Resolution Vallances Road options and next steps (Res 22-658) will be subject of a separate report to Council.

Council depot Bayshore Drive

Subject to an action in the current Operational Plan 23/24:

1.3.5.10 Review future options for current depot site

This action will be the subject of a separate report to Council.

Submissions on Sites/Land included in the Housing Options Paper

Submissions were received from landowners and others on the lands included in the Housing Options Paper. After consideration of the submissions received all sites are proposed to be retained in the 2024 Residential Strategy. Attachment 18 provides more details and Attachment 10 (landowner submissions).

New Sites/Land Assessment

Requests were also received from landowners for consideration of their land to be included in the 2024 Residential Strategy.

This land has been assessed through a sieve constraints analysis that has taken into consideration inter alia the North Coast Regional Settlement Planning Guidelines, North Coast Regional Plan 2041, Ministerial Directions, State Policies, Council plans and policies and recent infrastructure capability assessment.

The sieve constraints analysis considers primary and manageable constraints, including environmental and geophysical i.e., slope, flood hazard, vegetation, important farmland categorisation.  There is also an implied principle that new release land should be a contiguous extension of the existing urban area unless the development is of a new village scale.

Through this analysis some sites are proposed to be supported and others are not supported. Below is a list of sites supported and not supported. Attachment 16 provides further details on the sites supported for inclusion in the Residential Strategy.  Attachment 17 provides further details on those sites not supported. Attachment 9 includes submissions from landowners for new sites.

Table 2: New sites supported and not supported

Sites Supported

Sites Not Supported

66 The Saddle Road, Brunswick Heads

Part of Lot 100 DP1294837

Submission No.245

310 Left Bank Road, Mullumbimby Creek

Lot 8 DP633976

Submission No.96

251 The Saddle Road, Brunswick Heads

Part of Lot 2 DP1032298

Submissions No.285, No.225 and No.286

86 Tuckeroo Avenue, Mullumbimby

Lot 196 DP1281667

Submission E2023/118300

 

18 Pioneers Crescent and 1270 Hinterland Way, Bangalow

Lot 1 DP1154192

Submission No.191

 

900 Bangalow Road, Bangalow

Lot 1 DP1154192

Submission No.97

 

73 Bashforth’s Lane, Brunswick Heads

Lot 6 DP844554, Lot 5 DP844554, Lot 109 DP755692

Submission No.47

 

214 Balraith Lane, Ewingsdale

Lot 100 DP1294837

Submission No.282

 

R5 land at Ewingsdale

Multiple lots

Submission No.209

 

8 Shara Boulevard, Ocean Shores

Lot 100 DP1294837

Submission No.70

Sites/Land already located within the urban growth boundary

There were several requests for sites to be included in the 2024 Residential Strategy that are already located within the urban growth boundary. These requests were in relation to the land below. As these sites are in the urban growth boundary, they don’t need to be included in the 2024 Residential Strategy as they can already proceed with a planning proposal.

These sites were assessed against the same primary and manageable constraints as the New Lands Assessment. Of the seven sites, four sites have less constraints and three sites were highly constrained. Attachment 16 (supported sites) includes the four less constrained sites and Attachment 17 (not support sites) includes the highly constrained sites. Submissions for sites within the urban growth boundary can be found in Attachment 19.

Table 3: Sites already located within the urban growth boundary

Sites less constrained

Sites highly constrained

62 Broken Head Road, Byron Bay (Byron Bay Golf Course)

Lot 365 DP704227, Lot 11 DP1200712, Lot 13 DP227607

Submission #E2023/127550

94-106 Broken Head Rd, Suffolk Park

Lot 1 DP408810, Lot 6 DP111821

Submission No.237

139 Bangalow Road, Byron Bay

Lot PT22 DP549688

Submission #E2023/121775

10 Ironbark Ave, Byron Bay,

Lot 435 DP729107

Submission No.181

Owner: Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal)

Lot 451 DP1175252 Lawson Street and Lot 452 DP48493 Tallow Beach Road, Byron Bay

Submission No.181

Owner: Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal)

1-5 Broken Head Road, Byron Bay

Lot 1 DP573835, Lot 2 DP573835, Lot 9 DP708338, Lot 7 DP580423

Submission No.181

 

Lot 2 DP1275809 and Lot 438 DP729107 Bangalow Road, Byron Bay

Submission No.181

Owner: Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation (Arakwal)

 

Other matters for consideration

·    Resilient Lands Strategy (Resolutions 23-303 and 23-429)

Discussions have been ongoing with the Northern Rivers Reconstruction Corporation, now NSW Reconstruction Authority, about the sites identified by them as B1 and B2 short term sites, and the yellow medium-term site in their Resilient Lands Strategy.

The Reconstruction Authority is yet to release a final Resilient Lands Strategy, although at the time of writing this report, it is understood to be imminent.

Although not confirmed in writing, there appears to be agreement amongst Reconstruction Authority, DPE and Council that the Resilient Lands Strategy sites should be part of a Council managed process which would see a master plan including service infrastructure, transport, environment and housing typology considerations part of a planning proposal and associated planning agreement/s submitted to Council for progression to gateway (rezoning).

A current example of this being Lismore Council has recently supported a proposal for a rezoning of land at Goonellabah.

Rezoning Planning Proposal for land at 1055 and 1055A Bruxner Highway Agenda of Lismore City Council - Tuesday, 21 November 2023 (nsw.gov.au) Precis extract below:

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the land zones, minimum lot size and height of building controls within the Lismore Local Environment Plan 2012 to enable future residential, commercial, industrial and recreational development across the 75 hectares of the site.

The site is identified in Lismore Council’s Growth and Realignment Strategy (2022) and the supporting addendum that specifically addresses the need for new flood free employment lands in the region. The mix of zonings proposed across the site will allow for the integration of new housing, employment, recreation and community facilities.

A Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) will also ensure there are opportunities for the affordable relocation of dwellings from high flood-risk areas, as well as the provision of environmental benefits along Tucki Tucki Creek.

As with the Lismore example - grant/other funding agreements through the Resilient Lands Fund seem possible to enable development on the Resilient Lands Strategy sites to meet housing need and demand post 2022 Floods.

Specific actions in the 2024 Residential Strategy will confirm a collaborative approach to the planning and development of these sites with all stakeholders involved at the relevant time.

In addition, lands owners for B1, B2 and orange sites in the Resilient Lands Strategy have made individual submissions to the Housing Options Paper, including details of potential development density and layouts. See Attachment 13.

The merits of the proposals in the submissions have not been assessed by staff.

These submissions will be used to inform discussions with the Reconstruction Authority, DPE and landowners on the planning pathways to progress to rezoning/masterplan and development plans for these sites.

·    Contributions Plans Review (Resolutions 21-240 and 23-387)

Updated and or new Local Contributions Plans for community facilities, open space, road, cycleways infrastructure needs to be prepared as a result of the Housing Options Paper Keyways.

Discussions with Reconstruction Authority and other agencies like Transport for NSW will also occur about the land identified for short- and medium-term development in the Resilient Lands Strategy, and implications for Council’s local contribution planning should this land be developed early.

A separate report on this Agenda talks to the 7.11 and 7.12 Contribution Plans review to progress in response to the Council resolutions and the Housing Options Paper recommendations.

Further, a new revised Development Servicing Plan (Water and Sewer) is in the process of being drafted.   Inputs needed include the capital works and infrastructure renewal program and hydraulic models that rely on population growth inputs, etc reliant on the Housing Options Paper recommendations.

It is understood that an update to Council via workshop and report will occur in early 2024 about this work and review to coincide with the finalisation of the 2024 Residential Strategy.

The existing 2020 Residential Strategy already refers to the following principles for infrastructure to support new development:

·    the need for forward planning of infrastructure, both in new release areas and associated town centres and other related infrastructure networks (e.g., transportation, drainage) to effectively integrate new areas with existing areas.

·    recognising the benefits of development in and around transportation nodes, particularly rail, as well as pedestrian/cycle connectivity between new release and established areas.

·    the need to create mechanisms and a level of certainty in delivering housing diversity that is consistent with residential character and community objectives, ensuring policies can be achieved.

·    recognising the benefits of increased density in and around town centres

·    the new land is connected or capable of being connected in a logical sequence to water, sewer, stormwater, and communication infrastructure that can accommodate projected demand at no additional cost to the council or the community.

It is recommended that these principles be updated in the 2024 Residential Strategy.

·    Aboriginal Housing On Country (Resolution 23-509)

This resolution is multi-faceted and cross directorate.

There are some parts of it that can be included as new actions in the 2020 Residential Strategy Refresh. There are others that will need to progress by separate actions of Council.

The existing Residential Strategy already refers to ‘working with the Aboriginal Community’:

Action 20: Work with the Bundjalung of Byron Bay (Arakwal) people to respect, recognised and safeguard culture through establishment an application of a Protocol framework for participatory working with the Aboriginal community (as outlined in Strategy Appendix B) including for: a) assessing appropriate locations for housing b) review of planning framework provisions for housing, local character and infrastructure.

It is recommended that this action and protocol be updated with any additions as identified necessary in the 2024 Residential Strategy to align with Resolution 23-509.

Further, discussions will continue to occur with relevant agencies like DPE and Reconstruction Authority, and landowners about the Resilient Lands Strategy. It is likely that planning agreements will be necessary between the various parties to acknowledge and facilitate a pathway for housing on country on these lands where agreed to.

In addition, Bundjalung of Byron Bay Aboriginal Corporation has made a submission to the Housing Options Paper in relation to 3 sites. Two of these sites have been supported and one has not, as discussed above.

·    Affordable Housing Delivery and Contributions Plan Scheme 2 (Resolution 23-429)

The development of an Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme (AHCS) is complex and has many stages.

Box A and Box B are well advanced for AHCS 2. Box 3 is progressing with funding provided by the Northern Rivers Reconstruction Authority.

Under the current system that enables these contributions, Council may only impose a condition of development consent if it has an AHCS in place, and the AHCS is authorised by Council’s Local Environmental Plan.

As such it is imperative that AHCS 2 is in place prior to the new lands in the Residential Strategy 2024 proceeding to planning proposals.

Further discussions with the DPE about this are needed to ensure that the intent of the 2024 Residential Strategy and AHCS 2 are not undermined by an out of sequence endorsement of the 2024 Residential Strategy.

There may be exceptions to this, including the Resilient Lands Strategy sites that can be subject to separate planning agreements and arrangements with RA, DPE and Council to secure a contribution of affordable housing on site.

Following adoption of the Housing Options Paper recommendations and confirmation of new lands, staff will formally write to landowners to advise them of their obligations under the existing Affordable Housing Contribution Policy 2020 (as applicable) should they seek an upzoning of their land.

For the new sites identified, landowners will be advised that an AHCS 2 is progressing in parallel with the update and final endorsement of Council’s 2024 Residential Strategy.

2020 Residential Strategy Refresh (Residential Strategy 2024)

There are changes needed to the body, content, format, and name of the 2020 Residential Strategy to refresh it.

The 2020 Residential Strategy Refresh (to become Residential Strategy 2024) and will generally retain the vision and four policy areas of the previously adopted Strategy. These remain accurate to the current context, with some minor editing to reflect current industry language - the intent remains the same as reflected in the below diagram.

 

 

Directions and actions of the previous Strategy will be adjusted to account for the changes established through the Housing Options Paper, updated for data (e.g., 2021 Census) and policy changes (e.g., North Coast Regional Plan 2041), and reflect the progression of Council’s other efforts and completion of actions of the previous Strategy (e.g., STRA and Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme). It will also reflect the changes requested through the Peer Review process of 2021, with particular reference to developing implementation sequencing and monitoring. 

The layout of the document will be updated to reflect the State Government’s requirements under the Local Housing Strategy Guideline that was released after the previous Strategy was developed. The look and feel of the document will also more closely align with the After the Floods Discussion Paper and Housing Options Paper for consistency with the community and to reflect Council’s updated style guidance. The generalised layout of the Residential Strategy 2024 is reflected in the diagram below.

Due to feedback received and staff responses to it, and changes needed to the 2020 Residential Strategy document described above, staff will update and present a final 2024 Residential Strategy to Council in February 2024 for final approval prior to submitting it to the DPE for endorsement.

The format and content to generally align with the table below.

Working draft RESIDENTIAL STRATEGY refresh POLICY AND DIRECTION STRUCTURE

Direction

Sample of key issues to be addressed

Policy 1 – Providing land for future housing

Direction 1.1 - The majority of our Shire’s future housing will be in urban towns and villages.

·    Prioritise housing delivery in areas with high access to services

·    Recognise that some housing will be delivered in rural areas, as envisaged by the Rural Lands Strategy

·    Meet Regional Strategy requirements for urban infill

Direction 1.2 - Land for housing will be suitable for the use.

·    Ensure land for housing meets appropriate standards, including being safe from floods and other hazards

·    Provide for infrastructure that is adequate to support projected growth

·    Protect sensitive natural environments and other strategically important lands

·    Facilitate infill by reducing the minimum lot size, reviewing development standards (e.g. Byron Bay town centre) and progressing the urban conversion of rural residential areas

Direction 1.3 - New subdivisions and infill will support the attributes of liveable neighbourhoods.

·    Avoid standard approach to development / urban sprawl

·    Ensure new release areas are supported and informed by master plans or neighbourhood plans, where appropriate

·    Promote social resilience, community cohesion and sustainability

·    Encourage cycling, walking and public transport use

·    Ensure diversity in lot size and urban form to support a diverse community

·    Integrate public space, environmental, cultural and other site attributes

·    Ensure future development does not exacerbate risks for existing residents

New - Direction 1.4 - Monitor housing to facilitate short, medium and long-term new release or infill opportunities.

·    Monitor and manage the housing pipeline

·    Sequence infrastructure and housing delivery for efficiency

·    Fund and progress infrastructure in line with Council’s 10-year priority infrastructure plan

·    Meet Peer Review recommendations

Policy 2 – Improved housing choice, diversity and equity

Direction 2.1 - Support a range of urban lot sizes that facilitate a greater range of housing.

·    Encourage greater housing diversity in new release and vacant land areas through a ‘salt and pepper’ approach to subdivision lot size

·    Support greater diversity in housing cost and affordability

Combined - Direction 2.2 - Enable opportunities for new and/or innovative residential forms, including a range of low-rise medium density housing types.

·    Encourage more compact urban forms to facilitate greater connectivity

·    Provide a more diverse range of housing for broader community needs

·    Enable new forms of housing that can assist in more affordable outcomes over the longer term

·    Be open to different approaches in the future, even where not part of the mainstream planning system

Direction 2.3 - Encourage the use of adaptable and liveable house design outcomes.

·    Cater for an aging population

·    Cater for more inclusive housing types for a range of abilities

·    Explore ways to incentivise the efficient use of land and existing homes

·    Focus on awareness and education about adaptable and liveable home design and use

Direction 2.4 - Facilitate growth in the proportion of rental and rent-to-buy housing for lower income groups.

·    Support the delivery of affordable and social housing including the provision of housing for key workers

·    Incentivise delivery of housing types suitable for a range of groups, with a particular focus on affordable and social housing

·    Facilitate housing through the delivery of the Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme

 

 

Policy 3 – Housing that reflects the local in places

Direction 3.1 - Respect the current and/or emerging character and values, as recognised in residential character narratives, for specific areas.

·    Respect, retain and build upon the local character of towns and villages

·    Introduce measures to promote good design that is appropriate for the locality

·    Develop design guidance to ensure that character is consistently applied

Direction 3.2 - Maintain and enhance the sense of community

·    Further develop local identity through place planning

·    Include opportunities for community expression through localised place making initiatives

·    Ensure that future development is consistent with liveability principles

New - Direction 3.3 - Work with local Aboriginal community and Native Title holders to allow Bundjalung People to live on and connect to Country

·    Support initiatives by Aboriginal people and associated groups to increase investment in, and supply of, housing that meets Aboriginal resident needs

·    Encourage partnerships to facilitate housing projects, such as development of land holdings owned by Local Aboriginal Land Councils for Aboriginal housing

Policy 4 – Make our neighbourhoods local

Direction 4.1 - Make dwellings homes again

·    Monitor the impact of STRA changes as homes are transitioned back to the market or to permanent rental

·    Encourage conversion of STRA properties to permanent resident homes

Modified - Direction 4.2 - Implement and enforce changes to STRA regulation, whilst supporting the broader tourist accommodation sector

·    Work with the tourism industry through the transitional introduction of new STRA provisions to ensure alternative accommodation choices are available

·    Enforcement and monitoring undertaken of STRA properties in conjunction with State authorities

 

 

Housing Options Paper Recommendations

The Housing Options Paper identified a number of Housing Pressures in the Byron Shire that the 2020 Residential Strategy Refresh needs to address:

·    Housing Stress is growing

·    Housing affordability and availability is worsening

·    Housing for Key Workers has become a more pressing issue

·    Homelessness is growing

·    Impacts of Short-Term Rental Accommodation

From what we have heard there are other pressures like:

·    Current housing stock is not diverse enough to cater for current and future demand

·    Constraints impede the supply and availability of zoned and serviced land for housing

·    Desire to balance housing growth and the attributes that community values about the area

With this in mind the Housing Options Paper and additional recommendations below are now proposed to inform the 2020 Residential Strategy Refresh:

·    New Dwelling Yield Assumptions

·    Certain New Lands for inclusion

·    Updates to policy and associated actions in 2020 Residential Strategy to address the issues raised during the public comment period where relevant to the 2020 Residential Strategy Refresh

·    The changes needed to the body, content, format and name of the 2020 Residential Strategy to refresh it. 

 

Next steps

·    Council to adopt the Housing Options Paper and Recommendations to enable staff to complete the 2020 Residential Strategy Refresh.

·    2020 Residential Strategy updated as per the report and its recommendations.

·    Final updated 2024 Residential Strategy presented to Council February 2024 for approval to submit to DPE.

·    Submission to DPE made before 31 March 2024 as per Resolutions 23-165 and 23-315.

Strategic Considerations

Community Strategic Plan and Operational Plan

CSP Objective

CSP Strategy

DP Action

Code

OP Activity

4: Ethical Growth

4.1: Manage responsible development through effective place and space planning

4.1.2: Growth Management Strategies - Implement Local Growth Management Strategies

4.1.2.5

Revise and update Residential Strategy

4: Ethical Growth

4.1: Manage responsible development through effective place and space planning

4.1.4: LEP & DCP - Review and update the Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plans

4.1.4.7

Progress Short Term Rental Accommodation planning proposal

4: Ethical Growth

4.2: Enable housing diversity and support people experiencing housing insecurity

4.2.2: Partnerships and pilots to address housing needs - Investigate partnerships and pilots that deliver an innovative and affordable housing model for the Shire

4.2.2.1

Consider residential rezoning proposals, as identified within existing North Coast Regional Plan growth boundary and the Affordable Housing Contribution Scheme.

Recent Resolutions

·        22-247 Residential Strategy Refresh

·        22-739 After the Floods Discussion Paper

·        23-165 IPC and Short-Term Rental Accommodation

·        23-303 Resilient Lands Strategy

·        23-315 Housing Targets Commitment DPE

·        23-509 Aboriginal Housing On Country

 

 

Legal/Statutory/Policy Considerations

A Residential Strategy (now known as a Local Housing Strategy) is a document prepared by Council which addresses the planning issues relating to the future housing needs of a local government area.

These strategies must align with State Government Plans. The North Coast Regional Plan 2041 most relevant.

The Department of Planning endorses Residential/ Local Housing strategies as fit for purpose. Following endorsement, councils are to make their strategy and supporting background information available to the public on their website.

The implementation of a strategy can be phased over a number of years, with multiple actions including multiple planning proposals and other giving effect to its actions.

Financial Considerations

As per Operational Plan and Project Budgets.

Consultation and Engagement

As outlined in the report.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                          13.7

Report No. 13.7     Update Resolution 22-685 Rural Land Use Strategy - 
Review Scoping Report

Directorate:                         Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:                   Alex Caras, Land Use Plannning Coordinator

File No:                                 I2023/1837

Summary:

Council considered Report No. 13.3 PLANNING - Rural Land Use Strategy Review Scoping Report and Resolved 22-685 that Council:

1.      Supports staff progressing the scope of work and process as outlined in this report to review the Rural Land Use Strategy (RLUS) and to deliver RLUS Action 21: Investigate capacity for re-subdivision within existing Large Lot Residential estates.

2.      Acknowledges:

a)      that infrastructure capacity is a key consideration when denser land use as proposed under Action 21 is considered;  

b)      that staff will investigate capability, capacity, and feasibility of any site considered for change from rural to serviced residential; 

c)      a requirement of the Department of Planning, Industry, and Environment’s North Coast Regional Plan is that, where transition to urban is not feasible, then the potential for smaller lot R5 subdivision (with on-site sewage) will be investigated.

3.      Supports staff progressing as a precursor to the Action 21 delivery, Residential Strategy refresh and the RLUS review, preparation of a Housing Response Options Paper that would encompass Resolution 22-246 Item 4.

4.      Notes that funding to progress both the Housing Response Options Paper and Action 21 of the RLUS will be funded from Flood Response Planning Grant from the NSW Planning Delivery Unit.

5.      Notes that any new or additional funding for the comprehensive review of the RLUS, will be considered in the 2023/24 budget process/compilation amongst other priorities.        

Since this resolution certain parts have been independently progressed and reported to Council, namely in relation to items 1, 3 and 4 above.

Notwithstanding this, the 8 December 2022 report outlined a scope of work to facilitate a comprehensive review of the RLUS (over 5 stages). What has become apparent however in commencing the scope drafting, is that there are two (2) outstanding actions from the current RLUS that are in urgent need of expediting prior to a lengthy whole of Strategy review, being:

1.     Review of remaining land in the 7D Scenic/Escarpment Zone 

2.     Investigate a strategic framework for resolving dwelling entitlement issues (Action 22)

 

Item ‘1’ has a more immediate priority given the C Zone Review has been completed for private land and a separate review of outstanding 7D (Deferred Matter) areas is required before such areas can be transitioned into Byron LEP 2014.

 

The purpose of this report is to briefly scope out the way forward for these priority matters to be progressed ahead of the comprehensive review of the RLUS over the coming 12-18 months, including their required budget allocations in 2024/25.

  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1.      Notes the progress made by staff in relation to items 1, 3 and 4 of Resolution 22-685 as discussed in this report.

2.      Supports staff progressing two outstanding actions from the current RLUS that are in urgent need of expediting prior to a lengthy whole of Strategy review, being:

(i)      Review of remaining land in the 7D Scenic/Escarpment Zone 

(ii)     Investigate a strategic framework for resolving dwelling entitlement issues

3.      Supports a corresponding 2024/25 budget allocation bid for the above actions in order of priority as follows:

(i)      $100,000 (Review of remaining 7D Scenic/Escarpment Zone areas) 

(ii)     $20,000 (Preparation of a strategic framework for resolving dwelling entitlement issues)
         

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report

 

Council considered Report No. 13.3 PLANNING - Rural Land Use Strategy Review Scoping Report and Resolved 22-685 that Council:

1.      Supports staff progressing the scope of work and process as outlined in this report to review the Rural Land Use Strategy (RLUS) and to deliver RLUS Action 21: Investigate capacity for re-subdivision within existing Large Lot Residential estates.

2.      Acknowledges:

a)      that infrastructure capacity is a key consideration when denser land use as proposed under Action 21 is considered;  

b)      that staff will investigate capability, capacity, and feasibility of any site considered for change from rural to serviced residential; 

c)      a requirement of the Department of Planning, Industry, and Environment’s North Coast Regional Plan is that, where transition to urban is not feasible, then the potential for smaller lot R5 subdivision (with on-site sewage) will be investigated.

3.      Supports staff progressing as a precursor to the Action 21 delivery, Residential Strategy refresh and the RLUS review, preparation of a Housing Response Options Paper that would encompass Resolution 22-246 Item 4.

4.      Notes that funding to progress both the Housing Response Options Paper and Action 21 of the RLUS will be funded from Flood Response Planning Grant from the NSW Planning Delivery Unit.

5.      Notes that any new or additional funding for the comprehensive review of the RLUS, will be considered in the 2023/24 budget process/compilation amongst other priorities.        

Since this resolution, certain parts of it have been independently progressed and reported to Council, as follows:

·    Item ‘1’ –investigation of capacity for re-subdivision commenced for the Mullumbimby and Myocum R5 Large Lot Residential estates (including preliminary review of infrastructure capacity) with priority list developed as part of draft Housing Options Paper;

·    Item ‘3’ – Alternative Housing Models Addendum report completed (Echelon, 2023); Housing Options Paper prepared and exhibited (refer to separate submissions report to this meeting);

·    Item ‘4’ – use of Flood Response Planning Grant to progress both the Housing Response Options Paper and Action 21 of the RLUS;

The RLUS audit reported to Council in June 2022 found that the majority of actions in the Action Plan were either substantially progressed or had been completed. Notwithstanding this, the 8 December 2022 report outlined a scope of work to facilitate a comprehensive review of the RLUS (over 5 stages). Aside from this work being both time and budget intensive (taking approximately 2 years), the review would largely pick up any outstanding actions from the current RLUS (as per the audit) and carry these forward as future actions.

What has become apparent however in commencing the scope drafting, is that there are two (2) outstanding actions from the current RLUS that are in urgent need of expediting prior to a lengthy whole of Strategy review.  These are:

1.     Review of remaining land in the 7D Scenic/Escarpment Zone 

2.     Investigate a strategic framework for resolving dwelling entitlement issues (Action 22)

 

Item ‘1’ has a more immediate priority given completion of the C Zone Review for private land and a separate review of the outstanding 7D Scenic/Escarpment (Deferred Matter) areas is required before these areas can be transitioned into Byron LEP 2014.

 

The purpose of this report is to briefly scope out the way forward for these matters to be progressed ahead of the comprehensive review of the RLUS over the coming 12-18 months.

Review of land in the 7D Scenic/Escarpment Zone

This will require engagement of a specialist consultant to undertake spatial analysis, identification and mapping of ‘landscape character units’ within the remaining 7D Scenic/Escarpment Zone areas. Such units, for example, may include visually prominent escarpments (topographical/geological), significant vegetation corridors and or other natural landscape features. The resulting work in turn will inform establishment of landscape management zones and corresponding land use planning considerations for purposes of incorporating such areas into LEP 2014 and DCP 2014.

A budget allocation of $100k will be required for this review, which would commence in 2024.

Strategic framework for resolving dwelling entitlement issues (Action 22)

There are approximately 600 land parcels in Byron Shire identified as not having a legal dwelling entitlement. This is because they do not satisfy the provisions of clause 15 in LEP 1988 and or clause 4.2A in LEP 2014.

Some of these parcels are either vacant or contain an approved/unapproved dwelling.  A strategic policy framework will enable Council to articulate the relevant criteria for determining which parcels would be eligible to seek a dwelling entitlement via the planning proposal process. 

Although the majority of work required to develop a strategic policy framework can be undertaken by staff, certain parts of the process are likely to require an external consultant to expedite. A budget allocation of $20k for this purpose is required in 2024/25, noting that any planning proposals that follow the adopted strategic framework would be fully funded by the applicants in accordance with Council’s fees and charges at the time.

Based on the above information, it is recommended that Council support a 2024/25 budget allocation bid for the following RLUS implementation actions in order of priority:

1.     Review of remaining 7D Scenic/Escarpment Zone areas:  $100,000

2.     Preparation of a strategic framework for resolving dwelling entitlement issues
         (Action 22):  $20,000

 

Strategic Considerations

Community Strategic Plan and Operational Plan

CSP Objective

CSP Strategy

DP Action

Code

OP Activity

4: Ethical Growth:

 

4.1: Manage responsible development through effective place and space planning

4.1.2: Growth Management Strategies - Implement Local Growth Management Strategies

4.1.2.1

Review Rural Land Use Strategy

 

Recent Resolutions

·    22-246 Comprehensive five-year Rural Land Use Strategy review

·    22-685 Rural Land Use Strategy Review Scoping Report.

Legal/Statutory/Policy Considerations

The RLUS and associated implementation actions were endorsed by the Department of Planning & Environment in July 2018.   The Strategy remains consistent with the State and regional planning framework, as facilitated under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and North Coast Regional Plan 2041.

Financial Considerations

The estimated cost of using external consultants to progress actions recommended in this report is $120,000 and this forms part of the report recommendations.

Consultation and Engagement

A custom consultation and engagement strategy will be prepared prior to commencing each action and subject to sufficient budget allocations in the 2024/25 budget.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                          13.8

Report No. 13.8     Flying-fox Camp Management Plan 2024-2029 for Council endorsement

Directorate:                         Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:                   Claudia Caliari, Biodiversity Projects Officer

File No:                                 I2023/1456

Summary:

The Flying-fox Camp Management Plan (FFCMP) 2018-2023 provides a framework for Council to respond to community concerns about flying-foxes while supporting staff and protecting threatened species and wildlife. During the past 4 months Council engaged EarthScapes Consulting to update the Plan, with $25,500 grant funding.

Some key highlights of the updated draft plan include ongoing engagement with Traditional Custodians, winter and spring ecological assessments of all known Flying-fox camps in Byron Shire, the shift to a broader approach in identifying and managing our local camps and development of two new strategies – for managing Heat Stress and Education and Awareness. A community information session is planned to guide community submissions in early 2024.

  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1.      Endorses the public exhibition of the Flying-fox Camp Management Plan 2024-2029 for a minimum 5 weeks to allow for community feedback and submissions (Attachment 1 – E2023/124321) and Attachment 2 – E2023/124101).

2.      Receives a submissions report following the public exhibition period.

 

Attachments:

 

1        Byron Shire Council Flying-fox Camp Management Plan 2024-2029 Part A public exhibition, E2023/124321  

2        Byron Shire Council Flying-Fox Camp Management Plan- Part B - Camps Information 2024-2029 draft - Exhibition version, E2023/124101  

 

 

Report

The Byron Shire Flying-fox Camp Management Plan (FFCMP) 2018-2023 is Council’s first Flying Fox Camp Management Plan. It was prepared to guide the management of five flying-fox camps (where flying-foxes roost/rest during the day) in our Shire: Beech camp, Butler camp, Middleton camp, Mullumbimby camp, Paddy’s Creek camp. These camps were selected due to their location in urban areas, proximity to houses and high levels of customer concern and enquiries. At that time, Byron Shire had 16 known camps. The 2018-2023 Plan is based on a Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) template.

In 2023, Council started reviewing the plan, focusing on new research, industry best practice, and any missing information that could support better decisions and inform our community. After extensive research, consultation with experts, discussions with relevant land managers, flying-fox officers in other Local Government areas and relevant State officers, we identified that a more comprehensive approach would bring more consistency to flying-fox management and consequently more community benefits. This decision reflects current ecological understanding of flying-foxes, which are now known to move around so frequently that they are best treated as one large population in Australia, rather than multiple smaller populations associated with particular locations.

The structure of the FFCMP has changed, with more emphasis on providing cultural and ecological information as introductory management as well as increasing local education and awareness. The Plan is presented in 2 parts:

1.    Part A (Attachment 1) - objectives of the Plan, local indigenous input (an ongoing process), species profile, camp overview, heat stress strategy, legislation, health updates and specific management action proposed.

2.    Part B (Attachment 2) – details in each camp area and surrounding, vegetation, other relevant matters related to the land and surrounding areas.

The FFCMP will also provide more information on the reason for conflicts and the search for long-term impact mitigation strategies, as well as the currently available short-term actions.

Byron Shire has currently 20 known camps (Figure 1 below).

The draft Flying-Fox Camp Management Plan (Attachment 1 and 2) has been peer reviewed by ecological experts and by members of Council’s Biodiversity Advisory Committee. We are now seeking Councillor support to put the plan on public exhibition.

AllRoostsV2

Figure 1: Flying-fox Camps in Byron Shire area 2023 – Rural camps are denoted by red dots, urban camps denoted by aqua dots.

Key issues

The main updates to the revised plan are:

·    legislation review,

·    updated science and monitoring methodology and

·    detailed information on all known camps in Byron Shire.

New approaches include:

·    a strategy for managing heat stress events,

·    engagement with Traditional Custodians (which will be an ongoing process),

·    evaluation of achievements to date

·    an Education and Awareness Strategy.

Next steps

The draft FFCMP was peer reviewed by flying-fox expert Dr Peggy Eby (University of NSW), local wildlife consultants from Reconeco Consulting, and members of Council’s Biodiversity Committee. Next steps include:

·    Public exhibition period 15 January to 19 February 2024.

·    Community information session, week of 22 January 2024.

·    Review of community submissions – Feb-March 2024.

·    Report to Council on public submissions and final FFCMP – May 2024.

Strategic Considerations

Community Strategic Plan and Operational Plan

CSP Objective

CSP Strategy

DP Action

Code

OP Activity

1: Effective Leadership

1.2: Engage and involve community in decision making

1.2.1: Community-led decision making - Engage with community to inform Council decision making

1.2.1.2

Support staff to consider communication and engagement as part of all project development and implementation

1: Effective Leadership

1.2: Engage and involve community in decision making

1.2.2: Communication - Provide timely information to the community about Council projects and activities through traditional and digital media

1.2.2.5

Ensure information can be read and understood by our community regardless of their level of education, language spoken, lived experience of disability

1: Effective Leadership

1.2: Engage and involve community in decision making

1.2.3: Customer Service - Deliver efficient customer service consistent with our Customer Service Standards

1.2.3.2

Deliver efficient service to our customers by providing consistent, accurate and timely information

2: Inclusive Community

2.3: Respect Aboriginal culture, value cultural knowledge, and acknowledge history

2.3.1: Aboriginal community and First Nations People - Develop strong and productive relationships that empower the Aboriginal community

2.3.1.1

Continue working with Traditional owners on land management matters

3: Nurtured Environment

3.1: Partner to nurture and enhance biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecology

3.1.1: Native species - Use best practice land management to improve ecological resilience and reduce threats to biodiversity

3.1.1.5

Review Flying Fox Camp Management Plan

3: Nurtured Environment

3.2: Deliver initiatives and education programs to encourage protection of the environment

3.2.2: Environmental education and awareness - Coordinate and support environmental education to the community

3.2.2.8

Provide advice and information to the community regarding flying foxes

 

Legal/Statutory/Policy Considerations

1.      Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 - administered by the Department of Planning and Environment.

Under this Act, a person who harms or attempts to harm an animal of a threatened species, an animal that is part of a threatened ecological community, or a protected animal, is guilty of an offence. The Grey-headed Flying-fox is listed as threatened under the BC Act. A biodiversity conservation licence under Part 2 of the BC Act may be required if the proposed action is likely to result in one or more of the following:

•     harm to an animal that is a threatened species, or part of a threatened population;

•     the picking of a plant that is a threatened species, or part of a threatened population or ecological community;

•     damage to habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community;

•     damage to a declared area of outstanding biodiversity conservation value.

 

2.      Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979

It may be an offence under this Act if there is evidence of unreasonable/unnecessary torment associated with management activities. Adhering to welfare and conservation measures provided in Section 10.3 will ensure compliance with this Act.

3.      Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 - administered by the Department of Planning and Environment

Development control plans under the Act should consider Flying-fox camps so that planning, design and construction of future developments is appropriate to avoid future conflict.

Local Policies

Documentation

Administered by

Relevance to subject camps

Byron Local Environmental Plans 1988 & 2014

Council

Matters for consideration are camps within ‘Deferred Matter’ (DM) zones of Byron LEP 2014. Byron LEP 1988 currently applies to all DM areas, which are currently being assessed as part of Council’s Environmental Zone review process.

Development Control Plan 2014

Council

Advice and guidance on planning for land use compatibility, avoiding land use conflict and the use of buffers. The emphasis is on identifying current and potential future land use conflicts at the outset and designing to avoid them during the development process where possible.

Byron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2020 - 2030

Council

Matters for consideration when developing planning controls. New developments or activities that occur in close proximity to ecological attributes and/ or habitats can impose negative impacts to human health, safety or comfort values (e.g. where in close proximity to Flying-fox camp). The Strategy supports appropriate buffers as required.

The accuracy and availability of mappable information held within Council note high environmental values, but indicates the need to continually update mapping including Flying-fox camps, as new and/ or emerging camps establish.

Open Spaces Asset Management Plan 2020

Council

The plan details information about infrastructure assets including actions required to provide an agreed level of service in the most cost-effective manner while outlining associated risks. 

Byron Shire Council Operational Plan for Pine Avenue Sports Field Mullumbimby Crown Reserve 85663 for Public Recreation

Council

The Operational Plan provides a framework for the management and development of Crown Land under Council’s control. Council has responsibility for two main types of public land; Crown Land whose control is vested in Council under the Crown Lands Act 1989 and Council owned and managed community land dedicated under the Local Government Act 1993.

The land included in the Operational Plan is Crown Land identified as Crown Reserve 85663, comprising Lot 451 DP 728526, which is located in Mullumibmby, west of the township and bordered by Pine Avenue, Garden Avenue and the tributaries of Chinbible Creek, being the Yalgany and Yoga-bera Creeks.

The land is known locally as the Pine Avenue Sports fields, and also includes the Rotary Rainforest Park.

Mullumbimby Flying-fox Camp Management Actions Plan

Council

Management actions support the Mullumbimby Flying-fox Camp Management Actions Plan and comply with the Flying-fox camp management policy. The Flying-fox camp management policy has been considered during the preparation of the proposed management actions in this Plan and the Mullumbimby Flying-fox Camp Management Actions Plan and as such recommends level 1 then level 2 management actions.

Plan of Management for Butler Street Reserve, Byron Bay – Reserve 88993 for Public Recreation

Crown Land

Management actions support the Plan of Management for Butler Street by seeking to minimise adverse environmental impacts of the Reserve use on adjacent land uses, water bodies and areas of significant habitat. However, under the Plan of Management for Butler Street, proposals to develop a skate park, children’s playground and additional 20-space car parking would need to consider the negative impacts of Flying-foxes on such infrastructure e.g. smell, faecal drop and reduced general amenity.

Cumbebin Wetland Sanctuary Site Restoration and Weed Management Plan

Cumbebin Wetland Trust

Management actions support the Cumbebin Wetland Sanctuary Site Restoration and Weed Management Plan (2006) by assisting in managing the site in order to ensure that existing bushland elements are protected from excessive human induced disturbance. Focus is on bush regeneration and weed control.

Financial Considerations

Grant funding of $25,200 provided for development of the Flying-Fox Camp Management Plan.


 

Consultation and Engagement.

The table below summarises stakeholder engagement to date. Following expert peer review, it is intended to put the FFCMP on public exhibition from 15/1/2024 to 19/02/2024, with a community information session held during the week of 22-27/01.

Who was consulted

How did the consultation occur?

Comments

Arakwal Corporation

Email and online meeting

Feedback is ongoing

Jali Local Aboriginal Council

Email and in-person meeting

Feedback is ongoing

Tweed Byron Local Aboriginal Council

Email, online and in-person meetings

Feedback is ongoing

Ngulingah Local Aboriginal Council

Email

Waiting response

Widjabul-Wiabal Gurrumbil Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC

Email

Waiting response

Biodiversity Advisory Committee

In-person meeting

Feedback by 21/11/2023

 

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                          13.9

Report No. 13.9     Former Mullumbimby Hospital Site - Project Update

Directorate:                         Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:                   Andrew FitzGibbon, Place Planning Coordinator

Sharyn French, Manager Environmental and Economic Planning

File No:                                 I2023/1554

Summary:

This report provides an update on the Former Mullumbimby Hospital Site project matters:

a)   The Planning Proposal

b)   The Enquiry by Design (EbD)

This aligns with recent resolution 23-298 from Byron Shire Council Meeting on 22 June 2023.

In relation to the planning proposal:

·    A draft planning proposal and supporting technical studies were submitted in August 2023 to the Department of Planning and Environment (the Department) for the purpose of obtaining a gateway determination.

·    A gateway determination was received on 3 November 2023.

·    At the time of writing this report the planning proposal was being updated and discussed with the Department to address points raised within the gateway determination.

·    Once the planning proposal has been updated and those updates have been accepted by the Department, we will proceed to public exhibition of the planning proposal.

·    The aim is to begin that consultation period this year and have an extended exhibition until the end of January 2024.

·    A submissions report to Council will then follow.

In relation to the Enquiry by Design:

·    A community drop-in session was held on Saturday 11 November at which approximately 40 community members participated in the interactive themed stations.

·    The EbD was held over 2 days, 13 & 14 November at the Mullum Civic Hall with key stakeholders. This culminated in 3 design options for the site.

·    A further report will be tabled with Council in the new year to consider the governance structure for the site and other key matters.

·    Understanding Council’s position on these key matters will then assist with refinement of the options and the development of a high-level feasibility assessment.

·    A site-specific Byron Development Control Plan 2014 chapter will then be prepared based on Council’s preferred design option.

  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1.      Notes the update on Resolution 23-298 relating to the Former Mullumbimby Hospital Site Planning Proposal and Enquiry by Design as provided in this report.

2.      Expresses their sincere appreciation to the stakeholders who attended the 2-day Enquiry by Design process.

3.      Notes that further reports to Council will be provided in early 2024 on the Planning Proposal’s exhibition and on the governance structure for the site and other key matters.

Attachments:

 

1        Gateway determination (date 3 Nov 2023) - Department of Planning and Environment - Former Mullumbimby Hospital Site, E2023/120964  

2        Former Mullumbimby Hospital Site Draft Planning Proposal 17 August 2023 Byron Shire Council, E2023/90990  

3        Biodiversity Assessment (date 17 April 2023) by Earth Scapes Consulting - Former Mullumbimby Hospital Site, E2023/76200  

4        Bushfire Assessment (date 4 July 2023) by Bushfire Certifiers - Former Mullumbimby Hospital Site, E2023/72456  

5        Contamination Summary (date 28 July 2023) by Tim Fitzroy and Associates - Former Mullumbimby Hospital Site, E2023/77489  

6        Flooding and Stormwater Assessment (date 3 August 2023) by BMT - Former Mullumbimby Hospital Site, E2023/79687  

7        Infrastructure Capability Audit (date 15 August 2023) by PLANIT Consulting - Former Mullumbimby Hospital Site, E2023/84342  

8        Transport Strategy (date 9 August 2023) by PLANIT Consulting - Former Mullumbimby Hospital Site, E2023/120961  

9        Primer Pack -  Mullumbimby Hospital EbD, E2023/116238  

10      HvH Concept Mapping following workshop - Mullumbimby Hospital EbD, E2023/127100  

 


 

Report

Council Meeting resolution 23-298 from 22 June 2023 states that Council:

1.   Notes the update on Resolution 22-737 Former Mullumbimby Hospital Site.

2.   Authorises staff to finalise and forward a planning proposal (informed by the Site Strategy and Urban Design Protocol and technical studies) to the Department of Planning and Environment for the purpose of obtaining a Gateway Determination, and that Council exhibit the Planning Proposal in accordance with the Gateway requirements.

3.   Notes that an Enquiry by Design Workshop, Development Feasibility Assessment, and draft Development Control Plan for the Former Mullumbimby Hospital Site will progress along with the Planning Proposal to enable completion of these by early 2024.

This report provides an update on these resolution matters being:

·    The Planning Proposal

·    The Enquiry by Design (EBD) that will support a Development Feasibility Assessment and underpin a site specific Byron Development Control Plan 2014 (DCP) chapter. 

The diagram below illustrates the relationship between each of these processes:

Project flow chart in teal arrows, with the planning proposal above running the full timeline, and below with three sectioned arrows leading into each other: EBD to Feasibility to DCP.

The Site

For reference site location plans are shown below. Further information about the site and detailed project background can be found in the Site Strategy and Urban Design Protocol which was endorsed by Council in December 2022.

 

 

 

Figure 1: Context Plan showing the site and its surrounds.

Context Plan showing the site and its close proximity to the town centre and community uses such as the Mullumbimby High School and recreation facilities.

Figure 2: Subject Site Plan showing the site boundary and internal allotments

Subject Land Plan showing the site boundary around the Former Mullumbimby Hospital Site and the three lots that make this up.

Planning Proposal

The objectives of the planning proposal are to amend the Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP) to facilitate the provision of a high quality residential and community precinct on the former Mullumbimby Hospital site.

To achieve this, the planning proposal is seeking the following updates to the Byron LEP.

·    Change the Land Use Zone over part of the site from SP2 Infrastructure (Health Services Facility) to R1 General Residential and a small area to C2 Environmental Conservation.

·    Increase the Height of Buildings development standard over part of the site from 9m to 11.5m.

·    Introduce Additional Permitted Uses for the site to facilitate complimentary and site-specific uses.

·    Introduce an Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme Map over the development area that links to the Byron Shire Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme.

·    Include the site in the Design Excellence provisions.

·    Make other minor consequential LEP amendments to align with the above.

Note that the intention is to also make an amendment to the Byron Development Control Plan 2014 that will provide site specific design guidelines for the precinct.

The Byron Shire Council Meeting on 22 June 2023 endorsed the scope for this planning proposal as per Resolution (23-298). At this meeting Council authorised staff to finalise and forward a planning proposal (informed by the Site Strategy and Urban Design Protocol and technical studies) to the Department of Planning and Environment for the purpose of obtaining a gateway determination, and to exhibit the planning proposal in accordance with the gateway requirements.

A draft planning proposal and supporting technical studies were submitted in August 2023 to the Department of Planning and Environment for the purpose of obtaining a gateway determination. Refer to Attachments 2-8.

A gateway determination was received on 3 November 2023, Attachment 1. All documentation from the state government relating to the planning proposal can be found via the link below.

Former Mullumbimby Hospital Site | Planning Portal - Department of Planning and Environment (nsw.gov.au)

At the time of writing this report the planning proposal was being updated and discussed with the Department to address points raised within the gateway determination.

Once the planning proposal has been updated and those updates have been accepted by the Department, we will proceed to public exhibition of the planning proposal.

The aim is to begin that consultation period this year and have an extended exhibition until the end of January 2024. A submissions report to Council will then follow.

Enquiry by Design Workshop

Consultants Hip v Hype and Austin Maynard Architects were engaged by Council to work with the community and key stakeholders to develop concept designs for the site through a community drop-in session and EbD process.

The community drop-in session was held on Saturday 11 November 2023 at which approximately 40 community members participated in the five interactive themed stations.

The purpose of the EbD process was to ensure knowledge held by key stakeholders influences the design process and fosters stakeholder ownership of the outcomes.

The EbD was held over 2 days, 13 and 14 November 2023 at the Mullum Civic Hall with key stakeholders (invited attendee list below). This culminated in 3 design options for the site.

The EbD process included:

·    A rundown of previous work done to-date, including the technical assessments, strategies and community consultation led by Council.

·    Confirming the project’s driving Vision and Principles.

·    A Site Visit to analyse the project’s opportunities and constraints.

·    Active engagement in the project’s conceptual designs, based on five key themes (see below).

·    A presentation of the project’s conceptual designs based on the outcomes of the EbD session.

The work leading up to this EbD process included a review of relevant Council policies and strategic documents, as well as project-specific technical assessments (e.g. biodiversity, bushfire, transport etc.) This led to the development of five key themes that informed the EbD and community drop-in session discussions:

1.    Transport and Access

2.    Housing and Built Form

3.    Blue and Green Infrastructure

4.    Climate

5.    People and Culture

Representatives from the following organisations were invited to participate in the design process along with council staff.

•      Housing & Affordability Advisory Committee

•      Planit Consulting

•      BMT Consulting

•      Tallowwood Ridge Community Association

•      Place Planning Collective

•      Mullumbimby Residents Association

•      Mullumbimby Hospital Action Group

•      Mullumbimby Chamber of Commerce

•      Mullumbimby District & Neighbourhood Centre

•      Creative Mullum

•      NSW Dept. Planning and Environment

•      North Coast Community Housing

•      Mullumbimby District & Neighbourhood Centre

A primer pack centred around the five themes was provided to participants in preparation for the EbD process, Attachment 9.

Conceptual maps of the three design options have been prepared and provided in Attachment 10.

A further report will be tabled with Council in the new year to consider the governance structure for the site and other key matters. Understanding Council’s position on these key matters will then assist with refining the options and the development of a high-level feasibility assessment.

Once Council has decided on a preferred concept design, a site-specific Byron Development Control Plan 2014 chapter will be prepared.

Strategic Considerations

Community Strategic Plan and Operational Plan

CSP Objective

CSP Strategy

DP Action

Code

OP Activity

4: Ethical Growth

4.1: Manage responsible development through effective place and space planning

4.1.3: Town / Village Masterplans - Develop, implement and update Place Plans that promote place-based forward planning strategies and actions

4.1.3.7

Amend Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan in accordance with Mullumbimby Hospital Precinct Plan

 

Recent Resolutions

·        Resolution 18-721 (22 November 2018) Mullumbimby Hospital Site Project Reference Group Recommendations: future use of the site

·        Resolution 22-571 (27 October 2022) Endorsement to exhibit Draft Site Strategy and Urban Design Protocol

·        Resolution 22-737 (15 December 2022) Endorsement of Site Strategy and Urban Design Protocol

·        Resolution 23-298 (22 June 2023) Endorsement to lodge planning proposal and Enquiry by Design workshop update

Legal/Statutory/Policy Considerations

Requirements under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulation as applicable.

Financial Considerations

Land Use Planning and Development Assessment for council owned land is funded through an operational budget allocation.

In terms of the overall cost of the Mullumbimby Hospital Site, it was premised when Council took on ownership of the site that whatever funds Council expends on the site are to be fully reimbursed from the eventual site redevelopment outcomes. In this regard, given that Council, at June 2023, had expended over $5.1million, it is recommended that outcomes on the site also need to consider the potential to return this amount to Council.

Consultation and Engagement

Planning proposal consultation will be carried out in accordance with Council’s Community Participation Plan 2019 and as directed by the gateway determination from the Department of Planning and Environment. The aim is to begin that consultation period this year and have an extended exhibition until the end of January 2024.

An overview of the outcomes from the Enquiry by Design workshop is intended to be included in the planning proposal consultation documents.

 


BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL

Staff Reports - Sustainable Environment and Economy                        13.10

Report No. 13.10   PLANNING - DA 10.2022.248.1 – Multiple Occupancy Comprising 14 Dwelling Sites and Associated Infrastructure at 16 Whian Road, Eureka.

Directorate:                         Sustainable Environment and Economy

Report Author:                   Ben Grant, Planner

File No:                                 I2023/1673

Proposal:

DA No:

10.2022.248.1

NSW PP

PAN-91427

Proposal description:

Multiple Occupancy consisting of Fourteen (14) Dwelling Sites, and Associated Infrastructure.

Property description:

LOT: 25 DP: 1102773

16 Whian Road EUREKA

Parcel No/s:

 270827

Applicant:

Balanced Systems Planning Consultants

Owner:

Mrs M F Olive

Zoning:

RU1 Primary Production / RU2 Rural Landscape / C2 Environmental Conservation

Date received:

16 June 2022

Integrated / Designated Development:

    Integrated

    Designated

    Not applicable

Concurrence required

CNR-41203. Essential Energy s. 2.48 SEPP Transport and Infrastructure) 2021.

Public notification or exhibition:

-    Level 1 advertising under Council’s Community Participation Plan.

-    Exhibition period: 28 June 2022 to 11 July 2022.

-    Submissions received: 16 objections.

-    Submissions acknowledged: Yes     No          N/A

Planning Review Committee

Considered by the PRC on 4 August 2022 and called up to Council for determination.

Variation request to Development Standards under an EPI (e.g., clause 4.6)

Not applicable

Estimated cost

$1,150,657.00

Delegation to determine

Council

Issues

·     Potential impacts on Eureka Village Landscape Heritage Conservation Area and adjoining heritage listed Church and Rectory Buildings.

·     Reduced buffers from neighbouring macadamia orchards (potential land use conflict resulting from spray drift).

·     Earthworks exceeding 1m in limited parts of the site.

Summary:

This development application seeks consent for a multiple occupancy comprising 14 dwelling sites along with roadworks, tree removal and environmental enhancement works at 16 Whian Road, Eureka.

The Multiple Occupancy is arranged into four dwelling clusters to be constructed over three stages comprising two ‘Village Clusters’, one ‘Rural Living Cluster’, and one ‘Farm Residence Cluster’. A new primary access road will be constructed off Federal Drive servicing the Village and Rural Living clusters, while a secondary access servicing the Farm Residence cluster will be constructed off Whian Road.

Four of the proposed dwelling sites are within the Eureka Village Landscape Conservation Area (EVLCA) and are in proximity to the heritage listed Anglican Church and Rectory on the corner of Federal Drive and Whian Road.

Council officers initially expressed concerns about potential impacts of the proposed development on site’s heritage and landscape values, prompting the submission of a revised layout plan in August 2023 along with further information in relation to visual impacts, bushfire, and biodiversity issues.

The amended layout plan has shifted three of the dwelling sites to the eastern side of the access road and relocated a fourth site into the Farm Residence cluster. The revised design provides a greater separation distance from the historic Church and Rectory and will assist in reducing the perceived encroachment of the development into the EVLCA.

Council’s Heritage Advisor expressed general support for the revised layout but noted that one of the sites near the Church and Rectory (site VB1) should be relocated to minimise view loss from these historic buildings. It is also recommended that a landscape masterplan be prepared to ensure key views of the site are preserved and to soften the appearance for future residential development on the landscape.

To address land use conflicts, the proponent plans to establish a biological vegetation buffer along the boundary with neighbouring macadamia orchards to the east and south-east. The buffer will comprise dense plantings to filter windborne spray droplets emitted during periods of spraying on adjoining farms. Council’s Environmental Health Officer endorsed the proposal as a suitable strategy to mitigate future land use conflict.

A significant ecological restoration project is proposed as part of the development that aims to enhance the remnant Big Scrub rainforest near Whian Road through natural and assisted regeneration; eventually creating a link corridor with an adjoining rainforest remnant on the property to the north. Enhancement and connection of these isolated vegetation communities is likely to provide significant ecological benefits if fully implemented.

Although the proposed development is likely to change the character of the surrounding rural landscape, it is acknowledged that the site has been identified in previous strategic planning studies as being suitable for additional rural housing opportunities. A balance needs to be found between competing planning provisions to allow for new housing near the Eureka village while minimising potential impacts on the scenic qualities and heritage significance of the locality.

The proposed development will provide 14 additional dwelling sites in the Eureka area and has been redesigned to minimise potential impacts on the EVLCA and the adjoining Church and Rectory. The proposal is considered to be generally compliant with the relevant planning controls applying to the site and is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

This development application has been a difficult proposal to resolve with a lack of specific planning controls in the Byron DCP 2014 for the Eureka Village Landscape Conservation Area. Other than broad policy directions in the DCP, the provisions under Chapter C1.6.6 include no prescriptive measures to guide future rural and residential development in the area. Whilst the proposal by ultimately adding further residences to the village area will strengthen it as a rural centre, noting that Eureka has a school and a soccer club. It is also arguable that the mapping and incorporation of the conservation area into Byron LEP 2014 was undertaken with limited consideration that some of the properties within it were also listed for Multiple Occupancy Development under Byron LEP 1988 at the time. As such it is also recommended that the Eureka Village Landscape Conservation Area be reviewed and DCP provisions be drafted to give clear direction and guidance to future development in this area as per Recommendation B 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:

It is recommended that:

1.      Pursuant to Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Development Application No. 10.2022.248.1 for Multiple Occupancy consisting of Fourteen (14) Dwelling Sites, Associated Infrastructure, Land Management and Environmental Enhancement including Removal of Three (3) Trees, be granted consent subject to the conditions of approval detailed in Attachment 1 #E2023/118779.

2.      The Eureka Village Landscape Conservation Area under Byron LEP 2014 be reviewed by staff (with a view to reducing or removing it by separate LEP amendment). New DCP provisions be drafted to otherwise give clear direction and guidance to future development in this area. A further report on both to be submitted to Council before the end of the 2023/24 financial year.  

Attachments:

 

1        DA 10.2022.248.1 Recommended Conditions of Consent, E2023/118779  

2        DA 10.2022.248.1 Plans, E2023/123102  

3        DA 10.2022.248.1 Draft Rural Landsharing Management Plan, E2023/91249  

4        DA 10.2022.248.1 Vegetation Management Plan, E2023/123121  

5        DA 10.2022.248.1 Visual Impact Assessment, E2023/91251  

6        Confidential - DA 10.2022.248.1 Submissions Received, E2023/123774  

7        Confidential - Confidential - Late Submissions, E2023/127161  

 

 

Assessment:

1.       INTRODUCTION

Brief site history

The property was once part of a larger rural holding that was established as a dairy farm by the Anderson family in the late 1800’s. The farm originally contained a main homestead, dairy bales and a piggery building located near the central north-facing ridgeline of the existing property. The remainder of the land was used for grazing dairy cows.

The dairy ceased operations in 1965 following purchase by the Olive family. The new owners transitioned the farms operations primarily to beef cattle grazing which has remained to the current day. The original homestead, diary bales and piggery buildings were eventually removed due to disrepair.

Previous determinations

Lot 25 DP 1102773 was registered on 22 September 2006. There are no previous determinations for the property in Council’s records.

Strategic planning context

The subject site is one of several properties in the Federal–Eureka district that was identified for multiple occupancy development in the former Byron Rural Settlement Strategy 1998 (‘BRSS’), which included a rural land release program to guide the location of future rural lifestyle opportunities in the Byron Shire over a 10-year horizon.

The site was subsequently included in Amendment no. 67 to Byron Local Environmental Plan 1988 (‘LEP 1988’) which permitted multiple occupancy development in accordance with Clause 17A of the LEP. These provisions were largely transferred into Clause 4.2B of Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (‘LEP 2014’) upon its commencement on 21 July 2014.

Clause 4.2B also introduced a change to the planning rules which allows an approved multiple occupancy to be converted to a community title (CT) estate without the need for it to be properly established. Under the former LEP 1988 provisions, conversion to CT was only available to a small number of properties containing established multiple occupancies that were already in existence.

Secondary dwellings and dual occupancy in CT estates

Amendment no. 36 to Byron LEP 2014 was made on 20 January 2023 which permits dual occupancies and secondary dwellings to be erected in rural community title estates with development consent. The amendment followed Council resolution 21-498 and aims to provide additional housing opportunities in rural areas as one of a suite of measures to address the current housing crisis. As such, any future community title subdivision of this property would theoretically allow up to 28 dwellings. This does not apply to the currently multiple occupancy proposal.

Description of the proposed development

This development application seeks approval for a multiple occupancy consisting of fourteen dwelling sites, internal access road, plus land management and environmental enhancement works including removal of three trees, at 16 Whian Road, Eureka.

The following is proposed in detail:

(a)     Dwelling sites

·        Fourteen dwelling sites located within four dwelling clusters.

·        Each site is located on cleared land with sufficient area for construction of a dwelling and on-site wastewater management system.

 

(b)     Roads and infrastructure

·        Construction of internal access roads including bushfire passing bays and turn arounds, and associated stormwater management.

·        Construction of a new access road connection to Federal Drive along with a pedestrian pathway connecting the site to Eureka Village.

·        Construction of a secondary access to Whian Road.

·        Water supply, electricity, and telecommunications infrastructure.

 

(c)     Tree removal and environmental enhancement works

 

·        Removal of two Silk Oak trees and one Foam bark tree to fa