Agenda of Strategy and Assets Committee

Strategy and Assets Committee

Meeting Date: Tuesday, 15 November, 2016

Location: Council Chambers, City Administrative Centre, Bridge Road, Nowra

Time: At the conclusion of the Extra Ordinary Meeting (which commences at 4.00pm)

Membership (Quorum - 5)

Clr Andrew Guile - Chairperson

All Councillors

General Manager or nominee

Please note: Council’s Code of Meeting Practice permits the electronic recording and broadcast of the proceedings of meetings of the Council which are open to the public. Your attendance at this meeting is taken as consent to the possibility that your image and/or voice may be recorded and broadcast to the public.

Agenda

1. Apologies / Leave of Absence

2. Confirmation of Minutes

· Strategy and Assets Committee - 11 October 2016.................................................... 1

3. Declarations of Interest

Deputations

4. Reports

SA16.14...... Meeting Times for Council & Committees................................................... 13

SA16.15...... Berry Community Strategic Plan ................................................................ 17

SA16.16...... Ulladulla Harbour Berthing Facility Project Funding..................................... 39

SA16.17...... Adoption Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan .................................... 44

SA16.18...... Paringa Park - Non motorised Water Sports Hub - Draft Master Plan........ 51

SA16.19...... Acceptance of Grant Funding - Veolia Mulwaree Trust - $25,000 -Plantation Point Exercise Equipment..................................................................................... 61

SA16.20...... Councillor Conference - Community Energy Congress.............................. 63

SA16.21...... Construction of Roundabout - Paradise Beach Rd & Kerry St Sanctuary Point 65

SA16.22...... Integrated Emergency Management Centre Master Plan and Electrical Supply at Albatross Road - IEMC................................................................................. 69

SA16.23...... NSW Government Safer Roads Program - Approved Projects 2016/17.... 72

SA16.24...... Electric Vehicle Charging Points.................................................................. 74

SA16.25...... Property Lease - 11 Lamonds Lane, Nowra - Lot 3 DP868373................... 77

SA16.26...... Acquisition of Easement for Drainage - 19 Nirimba Ave Sanctuary Point.. 79

SA16.27...... Proposed Leasing of 81 Osborne Street Nowra.......................................... 82

SA16.28...... Proposed Road Closure of Part of Piscator Ave Currarong and sale to William & Elaine McLaughlin and consolidation with Lot 3 DP700672......................... 85

SA16.29...... Acquisition of Land for Matron Porter Drive Pathway - Part Lot 12 DP807589 - 13 Sungrove Lane ............................................................................................ 89

SA16.30...... Supplementary Report - requirement for a certified Coastal Zone Management Plan or Coastal Management Program................................................................ 91

SA16.31...... Dune vegetation management at Collingwood Beach - outcome of public exhibition and petitions. .............................................................................................. 114

SA16.32...... Closure of Council's free childhood immunisation service........................ 154

SA16.33...... Funding of Sewer Services to St Andrew's Way Coolangatta................... 173

SA16.34...... Tenders - Water Meter Reading Services.................................................. 179

SA16.35...... Tenders - Vincentia Tower Redevelopment............................................... 181

SA16.36...... Tenders - Purchase of new 24,000lt Vacuum Tanker Trailer.................... 184

SA16.37...... BOM National Performance Report Audit................................................. 186

SA16.38...... Acquisition of Easement for Water Supply at Terara................................. 189

SA16.39...... Extinguishment of Water Supply Easement - 6 Mount Vista Close Falls Creek 193

SA16.40...... Acquisition of Easements for Water Supply at Wason Street Ulladulla..... 196

SA16.41...... Research Grant Proposal - University of Wollongong............................... 199

5. Notices of Motion / Questions on Notice

SA16.42...... Notice of Motion - Huskisson Sewerage Scheme - Woollamia Village Extension.................................................................................................................... 201

SA16.43...... Notice of Motion - Marriott Park - All Day Car Park Proposal................... 203

SA16.44...... Notice of Motion - Marriott Park - All Day Car Park Proposal................... 205

SA16.45...... Notice of Motion - Long Term Parking Facility Proposal - Bomaderry Railway Station.................................................................................................................... 206

SA16.46...... Notice of Motion - Public Toilet Block - North Nowra................................ 207

SA16.47...... Notice of Motion - Bomaderry Railway Station to Nowra CBD - Bus Services 209

SA16.48...... Notice of Motion - Climate Change Action Committee.............................. 210

SA16.49...... Notice of Motion - Community Solar Conference..................................... 211

SA16.50...... Notice of Motion - Australian Coastal Councils Management Committee 212

SA16.51...... Notice of Motion - Moona Moona Creek, Huskisson - Pedestrian Walkway 213

SA16.52...... Notice of Motion - Bus Shelter - Owen Street, Huskisson......................... 214

SA16.53...... Notice of Motion - Road Maintenance - Jervis Bay Road / Huskisson Road intersection.................................................................................................. 215

6. Confidential Reports

Reports

CSA16.4...... Legal Advice - Dune Vegetation Managment at Collingwood Beach - outcomes of public exhibition and petitions

Local Government Act - Section 10A(2)(g) - Advice concerning litigation, or advice as comprises a discussion of this matter, that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

There is a public interest consideration against disclosure of information as disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice any court proceedings by revealing matter prepared for the purposes of or in relation to current or future proceedings or prejudice the fair trial of any person, the impartial adjudication of any case or a person’s right to procedural fairness.

CSA16.5...... Development Application – Four Storey Residential Flat Building - Island Point Rd, St Georges Basin – Lot 6 DP 1082382

CSA16.6...... Tenders – Water Meter Reading Services

Local Government Act - Section 10A(2)(d)(i) - Commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

There is a public interest consideration against disclosure of information as disclosure of the information could reasonably expected to reveal commercial-in-confidence provisions of a contract, diminish the competitive commercial value of any information to any person and/or prejudice any person’s legitimate business, commercial, professional or financial interests.

CSA16.7...... Tenders - Vincentia Tower Redevelopment

Local Government Act - Section 10A(2)(d)(i) - Commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

CSA16.8...... Tenders – Purchase of New 24,000lt Vacuum Tanker Trailer

Local Government Act - Section 10A(2)(d)(i) - Commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

There is a public interest consideration against disclosure of information as disclosure of the information could reasonably expected to reveal commercial-in-confidence provisions of a contract, dimish the competitive commercial value of any information to any person and/or prejudice any person’s legitimate business, commercial, professional or financial interests.

Minutes of the Strategy and Assets Committee 11 October 2016

Page 1

Minutes of the Strategy and Assets Committee

Meeting Date: Tuesday, 11 October 2016

Location: Council Chambers, City Administrative Centre, Bridge Road, Nowra

Time: 4.00pm

The following members were present:

Clr Guile- Chairperson

Clr Amanda Findley

Clr Joanna Gash

Clr Patricia White

Clr John Wells

Clr John Levett

Clr Nina Cheyne

Clr Mitchell Pakes

Clr Greg Watson

Clr Bob Proudfoot

Mr Russ Pigg - General Manager

Election of Chairperson

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr Findley) MIN16.764

Mr Russ Pigg – General Manager called for nominations from the floor. Mr Pigg informed the meeting that one nomination had been received for the position of Chairperson of the Strategy and Assets Committee, the nomination being for Clr Guile.

Mr Pigg called for a show of hands and declared Clr Guile the Chairperson of the Strategy and Assets Committee.

That Clr Guile be appointed the Chair of the Strategy and Assets Committee.

CARRIED

Apologies / Leave of Absence

Apologies were received from Clrs Gartner, Kitchener and Alldrick.

Confirmation of the Minutes

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr White) MIN16.765

That the Minutes of the Strategy and Assets committee held on Tuesday 9 August 2016 be confirmed.

CARRIED

Declarations of Interest

Clr Findley – SA16.6 - Milton Showground - Second Croquet Court & Expansion Options – less than significant non pecuniary interest declaration – will remain in the room and will take part in discussion and vote – She attends the Show every year and takes part.

Deputations

SA16.6 Milton Showground - Second Croquet Court & Expansion Options

Jim Mison – President, Milton Showground Management Committee addressed the Committee in relation to this item.

Dee Carington – Milton Ulladulla Croquet Club addressed the Committee in relation to this item.

SA16.4 Berry District Park - Re-exhibition of Master Plan

Stuart Coughlan addressed the Committee in relation to this item.

SA16.7 Application for a Special Rate Variation

Mr John Finkernagel addressed the Committee in relation to this item.

SA16.8 Kayak/Paddle Launching Facility - Dent St Huskisson

Mr John Fergusson, President Jervis Bay Maritime Museum addressed the Committee in relation to this item.

Procedural Motion - Bring Items Forward

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr White) MIN16.766

That the following matters be brought forward for consideration:

1. SA16.13 – Verons Estate Special Rate Variation to Upgrade Roads

2. SA16.6 – Milton Showground - Second Croquet Court & Expansion Options

3. SA16.4 – Berry District Park - Re-exhibition of Master Plan

4. SA16.8 – Kayak/Paddle Launching Facility - Dent St Huskisson

CARRIED

SA16.13 Verons Estate Special Rate Variation to Upgrade Roads

HPERM Ref: D16/306078

Recommendation

That

1. Council authorise staff to notify IPART of its intention to prepare a Special Variation application for a $2.13m loan-funded special rate levy (‘Special Rate Variation’) so that Council can provide essential road infrastructure in Verons Estate;

2. 17% of the total cost be met by the broader rate base based in recognition of the potential benefit of the road upgrades to the broader community including properties fronting Sussex Inlet Road which have rear access onto Mokau Road.

3. Further details of the proposed funding arrangement be refined in consultation with the affected landowners; and

4. Unless there are substantial changes to the details provided in this report, the Special Rate Variation application to IPART be submitted before the February 2017 deadline.

Recommendation (Clr Wells / Clr Proudfoot)

That

3. Further details of the proposed funding arrangement be refined in consultation with the affected landowners; and

4. Unless there are substantial changes to the details provided in this report, the Special Rate Variation application to IPART be submitted before the February 2017 deadline.

5. During the notification to IPART Council hold a Public meeting with the land owners and the community.

For: Clr Findley, Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

Against: Nil

CARRIED

SA16.6 Milton Showground - Second Croquet Court & Expansion Options	HPERM Ref: D16/301979
Clr Findley – SA16.6 - Milton Showground - Second Croquet Court & Expansion Options – less than significant non pecuniary interest declaration – will remain in the room and will take part in discussion and vote – She attends the Show every year and takes part.
Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority) That 1. Council accept the construction status update report for a second croquet court at Milton Showground which is consistent with Council’s adopted Milton Showground Plan of Management. 2. Council continue to work with land owners adjacent to Milton Showground to formalise offsite parking options via a licence agreement for future large events at the Showground. 3. Council adopt the Croquet User Agreement (as outlined in this report) and inform both Milton Ulladulla Croquet Club & Milton Showground Management Committee that they are to abide by this agreement.
Motion (Clr Wells / Clr Gash) That 1. Council accept the construction status update report for a second croquet court at Milton Showground which is consistent with Council’s adopted Milton Showground Plan of Management. 2. Council continue to work with land owners adjacent to Milton Showground to formalise offsite parking options via a licence agreement for future large events at the Showground. 3. Council adopt the Croquet User Agreement (as outlined in this report) and inform both Milton Ulladulla Croquet Club & Milton Showground Management Committee that they are to abide by this agreement. 4. Council peg out and temporary fence the area of the proposed second Croquet Court at the Milton Showground for the 2017 Milton Show to trial the potential impact of the development of the croquet court on the show which could also demonstrate the impact on similar large events especially in relation to parking.
Procedural Motion (Clr Watson / Clr White) This matter be discussed during the confidential session in accordance with Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993. carried For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Cheyne, Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg Against: Clr Findley and Clr Levett Note: This Item was discussed in Confidential session (a new item was created refer CSA16.3) and a confidential recommendation was made. The Item was also dealt with later in the meeting.

SA16.4 Berry District Park - Re-exhibition of Master Plan

HPERM Ref: D16/293099

Recommendation

That:

1. Council amend and finalise the Berry District Park Master Plan with the following changes:

a. Removal of long vehicle parking area on North Street.

b. Provision of additional long vehicle parking in the off street car parking area within the Berry District Park (identified as F on the concept plan which was re-exhibited).

c. Provision of toilet block at the off street car parking area within Berry District Park (identified as F on the concept plan which was re-exhibited).

d. Area identified (hatched I & K on the concept plan which was re-exhibited) for future expansion of proposed adventure playground north of existing site.

e. Removal of Mountain Bike & Running Trail (I) to allow for future expansion of proposed adventure playground north of existing site.

f. Spacing fitness equipment stations along the walking path within the park.

g. Remove the criterion track.

2. Council establish and liaise with a dedicated community project reference group (i.e. Rotary Club, Berry Forum, sporting groups, etc.) to assist with advancing detailed design of the site.

3. Council consider allocating $100,000 in the 2017/18 budget to undertake staged detailed design and development of a Business Case and Plan, and Funding and Procurement Plan to guide future delivery of Berry District Park and ensure it is “shovel ready” for future grant applications.

4. Council work with the future community project reference group involved in progressing the detail design of the park to determine the preferred name for Berry District Park.

Recommendation (Clr Wells / Clr White)

That:

1. Council form a Project Reference Group consisting of all Councillors, relevant staff and members of the Berry Community forum and the Berry Rotary Club.

2. Council work with the community project reference group involved in progressing the finalisation of the masterplan, detailed design and determine the preference of the name of the Berry District Park.

3. Council allocate $35,000 from the strategic project reserve immediately to undertake staged detailed design and development of a Business Case and Plan, and Funding and Procurement Plan to guide future delivery of Berry District Park and ensure it is “shovel ready” for future grant applications

4. Council reallocate from the Berry Strategic Plan Project $17,000 to the Berry District Park and $10,000 to the Berry Trails Project subject to approval by RMS for the reallocation of their grant funding for the Berry Strategic Plan.

CARRIED

Confidential Reports

Pursuant to Section 10A(4) the public were invited to make representation to the Council meeting before any part of the meeting is closed, as to whether that part of the meeting should be closed.

Resolved (Clr Findley / Clr Proudfoot)

That the Ordinary Meeting exclude the press and public from the Meeting, pursuant to section 10A(1)(a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, to consider the following items of a confidential nature.

CSA16.1 Request to Reduce Court Cost Order

Discussion in relation to the personal hardship of a resident or ratepayer.10(A)(2)(b)

There is a public interest consideration against disclosure of information as disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to reveal an individual’s personal information or contravene an information protection principle under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 or a Health Privacy Principle under the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002.

CSA16.2 Tenders – Provision of Catering Services for Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre

Commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.10(A)(2)(d)(i)

SA16.6 Milton Showground - Second Croquet Court & Expansion Options

Information that would if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business 10(A)(2)(c)

CARRIED

The meeting moved into confidential the time being 5.50pm.

The meeting moved into open session, the time being 6.22pm.

Report from confidential session

The following resolutions of the Ordinary Meeting, whilst closed to the public, were made public.

CSA16.3 Milton Showground - Second Croquet Court and Expansion Options

HPERM Ref: D16/318625

RESOLVED (Clr Watson / Clr Proudfoot) MIN16.767C

That

2. The resolution remain confidential in accordance with Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993.

CARRIED

Note: This concludes the report from confidential session.

SA16.6 Milton Showground - Second Croquet Court & Expansion Options	HPERM Ref: D16/301979
Note – Declaration of Interest Previously declared: Clr Findley – SA16.6 - Milton Showground - Second Croquet Court & Expansion Options – less than significant non pecuniary interest declaration – will remain in the room and will take part in discussion and vote – She attends the Show every year and takes part.
Note: This item was discussed earlier in the meeting (no decision was made at that time) and in the confidential session (see resolution from the confidential session above).
Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority) That 1. Council accept the construction status update report for a second croquet court at Milton Showground which is consistent with Council’s adopted Milton Showground Plan of Management. 2. Council continue to work with land owners adjacent to Milton Showground to formalise offsite parking options via a licence agreement for future large events at the Showground. 3. Council adopt the Croquet User Agreement (as outlined in this report) and inform both Milton Ulladulla Croquet Club & Milton Showground Management Committee that they are to abide by this agreement.
Note: Clr Findley left the meeting at 6.28pm
RESOLVED (Clr White / Clr Gash) MIN16.768 That: 1. Council continue to work with land owners adjacent to Milton Showground to formalise offsite parking options via a licence agreement for future large events at the Showground 2. Council peg out and temporary fence the area of the proposed second Croquet Court at the Milton Showground for the 2017 Milton Show to trial the potential impact of the development of the croquet court on the show which could also demonstrate the impact on similar large events especially in relation to parking. 3. Staff review the impacts on parking and other aspects of the show and seek formal feedback from the Showground Management Committee, The Milton Show Society and the Milton Ulladulla Croquet Club to include in a report to Council after the 2017 Milton Show 4. The croquet club submit a letter to the show management committee and show society requesting to run an event in March 2017. 5. Council undertake a review of the mangement plan of the Milton Showground. For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Guile, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg Against: Clr Pakes and Clr Watson CARRIED

SA16.8 Kayak/Paddle Launching Facility - Dent St Huskisson

HPERM Ref: D16/290441

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That :

1. Council proceed to quotation for construction of a paddlecraft/kayak launching facility in Currambene Creek at Dent Street Huskisson and associated improvements and

2. Infrastructure upgrades at the end of the Dent Street Road Reserve and landscaping with the connection to the Maritime Museum Reserve be undertaken with remaining funds

RESOLVED (Clr Watson / Clr Proudfoot) MIN16.769

That :

1. Council proceed to quotation for construction of a paddlecraft/kayak launching facility in Currambene Creek at Dent Street Huskisson and associated improvements and

2. Infrastructure upgrades at the end of the Dent Street Road Reserve and landscaping with the connection to the Maritime Museum Reserve be undertaken with remaining funds

3. A report be submitted on the cost of a scoping study for the necessary works to open the fish pond to the creek.

4. If funds are available from the balance of the launching facility project these be allocated toward design of the Lady Denman fish ponds. Council consider allocating funds to the fish pond if this balance is inadequate

CARRIED

Reports

SA16.1 Community Medical Scholarship

HPERM Ref: D16/306961

Recommendation

That Council determine its policy position on the establishment of a Shoalhaven Community Medical Scholarship and if necessary determine what resources will be allocated.

Recommendation (Clr Wells / Clr Gash)

Council reaffirm that the Mayor call a meeting as resolved in August 2016 and any interested Councillors attend.

carried

SA16.2 Fit for the Future Consultation Paper - Joint Organisations: Getting the boundaries right

HPERM Ref: D16/307003

Recommendation

That Council make response to the consultation paper - Joint Organisations: Getting the boundaries right - stating it supports the boundaries encompassing the four councils of Wollongong, Shellharbour, Kiama & Shoalhaven City Council and that Council request the name be changed to Illawarra-Shoalhaven Joint Organisation.

Recommendation (Clr Wells / Clr White)

carried

SA16.3 Request for Tender - Catering Services for Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre

HPERM Ref: D16/292960

Recommendation

That the Committee consider a separate confidential report in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993.

Recommendation (Clr Wells / Clr White)

That the Committee consider a separate confidential report in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993.

carried

SA16.4 Berry District Park - Re-exhibition of Master Plan

HPERM Ref: D16/293099

Item dealt with earlier in the meeting.

SA16.5 Crime Prevention Plan 2016 - 2021

HPERM Ref: D16/297347

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council

a. Endorse the Shoalhaven Crime Prevention Plan 2016-2021

b. Seek registration of the Shoalhaven Crime Prevention Plan 2016-2021 with the NSW Attorney General as a Crime Compact.

RESOLVED (Clr White / Clr Cheyne) MIN16.770

That Council:

1. Endorse the Shoalhaven Crime Prevention Plan 2016-2021

2. Seek registration of the Shoalhaven Crime Prevention Plan 2016-2021 with the NSW Attorney General as a Crime Compact.

CARRIED

SA16.6 Milton Showground - Second Croquet Court & Expansion Options

HPERM Ref: D16/301979

Item dealt with earlier/later in the meeting see MIN16.768

SA16.7 Application for a Special Rate Variation

HPERM Ref: D16/301901

Recommendation

1. That Council authorise staff to notify the IPART of its intention to apply for a Special Rate Variation Application for 2017/18 and 2018/19 at the rate of 23% (11.5% each year) above rate peg over the 2 years in order for Council to financially support the ongoing provision of service levels to the community.

2. That Council proceed with the formal Special Rate Variation Application for 2017/18 and 2018/19 at the rate of 23% (11.5% each year) above rate peg over the 2 years and submit this in line with the timelines set by IPART (expected to be February 2017)

Recommendation (Clr Cheyne / Clr Gash)

That:

3. Council undertake an extensive community engagement program explaining the reason for the rate increase and seek the communities comments.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne and Russ Pigg

Against: Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson and Clr Proudfoot

carried

SA16.8 Kayak/Paddle Launching Facility - Dent St Huskisson

HPERM Ref: D16/290441

Item dealt with earlier/later in the meeting see MIN16.769

SA16.9 Huskisson Public Wharves - Commercial Berthing Encroachment

HPERM Ref: D16/293633

Recommendation

That

1. Council reconfirm its policy of 2013 that the use of Huskisson Public Wharves continue for the broad community benefit of both recreational and commercial users with priority given for the loading and unloading of passengers and goods

2. Council not support the loss of limited public berthing space for the exclusive benefit of adjacent commercial vessels

3. Wharf owners consent not be provided to allow modification of the Huskisson western public wharf by the adjoining commercial vessel owner

Recommendation (Clr Gash / Clr White)

That

2. Council not support the loss of limited public berthing space for the exclusive benefit of adjacent commercial vessels;

3. Wharf owners consent not be provided to allow modification of the Huskisson western public wharf by the adjoining commercial vessel owner;

4. Defer the matter to the Ordinary Council meeting 25 October 2016, subject to holdling an onsite inspection prior to a decision being made.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Watson, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

Against: Clr Guile and Clr Pakes

CARRIED

SA16.10 Local Government Road Safety Program (LGRSP) - 2016/17 - RMS Grant Funds

HPERM Ref: D16/291257

Recommendation

That Council writes to NSW Roads and Maritime Services thanking it for its funding assistance towards the Road Safety Program and accept the grant funding offer of $12,600 from Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) and vote funds as follows:

1. $200 for Shoalhaven Youth Log Book Run

2. $1,200 for Shoalhaven Youth Graduated Licensing Scheme (GLS)

3. $200 for Fatigue

4. $4,800 for Motorcycle Safety

5. $1,200 for Restraints

6. $5,000 for Shoalhaven Cycles Bike Week

7. Speed Monitoring on Local Roads (paid directly by RMS)

Recommendation (Clr Wells / Clr Gash)

That Council writes to the local Members and NSW Roads and Maritime Services and thanking them for its funding assistance towards the Road Safety Program and accept the grant funding offer of $12,600 from Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) and vote funds as follows:

1. $200 for Shoalhaven Youth Log Book Run

2. $1,200 for Shoalhaven Youth Graduated Licensing Scheme (GLS)

3. $200 for Fatigue

4. $4,800 for Motorcycle Safety

5. $1,200 for Restraints

6. $5,000 for Shoalhaven Cycles Bike Week

7. Speed Monitoring on Local Roads (paid directly by RMS)

CARRIED

SA16.11 2015 - 2016 Food Regulation Partnership Activity Report

HPERM Ref: D16/298687

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

Recommended that the Strategy & Assets Committee receive this report for information.

RESOLVED (Clr Gash / Clr Pakes) MIN16.771

That the Strategy & Assets Committee receive this report for information.

CARRIED

SA16.12 Mollymook Beach and Conjola Bushcare Group Action Plans - Review

HPERM Ref: D16/299318

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council adopt the reviewed Mollymook Beach and Conjola Bushcare Group Action Plans (2016).

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr White) MIN16.772

That Council adopt the reviewed Mollymook Beach and Conjola Bushcare Group Action Plans (2016).

CARRIED

SA16.13 Verons Estate Special Rate Variation to Upgrade Roads

HPERM Ref: D16/306078

Item dealt with earlier in the meeting.

Note: A Rescission Motion for SA16.7 - Application for a Special Rate Variation has been received and will be dealt with at the Council meeting 25 October 2016.

There being no further business, the meeting concluded, the time being 8.08pm.

Clr Guile

CHAIRPERSON

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 15 November 2016

Page 39

SA16.16 Ulladulla Harbour Berthing Facility Project Funding

HPERM Ref: D16/350140

Group: General Manager's Group

Section: Economic Development

Purpose / Summary

To accept a grant offer from the Community Development Grant Programme of the Australian Government for the construction of a small berthing facility within Ulladulla Harbour.

Recommendation

That

1. Council accept the offer of a grant from the Community Development Grant Programme operated by the Australian Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development for the sum of $789,742 towards the establishment of a small berthing facility within Ulladulla Harbour and the General Manager be authorised to enter into the necessary contracts to receive the grant

2. Council thank the Member for Gilmore for her assistance in obtaining the grant

3. Council vote the grant monies received for the construction of the berthing facility within Ulladulla Harbour

4. Council thank NSW Crown Lands and the NSW Minister for Primary Industries for making available $400,000 towards the project for deepening of the rock shelf within the Harbour

5. Council staff commence negotiations to prepare an agreement with Crown Lands to secure tenure over the area within Ulladulla Harbour for the purposes of developing the berthing facility; and authorise the General Manager to sign any documentation required to give effect to this resolution.

6. Council vote an additional $400,000 from the Economic Development Reserve towards the construction of the berthing facility

7. Council staff commence preparation of an operations and management agreement and advertise by way of an Expression of Interest for an operator to manage the facility on behalf of Council and a separate report be presented to Council following closure of the EOI

8. Council staff establish a fee structure for berths and seek expressions of interest from persons wishing to “lease” a berth, when available and a separate report be submitted to Council following closure of the EOI

Options

1. The recommendation be accepted as written.

2. An alternative recommendation be proposed.

3. Council reject the grant and not proceed with the project.

Background

For many years the Ulladulla community have been seeking to increase the number of berths within Ulladulla Harbour. In Council’s consideration for improving berthing facilities across the City, three localities were identified – Shoalhaven River, Jervis Bay and Ulladulla as being targets for some form of berthing facility development.

As part of the National Stronger Regions funding program, Council prepared a funding submission based on a preliminary design for a 21 berth berthing facility within Ulladulla Harbour.

The project consists of two components being:

· Removal of the rock shelf and dredging

· Construction of 21 berths via the installation of a floating pontoon catering for craft 8-12m

The proposal has a mix of designated berth categories:

· Visiting/transient seafarers travelling up/down the east coast of Australia (4 berths)

· Vessels under repair/awaiting slippage (1 berth)

· Commercial operations (6 berths)

· Recreational craft (10 berths)

Project Justification

The unspoilt beauty of the South Coast/Shoalhaven coastline and increases in per capita boat ownership combined with inadequate supply of berths and moorings will make Ulladulla Harbour attractive to visiting vessels.

The berths set aside for visiting craft are expected to be heavily utilised. Marine cruising is becoming increasingly more popular and having a safe refuge adjacent to a major town is seen as a positive tourist attraction. These vessels do currently utilise the Harbour but the berthing facilities are not suited to the smaller non-trailerable recreation/commercial vessels but rather the ocean going trawlers.

At Ulladulla Harbour there are two slipways. The larger facility is operated by the Ulladulla

Fishermens Co-Op and the smaller one operated by Shoalhaven City Council under a s355 Management Committee structure . Both of these facilities are well utilised and it is intended to allow one dedicated berth for craft awaiting slipping or undertaking repairs that do not require slipping.

The commercial berths will be for craft seeking to be chartered for game fishing and general charter fishing. It is known that game fishing boats, that operate in Nth Queensland during the August-December game fishing season, move south during the cyclone season (January-May) each year and operate from NSW ports along the coast (eg Narooma, Bermagui..) Providing berthing facilities will open this market in Ulladulla.

To provide financial sustainability to the project, half of the berths will be available for leasing by “locals” for recreational craft. The demand for these will be strong and widespread – Nowra/Wollongong, Canberra, Batemans Bay.

Project Preparation and Enablement

The construction of berths via the installation of pontoons has been dependent on the NSW Crown.

Lands undertaking rock shelf removal and dredging of a part of the Ulladulla Harbour. Lowering of the rock shelf to allow greater depth for vessels is a key component of this project enabling the construction of new berths.

Shoalhaven City Council has been working with NSW Crown Lands since 2009 to obtain funds under the NSW Dredging Program. In August 2015 the NSW Minister for Lands and Water advised Council, through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier - Illawarra and South Coast, that funding had been allocated and that the works would be scheduled for 2016/17.

This announcement and contribution by the NSW Government enables this project, as submitted, to proceed.

Recent studies conducted by Council and NSW Crown Lands include the following.

· Coffey Geotechnics (June 2011) Geotechnical Investigation - Harbour Expansion Works; NSW

· Lands and Property Management Authority Harbour Expansion Works, Ulladulla Working Jetty.

· GHD (March 2012) NSW Department of Primary Industries – report for Ulladulla Harbour Deepening Site Investigation Report.

· Department of Primary Industries – Catchment & Lands (May 2012) Review of Environmental Factors – Proposed Ulladulla Harbour Deepening

· GHD (August 2012) Ulladulla Harbour Deepening – Pontoon Layout Preparation.

The studies listed above demonstrate the collaboration between Shoalhaven City Council and the NSW Crown Lands and their commitment to see this project to fruition. Once the dredging approvals were in place (completed), Council and Crown Lands continued to liaise on design, tenure and operational aspects.

Designs have been undertaken by a consulting engineer in March 2016 and costed for the purposes of advancing the project. These designs will be exhibited and used for stakeholder consultation during the construction approval stage which will take place as soon as funding approval is announced.

Crown Lands have advised that Council will be granted a licence or lease over the area within the Harbour and the adjoining land envelope (for ramps and other bracing structures). This will give Council tenure, a common practice between the Crown and local government, to construct, own and manage the facility.

Council is not in a position to solely fund this asset. The asset operations will be self-funding and this will allow for future refurbishment.

Construction & Operation

Once the funding arrangement has been finalised, Council will proceed to obtain construction approvals by undertaking a Review of Environmental Factors for the structure and in doing so will consult with stakeholders (Ulladulla Fishermens Co-Op, Ulladulla Marine Rescue, Ulladulla Game Fishing Club…), and each are aware of the project.

In parallel with this consultation, tender documentation will be prepared.

Based on the final design and approvals, tenders will be called, assessed by Council and awarded.

Construction and commissioning of the facility will follow.

During the construction timeline, Council will establish operational guidelines and seek Expressions of Interest for the operations of the facility. Following negotiations a facility manager will be appointed as a contractor to administer the operation.

Funding

COSTS	$
Construct berths in Ulladulla Harbour	$1,589,742
Total Costs	$1,589,742
SOURCE OF FUNDS
Community Development Fund – Grant being offered	$789,742
Shoalhaven City Council	$400,000
NSW Government – Dredging Program - commitment	$400,000
Total source of funds	$1,589,724

Details of a consultants cost estimate prepared earlier in 2016 is as below.

The working concept design is included below.

The project is expected to deliver an equivalent 11 full time employment positions with a flow on effect for a further 6 full time equivalent positions.

Community Engagement

The wider Ulladulla community has been aware of the need and intent to create more marine berths within Ulladulla Harbour. The boating community has been agitating for this for over a decade.

The unfolding of the project comprising aspects of the operation and management of the facility will be subject to expressions of interests as will the calling for boat owners/operators to utilise the facility.

Financial Implications

Council, as part of the application, committed to contribute $400,000 (25%). It is proposed that these funds will come from the Economic Development Reserve, accumulated by Council for employment generating initiatives.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 15 November 2016

Page 44

SA16.17 Adoption Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan

HPERM Ref: D16/323734

Group: Corporate & Community Services Group

Section: Recreation Community & Culture

Attachments: 1. Draft Shoalhaven CISP (under separate cover)⇨

2. CISP Submission Summary table ⇩ (under separate cover)

Purpose / Summary

To seek Council approval to finalise and adopt the draft Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan (CISP) with amendments as identified in this report and the attached submissions table.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

1. Council finalise and adopt the draft Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan (including the recommendations in Section 12 and Appendix H) with the following main amendments:-

a. the term “rationalisation” be defined further in the plan and understood as explained in this report

b. tennis court facilities and netball courts to be included in the plan

c. to update provision guidelines for arts, museums and libraries

2. The minor amendments as outlined in the attached submissions table (outlined in Attachment 2) and staff feedback / amendments as identified in the report below also be included in the final version and adopted.

3. Council continue to work with community and sporting groups to develop more accurate information on utilisation rates, times, programs, etc. to better understand future infrastructure needs and facilities that can be utilised for events and marketed

4. Council staff commence exploring ways in which its community infrastructure facilities can be marketed to maximise community knowledge of the facilities and increase utilisation.

5. Council advise those that made submissions related to the draft plan, CCBs, community and sports groups of the resolution of this meeting.

6. Council rescind the Sportsground Strategic Plan which is superseded by the Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan:

7. The Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan inform a review of the Council’s Section 94 Plan.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation.

Implications: This will allow finalisation of the plan and allow staff to focus on delivering the recommendations and have clear strategic directions to work towards.

2. Adopt the recommendation with an amendment.

Implications: This may delay adoption of the plan and delivery of its recommendations. To allow adoption / finalisation of the plan, Council may resolve to remove a particular item from the plan.

3. Not adopt the draft Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan and refer this matter to a councillor workshop to discuss the full implications relating to the recommendations with a further report to council following the workshop.

Implications: This will defer adoption of the Plan and is only suggested if the council requires more detailed discussions at this time.

4. Council not adopt the recommendation and provide direction to staff.

Implications: This will delay adoption of the plan and may potentially affect its strategic directions.

Background

In 2013 Council staff identified the need to develop a strategic plan to guide management of its community facilities and sought quotations for the project. Ross Planning were the successful consultant for the project and commenced community engagement as outlined in the Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan (CISP). The draft CISP can be viewed as Attachment 1 to this report.

In the draft CISP, the communication program undertaken and consultation feedback is outlined in section 6.0 of the draft plan and Appendix C & D. The consultation process sought feedback from all Shoalhaven based Community Consultative Bodies (CCBs), sporting groups, community facility management committees, relevant groups listed on Council’s Community Directory and the general public.

Draft CISP purpose / community infrastructure definition / methodology

The draft CISP guides provision and management of all Council’s community infrastructure for the next 30 years, therefore it is a comprehensive and strategic document.

A definition of what is Community Infrastructure is outlined in the executive summary of the draft CISP.

The methodology used to develop the plan is identified in the section 1.3 and Appendix A of the draft CISP.

Draft CISP objectives

The draft CISP objectives (as outlined in Section 1.1. of the plan – see Attachment 1) are to:

· determine the current and future needs of communities within the Shoalhaven

· identify a hierarchical model for the delivery of community infrastructure that is consistent with community needs, gaps in provision and operational / maintenance levels

· provide an assessment of existing community infrastructure

· assess the current minimum standards for the provision of community infrastructure

· review Council’s recreation and community infrastructure plans, Development Control Plans and Strategic Plans

· provide a revised list and methodology of Section 94 community infrastructure projects

· review and rationalise assets including the integration, co-location, multipurpose and/or decommissioning of facilities

· recommend current and future projects, prioritised by short, medium and long time frames

· review and provide various management and delivery options

· assess the current minimum standards for the provision of community infrastructure”

In achieving these objectives, a key outcome of the draft CISP is to provide where possible “cluster & connection” facilities where co-usage and economies of scale are achieved.

Recent Council resolution

Council at its Strategy and Assets Committee meeting on 12 April 2016 resolved that:

a) Council endorse public exhibition of the Draft Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan for 40 days.

b) Notification of the Draft Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan be advertised in local newspapers, Council website and notification to Community Consultative Bodies and key stakeholders including several Council Advisory Committees as identified during the development of the draft strategic plan.

c) A post exhibition report for the Draft Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan be presented to a future Strategy & Assets Committee meeting.

Draft CISP recommendations

The draft CISP outlines future recommendations for Council staff to prioritise and action. Section 12 of the draft CISP outlines these recommendations which are based on research, consultation and analysis with Council, community and key stakeholders when developing the plan.

Section 12.1 of the draft CISP outlines 39 recommendations related to the whole Shoalhaven Local Government Area and cover the following matters:

· Activation of community infrastructure.

· Diversify income streams of community infrastructure to make user groups become less reliant on Council funding.

· Improve communications internal and external.

· Improve awareness of community infrastructure to encourage greater use and awareness of existing infrastructure.

· Effective and efficient management of community infrastructure.

· Appropriately designed community buildings that provide for multiple users and are financially sustainable.

· Community groups development, education and training.

· Planning for future community infrastructure.

· Undertake relevant monitoring and review to ensure community infrastructure meets the community’s needs and regularly used.

· Development of partnerships and funding opportunities to embellish existing community infrastructure and increase usage.

· Community infrastructure specific.

The above matters would be achieved by a number of actions which for example could be: improved booking systems, promotion (websites, brochures, advertising communication etc.), development of strategies (access, signage sponsorship increased usage etc.), policy reviews, etc.

Section 12.2 of the draft CISP refers to 67 area specific recommendations which are grouped into Council’s planning areas. Appendix H of the draft plan then (visually) maps these recommendations. A summary of these area specific recommendations follows:

· 34 recommendations refer to ‘upgrades’ of community infrastructure (i.e: Edwards Avenue Reserve upgrade to district recreation park, Bicentennial park addition of exercise equipment, Sussex Inlet Community Centre, Ulladulla Sports Park – netball courts & internal paths).

· 3 recommendations refer to ‘master plan’ sites for community infrastructure (i.e. Vincentia Sportsground, Paringa Park, Marriott and Harry Sawkins).

· 3 recommendations refer to ‘decommission’ of community infrastructure (i.e. Davis Park remove toilets, Blackett Park relocate toilets, Sampson Cres remove play equipment develop as dog park).

· 1 recommendation refers to ‘construct’ community infrastructure (i.e. Bay & Basin Community Hub).

· 1 recommendation refers to ‘investigate’ community infrastructure (i.e. develop Milton Community Buildings Study).

· 2 recommendations refer to ‘implement’ community infrastructure outcomes (i.e. Voyager Park Master Plan and Lady Denman Reserve Strategic Business and Master Plan).

· 23 recommendations refer to ‘rationalise’ community infrastructure (i.e. Eldeberry Avenue, Arunta Close and Liberty park remove play equipment at end of life (in line with Council endorsed playground strategy), former Culburra Scout Hall if current occupier leaves, Willunga Crescent Reserve (lacks casual surveillance).

Of these 23 ‘rationalise recommendations’, 5 reference sale of land which this Council report is recommending to remove text related to sale of land and to undertake the rationalise process for relevant sites.

Public exhibition period

The draft CISP was placed on public exhibition from 4 May to 18 June 2016 and a workshop was held on 8th June 2016 for community (i.e. CCBs) and sporting groups. Councillor, internal staff and Shoalhaven Sports Board briefings were undertaken during the exhibition period.

Public Submission Feedback / Amendments

Council received thirty seven (37) submissions as shown in the submissions table (see Attachment 2). The submissions table outlines the feedback received during the exhibition process and provides comment from Ross Planning and Council staff. The submissions table also recommends amendments to the final plan. The main amendments are:

I. The term “rationalisation” be defined further in the plan as explained in this report (see below).

II. Tennis court facilities and netball courts to be included in the plan.

III. The need for more accurate information from sporting users / associations and community facility users to better understand infrastructure needs.

IV. To update provision guidelines for arts, museums and libraries.

V. Remove reference to ‘sell’ any facilities/land and replace with ‘rationalise’ (the rationalisation process is outlined below in this report).

Staff Feedback / Amendments

The following staff feedback, identified the following amendments to the draft Plan.

Social & Infrastructure Planning

· Identified inclusion of tennis, netball and equestrian facilities.

· Identified mapping changes which included the addition of a small number of parks / reserves which were not noted in the plan and removal of some areas that were natural areas with no community infrastructure.

· Changes of classification colours in plan maps that were identified as being incorrect.

· Changes regarding some high, medium, low and ongoing priorities to reflect community needs.

· Deletion of “develop a new contribution for inclusion in the contributions plan for active and passive recreation and community building projects based on the estimated cost of replicating existing standards for each planning area.” (page 70, CISP)

Library

· Identified library categories as incorrect for Sanctuary Point and Milton which are local libraries not district.

· Identified changes to the library categories that will ensure they are correctly reflected in the document.

· Identified changes to the provision standards that will ensure clearer direction and ensure flexibility and alignment with State Libraries into the future.

Arts

· Identified that the provision standards based on population was not an industry supported methodology and the following changes should be incorporated in the plan.

Regional Gallery / Museum is where audiences can be expected to travel between 60-90min for a regional gallery.

District Gallery / Museum is where audiences can be expected to travel between 45-60min for a district gallery.

Local Gallery / Museum is where audiences can be expected to travel up to 30min for a local gallery.

Term rationalisation / further definition

As outlined in the draft CISP, the term rationalisation highlights a need for investigation of community infrastructure in regards to its low use, aging condition, appropriateness of location and potential for future uses, maintenance embellishment, etc. This investigation includes engagement consultation and evaluation of the facility with the community.

Through undertaking public exhibition of the draft CISP, the term rationalisation has been the most prominent item raised in community feedback with concerns raised related to:

· Council is going to get rid of a facility that they use

· Council is going to sell the facility that they use

· Council is changing the status quo and therefore forcing change

In acknowledging and understanding these concerns, the term rationalisation is recommended to be better explained and defined in the plan. The term rationalisation is about a process which exhausts a sequence of options to make community infrastructure relevant, sustainable and affordable for the community. The process involves the following steps:

1. Identification of low use

2. Attempts to increase usage

3. Attempts to minimise maintenance / running costs

4. Identification of nearby infrastructure that can meet existing needs

5. Ongoing consultation with the community

Possible outcomes of the above process would consider the following options:

· Increased marketing and improvements in utilisation

· Alternate use of land i.e. conversion of open space to community building or environmental protection area, developing a multipurpose infrastructure, creating additional uses for a facility.

· Lease of land i.e. to retain land in Council ownership whilst earning rental income for the permissible use of the land.

· Community trustee, giving the halls operation/maintenance and management to a community group (similar to a lease/licence), this would release council from the ongoing financial responsibilities of maintaining the facility.

· Sale of land for commercial or residential purposes (this would require reclassification/rezoning which will always require community consultation and a formal decision of Council).

Should sale of land be considered by the community and/or Council, the income generated from this process is recommended to be reinvested in the relevant network i.e. open space or community buildings and increase the capacity of existing space or community buildings. In addition, it must be acknowledge that not all land identified will have the potential for sale due to site constraints or other infrastructure needs identified (i.e. land may contain utility services).

Resistance to change

Many of the submissions received from exhibition of the draft CISP also have a theme of resistance to any change and this is a normal response. In recognition of this point, Council must understand the need to include the community in its decision making process and to ensure that any change is discussed, understood and potentially aligned with any future community needs.

The draft plan identifies changes for future community infrastructure supply/provision (which could be co-location, multipurpose use, etc.) and prior to any of these changes being undertaken there will be community consultation and evaluation to identify clear and common objectives to move forward.

Some of the key themes emerging from the submission feedback was the communities desire to have quality facilities rather than quantity and the preparedness to travel 30 minutes or more for quality facilities.

Section 94 Plan

The final CISP will be a valuable tool in undertaking future reviews of Council’s Section 94 Plan and to identify future community infrastructure needs and potentially assist with the re-direction of associated Section 94 funds. It is anticipate that amendments to the current Section 94 Pan for community infrastructure will be undertaken after finalisation of the CISP. In commissioning this strategic plan a key objective was to use the information to review the Section 94 Plan with regard to Active and Passive Open Space and Community Facilities.

Strategies / plans superseded by CISP

This document will supersede Councils current Sportsground Strategic Plan.

Community Engagement

Development of the draft CISP, and subsequent public exhibition of the draft plan, has involved significant and extensive community involvement which is outlined in the following sections of the plan (see Attachment 1):

· Program of engagement identified in Appendix C

· Consultation feedback identified in Section 6.0

· Consultation notes identified in Appendix D

Once finalised the CISP will provide strategic direction regarding delivery and management of community infrastructure into the future. The plan is recommended to be reviewed every 5 years to ensure that it remains relevant and reflects our community needs.

Policy Implications

The CISP will be the overarching strategic document to guide Council’s Social and Infrastructure Planning and therefore will assist in associated policy development for Council.

Financial Implications

At its Ordinary Meeting held on 28 October 2014, Council considered a financial sustainability report. This report highlighted Council’s current financial position, upcoming future financial demands, and the financial advantages of asset rationalisation. Rationalisation of community infrastructure is also consistent with achieving Council’s Fit for the Future outcomes.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 15 November 2016

Page 50

SA16.18 Paringa Park - Non motorised Water Sports Hub - Draft Master Plan

HPERM Ref: D16/329306

Group: Corporate & Community Services Group

Section: Recreation Community & Culture

Attachments: 1. Draft Paringa Park non motorised water sports master plan October 2016 ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To inform Council of the progress to date on the development of a master plan to provide a non-motorised water sports hub in Paringa Park and seek endorsement to publicly exhibit the draft plan.

To inform Council of the need to consider funding the project to advance detailed design so it can be ‘shovel ready’ for grant funding / project delivery in the future.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

1. Council endorse public exhibition of the draft master plan for a non-motorised water sports hub in Paringa Park for a period of 28 days.

2. Council continue to work with Nowra Sea Scouts, Nowra Community Sailing Club, Nowra Water Dragons, Nowra Rowing Club and other relevant stakeholders during and after the exhibition period to engage with the broader community on this initiative.

3. Council receive a further report after public exhibition of the draft master plan for a non-motorised water sports hub in Paringa Park.

4. Council consider an allocation of $80,000 in the 2017/18 budget to undertake the detailed design of the key elements of the master plan for a non-motorised water sports hub in Paringa Park in order that the project is shovel ready for possible grant applications.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation

Implications: This will allow the community the opportunity to comment on the draft plan and Council to proceed to detail design so that funding (including grants) can be sourced for the delivery of the project.

2. Adopt the recommendation with an amendment.

Implications: This may delay the process and the delivery of the project.

3. Council not adopt the recommendation and provide direction to staff

Implications: This may delay the project.

Background

Shoalhaven River non-motorised water craft

A number of non-motorised water craft user groups currently access the Shoalhaven River (at Nowra) and utilise existing areas such as Paringa Park and Riverside Park. These users have multiple storage facilities to facilitate their water sport needs and have common needs (i.e. close water access, separation from motor craft, etc.).

To facilitate a better and consolidated facility for these groups Council in conjunction with these users has been investigating the development of a multipurpose storage building in close proximity to the river. In addition the provision of consolidated facilities would include supporting facilities such as pontoons, ramps, access path, parking, lighting etc.

To coordinate site planning and best utilisation of resources, a draft master plan has been prepared to ensure Paringa Park can cater to a wide range of user groups and becomes a key recreational and sporting hub on the river.

Draft Master Plan preparation

Council in conjunction with the key users has developed a draft master plan for Paringa Park to become a non-motorised water sports hub for users of the Shoalhaven River. Through developing the draft plan Council staff have consulted with the following main non-motorised water sporting groups:

· Nowra Sea Scouts

· Nowra Sailing Club

· Nowra Water Dragons

· Nowra Rowing Club

In follow up to Council staff meeting with the above groups, a list of their ‘needs’, both essential and desirable, have been considered, and where appropriate have been incorporated into the draft plan.

Presentations to all above user groups outlining the initial master plan were made on 13 April 2016 and in December 2015. In response to these presentations, there is now general agreement from these users with the draft master plan (see Attachment 1).

The user groups are working together to seek avenues for grant funding to implement the project. To date there is a high level of support and collaboration between the various user groups and an effective working relationship with Council making this a positive project.

Paringa Park also has significant site constraints related to site flooding and a drainage pipe transecting the park from the above street to the river which Council has sought engineering advice. In addition structural assessment of the existing Scouts building has been taken into consideration when developing the draft plan.

Councillor Briefing

A Councillor Briefing was held in December 2015 to discuss the future use of the Nowra Sailing Club which included the option of using Paringa Park. This briefing identified that planning for the riverfront precinct is underway at Paringa Park.

Related Council Recommendation

Council at its Ordinary Council meeting of 24 May 2016 considered a report related to ‘Future use Nowra Sailing Club (MIN16.392) and the report recommended that Council:

a) Considers allocating $60,000 in the 2016/17 Operations Plan budget to undertake a detailed design of the Paringa Park Master Plan, and

b) A decision on the ‘Nowra Sailing Club’ building be deferred pending detailed design of the precinct and consideration, after public consultation, of representation of its historic values.

In relation to (1) of the resolution of Council no funds were allocated to proceed to detail design.

Community Engagement

Council has been in ongoing consultation with the current and potential user groups of the Paringa Park in developing a draft master plan for the site. Initially this process has involved consulting stakeholders with their various future needs and requirements to be considered in the draft plan.

The collaboration between the user groups has indicated a strong desire to progress this project, and to work in partnership to apply for grant funding to bring this project to fruition.

The next stage of this project is to seek broader community consultation with a public exhibition of 28 days.

Financial Implications

To continue advancement of the detailed design so the project can be shovel ready for grant funding / project delivery in the future requires consideration to allocate $80,000 in the 2017/18 financial year. This amount has been increased $20,000 from the May 2016 Council resolution (above) to include design of the pontoon area and foreshore construction which was not included in the previous design estimate.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 15 November 2016

Page 73

SA16.24 Electric Vehicle Charging Points

HPERM Ref: D16/290510

Group: Assets & Works Group

Section: Asset Management

Purpose / Summary

To report on the installation of electric car charging points within Shoalhaven City.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That community engagement be undertaken on the installation of electric vehicle charging points in central business districts and a report be provided to Council on demand and business interest

Options

1. Undertake community engagement to determine the demand for charging points through a survey and the business chambers (Recommended)

Implications: This would provide information to Council in relation to demand on charging points, interest from Business chambers in supporting the Council iniative and formulate a strategy for the installation of charging points. This may also form the basis of support for funding applications.

2. Receive the report for information.

Implications: The opportunity to install a charger and support and promote electric vehicles is deferred until funding is available.

3. Install a fast charger (Level 3) in a CBD and request funding from State and Federal governments; Endeavour Energy; and electric car manufacturers. (Not recommended)

Implications: It would provide an opportunity to promote the City as a supporter of electric vehicles use and renewable energy. This facility is currently not funded and with demand not defined and consultation is still to identify preferred locations and any displaced parking space(s).

4. Install a slow charger (Level 2) in a CBD and fund the installation from existing budgets. (Not recommended)

Implications: It would provide an opportunity to promote the City as a supporter of electric vehicles use and renewable energy. This facility would need to be funded and with demand not defined and consultation is still to identify preferred locations and any displaced parking space(s).

Background

Council resolved at its meeting on 26 July 2016 (Minute MIN16.603) that:

The General Manager report back to Council on how Council can promote the installation of electric vehicle charging points throughout the city, particularly in its major carparks in town centres or near visitor centres / libraries. A costing be provided to Council and provision be made to fund the project from this current year’s budget or the following year. The report should also seek to have 3rd party providers encouraged to include such infrastructure should they abut public open spaces within our CBD. The charging points should be accompanied by appropriately marked parking spaces that prioritise electric vehicles.

The challenge in the installation of electric vehicle charging points is the initial cost of the infrastructure required to provide a convenient charging duration. Fast chargers (Level 3 Commercial DC chargers) are necessary in locations such as Nowra CBD as they can recharge batteries generally within 30 minutes. An alternative is Level 2 commercial chargers which extend the recharging duration to 4-6 hours, which typically would not suit most users.

However, fast chargers have been installed in other local government areas by:

· direct approach from an electric car manufacturer, as is the case with Goulburn-Mulwaree Council,

· an approach by an electricity supplier, as is the case in Byron Bay or

· State or Federal government funding such as the Victorian Department of Transport for Moreland City Council

Following a fast charger installation there are opportunities to promote the facility and the City as a leader in renewable energy and often councils and businesses provide free charging to establish community interest.

The average cost to install a fast charger is about $55,000. This amount could increase depending on site-specific requirements. Typically, the main ‘hardware’ costs are associated with the charger and appurtenances; the size of an electrical transformer, if necessary; and the length of electrical cabling to the site. Associated computer-controlled systems; software and maintenance agreements are also cost components. This type of charger may be of interest in CBD areas for commuters or shoppers. However prior to investing in this infrastructure it would be appropriate for Council to consult with business chambers and undertake an online survey to determine support and demand for the initiative.

The cost to install a dual port Level 2 charger (4-6 hour charging duration) is about $20,000 again depending on site requirements. This type of charger may be installed at all-day parking areas or for businesses with fleet vehicles which can be parked for this charging duration. However, as the majority of all-day parking is used by commuters, studies have shown that about 90% of electric car owners will recharge their batteries at home. Consequently, installing Level 2 chargers in public areas is unlikely to be effective.

Community Engagement

Option 3, above, could form the basis for community engagement.

Current locations of charging facilities within Shoalhaven City area are related to commercial businesses such as those in Meroo Meadow and Mollymook. Owners of Electric Vehicles charge vehicles at home, but this limits the range of vehicle use.

Policy Implications

Council currently has not included electric charging points and associated parking in a strategy or development control plan to encourage developers or ‘3^rd party providers’ to install charging points. However as advised there are a number of businesses that have invested in charging points. In CBD areas, developers provide the required number of parking spaces in conjunction with their developments, changes would be required to planning documents to include either additional ‘charging point’ parking or to reduce the number of regular parking spaces and substitute ones with charging points. Consultation with the businesses is key to the success of initiatives such as the installation of electric charging points.

Financial Implications

The cost of installing charging points has not been included in the 2016/17 Operational Plan budget and no other funding source has yet been recognised. The community engagement aspect can be undertaken under existing resources and funding can be considered for the installations when the report on demand and interest returns to Council.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 15 November 2016

Page 81

SA16.27 Proposed Leasing of 81 Osborne Street Nowra

HPERM Ref: D16/320554

Group: Assets & Works Group

Section: Business & Property

Attachments: 1. Formal Proposal - Shoalhaven Neighbourhood Services (under separate cover)⇨

2. Formal Proposal - Stepping Stones Pre-School (under separate cover)⇨

3. Shoalhaven Neighbourhood Services - letters of support (under separate cover)⇨

Purpose / Summary

To seek approval to lease 81 Osborne Street, Nowra to Stepping Stones Preschool for a term of 5 years with a 5 year option at a commencing rental of $24,225.00 per annum + GST.

Recommendation

1. That Council enter into a lease agreement with Stepping Stones Preschool for the premises at 81 Osborne Street, Nowra for a period of 5 years with a 5 year option at an initial annual rent of $25,225.00 + GST.

2. That the General Manager be authorised to finalise the lease terms that may or may not yet be determined and to sign any documentation necessary to give effect to this Resolution.

Options

1. Adopt the Recommendation.

Implications: This will lead to the execution of an agreement to occupy the premises at 81 Osborne Street, Nowra which will provide child care places, generate additional income and keep the vacancy period to a minimum. Shoalhaven Neighbourhood Services will continue to occupy the current Council buildings as they have since 1983 but will be dissapointed.

2. Not adopt the Recommendation and resolve to enter into a lease agreement with Shoalhaven Neighbourhood Services (SNS) for a subsidised rental (90.91%).

Implications: The opportunity for additional child care spaces is not realised and Council will not recover a commercial rent for the premises.

3. Provide further direction to staff and propose an alternative.

Implications: Council will not receive rental income and will continue to be responsible for required maintenance during the time that the building remains vacant.

Background

The Council owned property at 81 Osborne Street, Nowra has two (2) buildings on it: Jumbunna runs a community based child care centre from one building and the other has been vacant since June 2015 having previously been occupied by Noah’s Ark, also a child care service provider.

Council, in late 2015 sought Expressions of Interest to lease the vacant building and subsequently resolved on 8 December 2015 to enter into a commercial lease of the premises with Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District at a commencing rental of $24,225 per annum.

In June 2016 Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District withdrew their application to lease the premises.

81 Osborne Street Nowra is classified Operational and may attract a commercial rental and these opportunities in Council buildings are limited.

Shoalhaven Neighbourhood Services

Shoalhaven Neighbourhood Services (SNS) has expressed an interest in the subject premises and had an initial inspection in August 2016.

SNS has occupied 134 Kinghorne Street Nowra since 1983 and also occupies premises at 2/80 Park Road, Nowra (both owned by Council). SNS receives a discount of 90.91% off the market rent for both properties

SNS is a strong community service that delivers a variety of programs to a large community based clientele and has made representations repeatedly to Council about a preference to move into larger premises.

Relocating SNS to the Osborne Street premises will result in increased opportunities for key stakeholders and the great services they offer, to provide additional meeting rooms for hire, kitchen facilities and ease of access to the users of their facilities.

SNS has confirmed that it will vacate the premises at 134 Kinghorne St Nowra if it is able to secure an agreement for the Osborne Street premises. However, the Kinghorne Street property is classified as Community land which restricts Council’s ability to obtain a commercial tenant for the premises.

SNS currently occupy two Council buildings at reduced rental amounts as follows:

1. 2/80 Park Road Nowra @ $784.00 per annum - Operational (Rental Valuation $25,000)

2. 134 Kinghorne Street Nowra @ $2279.35 per annum - Community (Rental Valuation $28,000)

Stepping Stones Preschool

On 14 September 2016, Mrs Rose Donaldson (Stepping Stones Preschool) contacted Council for the purpose of expressing an interest in leasing the Osborne Street premises for use as a preschool. As outlined above this building was previously used by Noahs Ark Child Care Centre, so is considered suitable for this purpose.

Mrs Donaldson has over 20 years experience in this field operating both in Australia and Europe and holds a Diploma in Early Childhood and Education.

Stepping Stones Preschool would provide approximately 22 new places for child care in the Shoalhaven, would be open from 8am – 5pm Monday to Friday and employ 3 staff.

Given the interest being shown in the premises, SNS and Mrs Donaldson were asked to submit formal proposals to lease the property and were given a deadline of 7 October 2016 to do so.

Below are the rental terms offered by each party:

Name

Rent Amount

Responsibilities

Lease Term

Lease Type

Total Income over lease Term (approx)

SNS

$2279.35

(90.91% Subsidy)

All outgoings and maintenance

5 years

Community

$14,378.42

Stepping Stones Preschool

$24,225.00

(Market)

All outgoings and maintenance

5 years

Commercial

$128,613.81

In the circumstances, Stepping Stones Preschool is the recommended tenant it will provide a service which is needed in the Shoalhaven and it is offering to pay a commercial rental. Preschools within the Shoalhaven have extensive waiting periods and the creation of twenty two (22) new placements will ease the burden and benefit local families.

SNS is a highly regarded community based organisation and it currently occupies Council premises. It has a substantial subsidy for these premises which is supported by Council to assist in it continuing their great work.

A copy of both formal submissions are attached for further reference (SNS asked that its submission be made available to all councillors) (refer Attachments 1 & 2).

Community Engagement

Council advertised for Expressions of Interest in 2015 with an application being accepted. All other applicants who made a submission at that time subsequently withdrew their interest. Due to the withdrawal from the EOI process by the approved applicant Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District , the property has again become available but further consultation is not considered warranted in this case. Council have provided an opportunity for both proponents to provide offers to Council.

Financial Implications

The proposal to secure a commercial tenant for these premises means that Council will generate substantial income over the life of the agreement and that the tenant will be required to accept responsibility for all outgoings. Council will continue to be responsible for structural maintenance only. The tenant will be responsible for all general maintenance as well as fit out costs.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 15 November 2016

Page 84

SA16.28 Proposed Road Closure of Part of Piscator Ave Currarong and sale to William & Elaine McLaughlin and consolidation with Lot 3 DP700672

HPERM Ref: D16/332622

Group: Assets & Works Group

Section: Business & Property

Attachments: 1. Area Map ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To obtain a resolution of Council to close and sell part of Piscator Avenue, Currarong to the adjoining owners William and Elaine McLaughlin.

Recommendation

That:

1. Council resolves to make an application to the Minister administering the Roads Act 1993, for the part of Piscator Avenue, Currarong shown by hatching on Attachment “1” to be closed and sold to the owners of the adjoining Lot 3 DP700672, William and Elaine McLaughlin.

2. Upon closure, the land within the closed road is to be consolidated with the adjoining land being Lot 3 DP700672;

3. Authority be granted to affix the Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven to any documents requiring to be sealed and that the General Manager be authorised to sign any documents necessary to give effect to this resolution;

4. Council authorise the sale of the closed road to William and Elaine McLaughlin for $18,000 (plus GST if applicable); and

5. All costs associated with the road closure are to be met by William and Elaine McLaughlin.

Options

1. Resolve as recommendation.

Implications: The applicant will be able to proceed with the lodgement of a DA application to physically redevelop the land into a public space with improvements.

2. Not resolve as recommended.

Implications: The applicant will not be able to proceed with the lodgement of a DA application to redevelop the land for a public space and maintenance of the space will remain with Council.

3. Provide further direction to staff and propose an alternative.

Background

Details

Council has received an application to close and purchase that part of Piscator Avenue, Currarong shown hatched on Attachment “1” from William & Elaine McLaughlin, the owners of the adjoining land, being Lot 3 DP700672. Representations were made by the community and later by shop owners for Council to improve the area adjacent to the Currarong shops in 2015. Shop owners advised they were willing to assist but with limited tenure they were not able to justify an investment.

In 1982, Council resolved (MIN82.3469) that the land the subject of this report be dedicated as public road when Council considered an application for development consent related to commercial premises on the adjoining land. It is not clear from Council records why this land was required for road purposes; it is not required for road now or is it ever likely to be required for road. The plan for the acquisition for road widening purposes was registered on 6 January 1984.

The Roads Act 1993 provides that the Minister may close a public road provided that Council agrees to such closure (Section 34) and upon successful closure of the road the land remains vested in Council (Section 38).

Key Issues

The part of Piscator Avenue shown by hatching on Attachment “1” is no longer required for road and or road widening and can be closed under the Roads Act 1993 and sold to the owner of the adjoining land.

The proposal to close this section of road has been considered by the various departments of Council and no objection to the closure has been raised.

There is no objection to the closure from any of the service authorities including Endeavour Energy, Jemena Asset Management (Gas) and Telstra.

The market value of the land within the area of the road proposed to be closed has been assessed by Consultant Valuers Walsh & Monaghan at $23,000 on the basis of the land being consolidated with the adjoining land.

The sale price of $18,000 (plus GST if applicable) has been negotiated subject to Council approval. It represents an acceptable discount to the market value detailed above, based on the land being developed for a public space as discussed below.

The sale price has been negotiated in good faith and is recommended to Council in recognition of the unique situation where the land is the area of road proposed to be closed can only be purchased by the adjoining owners for consolidation with their land.

Council staff also acknowledge the applicants’ intentions to make use of the space by creating a public plaza, with casual seating for up to 20 people, which is to be designed and constructed to add visual interest as well as improving the amenity for local residents and visitors.

The current presentation and maintenance of this space rests with the Council and on finalisation of this matter, all responsibility will be transferred to the purchasers.

Community Engagement

The road closure process required public notification and advertising calling for submissions on the merits of the proposal by potentially affected landowners. This has been completed with the submission period closing on 16 September 2016, during this time no submissions or objections were received.

Financial Implications

The subject area to be closed is no longer required for road.

If the road is closed and sold to the adjoining owner Council will receive compensation in the amount of $18,000 excluding GST and all costs associated with this matter are to be met by the owner of the adjoining land being Mr & Mrs McLaughlin. The $18,000 in sale proceeds will then be transferred to an appropriate reserve for use on future road projects in accordance with Section 43 of the Roads Act 1993.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 15 November 2016

Page 90

SA16.30 Supplementary Report - requirement for a certified Coastal Zone Management Plan or Coastal Management Program

HPERM Ref: D16/340836

Group: Planning & Development Services Group

Section: Environmental Services

Attachments: 1. Report to Ordinary Meeting of Council July 2016 ⇩

2. Resolution of Council - public exhibition of CZMP and seek exemption ⇩

3. Report to Strategy & Assets Committee 2016 - requirement for certified CZMP or CMP ⇩

4. Resolution of Council to seek exemption ⇩

5. Letter to Minister seeking exemption ⇩

6. Response from OEH - letter to Minister of Planning ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To update Council on progress to seek an exemption from the Minister for the requirement to have a certified coastal zone management plan or coastal management program.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That in accordance with the Committee’s delegated authority from Council, the Committee

1. Submit Council’s draft 2012 Coast Zone Management Plan and adopted estuary management plans to the Minister for Planning, The Hon Rob Stokes MP, for certification, to ensure Council is eligible to apply for future grant funding for works under the NSW Government’s coast and estuary program, while Council prepares a new Coastal Management Program.

Options

1. As recommended.

Implications: This will ensure that Council is eligible to apply for future grant funding under the state Government’s coast and estuary program while it is preparing a coastal management program (CMP).

2. Council not apply to the Minister to certify Council’s draft Coast Zone Management Plan (CZMP).

Implications: Council will not be eligible to apply for grant funding under the State Government’s coast and estuary grant program in future years until it has a certified CZMP or CMP. Development and certification of a CMP will take longer than 12 months as required Council’s resolution in August 2016, as the draft Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) and associated maps have not been released for public comment. The SEPP will set the planning requirements for Council in managing the coastal zone. The draft coastal management manual, which sets out the requirements for a CMP, is still in draft form and there is no advice to date as to when it will be finalised. Parts of the coastal management manual toolkit, which contains the technical information and methodologies on how to prepare the studies and assessments required as part of a CMP have not been released or are still in draft form.

3. Council propose an alternative option

Implications: Unknown.

Background

A report to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 26 July 2016 (attachment 1) and a report to the Strategy & Assets Committee on 9 August 2016 (attachment 3), explained that Councils are now only eligible to apply for funding under the State Government’s coast and estuary program, if they have a certified coastal zone management plan (CZMP) or coastal management program (CMP) or have lodged a CZMP or CMP with the Minister seeking certification, before grant applications closed on 18^th August 2016.

This meant that unless Council had a certified CZMP or CMP Council was not eligible to apply for funding to implement works which include:

· management and stabilisation of dune systems

· erosion reduction management and beach nourishment

· actions to reduce future risk from coastal hazards

· works to improve natural resilience to potential impacts from coastal hazards

· actions to reduce the risk to public assets

· actions to reduce the liability in relation to coastal natural disasters

· community/public education programs

· reducing and formalising beach access points to reduce environmental damage

· dredging for environmental benefit

· monitoring of estuary and coastal environments

· works to protect Aboriginal heritage

· stormwater management

· management of salinity and acid sulphate soils

· habitat restoration and conservation

Council’s draft 2012 CZMP and adopted estuary management plans have guided the implementation of Council’s coast and estuary programs.

Implementation of Council’s coast and estuary programs have always relied heavily upon State Government funding and technical support. This funding is critical to delivery of our work programs which include replacement and maintenance of foreshore (erosion) protection structures, beach access ways, fishing platforms, acid sulphate soil management, water quality reporting and improvements and expert studies on coastal process, hazard, management and restoration assessments. This year, coastal erosion remediation works following damages caused by the 2016 east coast low storm event, form the majority of the work program. Council has allocated $500,000 this financial year to progress and implement works.

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 26 July 2016, Council resolved to:

a) Advertise the outstanding issues in the plan with the view to reporting back to Council as soon as possible on the potential to adopt the draft plan;

b) Seek urgent representation through Offices of the Parliamentary Secretary of Illawarra and the Hon Shelley Hancock, to the Minister to seek an exemption from the requirement of a certified CZMP to qualify for funding in the first round;

c) Prepare to seek certification and apply for funding with a further report to the Strategy and Assets Committee in August 2016 on progress of this matter.

The 2012 draft CZMP was developed through extensive community consultation and then placed on public exhibition in 2012. However, it was not adopted at that time because the NSW Government announced the coastal legislation reforms at the time of the public exhibition. These reforms are still in progress. The Coastal Management Act 2016 was assented on 7 June 2016, but will not commence until after public consultation on the draft SEPP. The draft SEPP and maps have not been released for public comment. The proposed Coastal Management SEPP will form part of the broader land-use planning framework in NSW. It will be a key environmental planning instrument for land-use planning in the coastal zone, and will deliver the statutory management objectives for each of the four coastal management areas that make up the coastal zone.

The Coastal Management Act 2016 will not commence until after public consultation on the draft SEPP. When it commences, the new Act will replace the current Coastal Protection Act 1979. At the time of writing this report, it is not known when the draft SEPP will be placed on public exhibition and when the Coastal Protection Act will be repealed. More information may be released at the upcoming NSW Coastal Conference on 11^th November when the Minister for Planning is scheduled to attend.

For further information about these reforms visit the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH) website at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/coasts/coastreforms.htm

The purpose of a coastal management program is to set the long-term strategy for the co-ordinated management of land within the coastal zone with a focus on achieving the objects of the Coastal Management Act.

The draft 2012 CZMP was developed in accordance with the current Coastal Protection Act 1979 and guidelines for the preparation of CZMP’s with technical support and guidance from OEH. Section 55I of this Act allows for the amendment, in whole or in part, of a CZMP.

The new Act requires that a CMP be prepared in accordance the coastal management manual. This manual is still in draft form. The coastal management manual toolkit, which sets out the technical requirements and methodologies for completing the assessments and studies required as part of the CMP, are in draft form or have yet to be released for comment. Therefore, without these documents being completed Council is not in a position to be able to commence preparation of a CMP.

Under the transitional provisions of the new Act, a draft CZMP that is lodged with the Minister prior to the repeal of the Coastal Protection Act and is certified, is considered as a CMP under the new Act until December 2021. Council may at any time, amend in whole or in part, or replace its certified CMP under section 18 of the new Act. A certified CZMP can also be amended, in whole or part, under the existing Act.

Implementation of Council’s July 2016 resolution

The draft 2012 CZMP and studies completed since 2012, see attachment 2, were placed on public exhibition from 28 July 2016 to 8 August 2016. Council received 19 submissions, 13 submissions were clearly opposed to Council adopting the draft CZMP or submitting it to the Minister. Only 2 submission supported the submission of the draft CZMP to the Minister and 4 submissions raised comments and concerns on the content of the plan and asked for some sections to be revised or included and additional areas considered.

A summary of the submissions are shown below.

Community Group Submissions:

· Currarong Progress Association - support document being forwarded to the Minister.

· Collingwood Beach Progress Association - Council cannot adopt the draft CZMP. technial flaws, SLR, Bruun rule.

· Save Collingwood Beach - congratulates Council for its intention to submit plan.

· Lake Wollumboola Protection Association - we have concerns that should be considered and addressed prior to submission of the Plan for approval and funding, particularly given the overall policy direction of the new Coastal Zone Management Act passed in May 2016.

· Birdlife Sholahaven – representation of birdlife inadequate and not recognised in the community engagement. Suggested changes.

· Safe Navigation Action Group - need to inlcude Sussex Inlet and St Geroge Basin

Individual submissions:

· Strongly opposed to Council adopting the draft CZMP.

· Council must not adopt the draft CZMP. Only 10 days for comments extensive information.

· Opposed to adopting the CZMP. staff incompetent, consultant incompetent, timeframe to provide comments too short

· Opposed to adopting the CZMP. issue with SLR, technical falws , need a strategic approach

· I strongly object to Shoalhaven City Council adopting the draft Coastal Zone Management Plan. Technical flaw, SLR not up to date.

· The draft Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) Shoalhaven City Council (SCC) intends to submit to the NSW State Government is a deeply flawed document which disadvantages citizens of the Shoalhaven who own beachfront property. technial flaws, SLR, Bruun rule

· Do not support the Draft Shoalhaven Coastal Zone Management Plan and am concerned at Council’s ability to adopt and then readopt positions at whim.

· Better plan is needed, flows with SMEc report, SLR assumptions

· Concerned, Bruun rule, SLR. The basic & fundamental flaws presented by Council where Council is still applying the invalid/superseded Bruun Rule for the calculation of Collingwood Beach erosion and future sea levels.

· Strongly object to the Shoalhaven City Council view in regards to the Draft Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP).

· Document too long and fails to recognise provisions of the Community Engagement Policy. Suggested changes.

· Inadequate consultation-SLR

· Need to include Hyams Beach

Representations were made through Offices of the Parliamentary Secretary of Illawarra and the Hon Shelley Hancock, to the Minister to seek an exemption from the requirement of a certified CZMP to qualify for funding. A meeting with the Minister was also sought.

Four grant funding applications were prepared in accordance with grant application guidelines.

A progress report was prepared for Council’s Strategy and Assets Committee meeting in August (refer to attachment 3)

At the meeting of the Strategy and Assets Committee on 9 August 2016, the Committee (MIN16.622 – refer to attachment 4) resolved that in accordance with the Committee’s delegated authority from Council, the Committee:

a) Continue to seek representation to the Minister to seek an exemption from the requirement of a certified CZMP to qualify for funding in the first round.

b) Endorse the development of a new Coastal Management Program in line with the new Coastal Management Act, such new program to include the revision of relevant studies and strategies to address Council’s adopted sea level projections. In addition, the public exhibition and subsequent resolution of coastal erosion policy matters, as well as other issues raised by the community be resolved in 12 months.

Implementation of Council’s August 2016 resolution

An exemption from the Minister was sought and grant applications were lodged, see attachment 5.

Council’s General Manager also sought a meeting with the Minister to discuss Council’s request for exemption. The meeting request was denied as there was a clear directive that no funding would be provided without a certified CZMP and no exemptions would be allowed.

No exemption has been granted.

At a recent meeting with the Member for South Coast, The Hon. Shelley Hancock MP, it was confirmed that the Government is very unlikely to change its position that a certified CZMP or CMP is required for eligibility to grant funding.

The General Manager also wrote to the NSW Premier regarding financial implications for Council following natural disaster events. Mr Kevin Anderson MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Premier and for Regional Roads and Rail responded on behalf of the Premier and indicated that Council should seek funding through the coast and estuary grant program for erosion restoration works.

The General Manager also wrote to the Hon Niall Blair MLC, Mister for Primary Industries and Minister for Lands and Water, seeking assistance to fund priority foreshore restoration works as a result of the east coast low storm events. The Deputy Director General, Department of Industry – Lands, Alison Stone, replied on behalf of the Minister, advising that Council could apply for funding in 2017 through the Public Reserves Management Funding (PRMF) Program. However, Council was advised that this funding was very competitive with more than 840 applications received for the 2016/17 funding round – “a total value of over 336 per cent of the available funds”.

Representations were also made to NSW Road and Maritime Services (RMS), seeking financial contribution to the erosion restoration works adjacent to the Princes Highway at Ulladulla Harbour. No financial contribution was provided.

Advice from NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH)

The General Manager wrote to the Minister for Planning concerning correspondence Council received from Mr George Kruk regarding the certification of Council’s draft CZMP. The letter was referred to OEH to respond. A copy of the letter to Council and Mr George Kruk are contained in attachment 6.

In its letter OEH advised Council, that “as Shoalhaven City Council has worked closely with OEH and its community in drafting its CZMP, it is timely to reiterate prior advice by OEH and the Minister of Planning that Council is well placed to submit its draft CZMP to the Minister for certification. This would ensure that Council can apply for grant funding to implement actions from the CZMP while it prepares its Coastal Management Program (CMP). At present OEH and Council staff estimate that a CMP is likely to take more than a year to complete and certify.”

As outlined above, advice from government agencies confirms that the NSW Government’s coast and estuary grant program is the main source of financial funding for the implementation of works.

Community Engagement

The Draft 2012 Shoalhaven Coastal Zone Management Plan was on public exhibition from 10 October 2012 to 7 December 2012. Further public exhibition of the draft CZMP occurred from 28 July 2016 to 8 August 2016.

Council’s draft CZMP and adopted estuary management plans guide implementation of Council’s coast and estuary programs. The implementation of the programs is overseen by Council’s Natural Resources and Floodplain Committee and the Council. Targeted community consultation prior to the implementation of individual projects identified within the plans is carried out.

Policy Implications

Timing to lodge CZMP for certification

Council must lodge its draft CZMP to the Minister for certification prior to the repeal of the existing Coastal Protection Act. Previous advice from OEH was that Councils would only have until December 2016 to do this. However, as the draft SEPP is still to be placed on public exhibition prior to the commencement of the new Act, this deadline may be extended.

Coastal hazard assessment:

If certified, the CZMP could be amended with the revised coastal hazard assessment that is currently being undertaken to incorporate Council’s seal level rise policy, as required by Council resolution (MIN14.750).

Council can amend the certified CZMP under the provisions of section 55I of the existing Coastal Protection Act or section 18 of the new Coastal Management Act, as outlined above.

Once the CZMP is amended, Council can then amend the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (SDCP) 2014 if necessary to reflect the reviewed assessment.

Financial Implications

Once Council has a certified CZMP or CMP it is eligible to apply for state government coast and estuary funding. The government funds matching contributions (50:50). Without this funding Council would need to budget for all of the costs of the coast and estuary program or decide which parts of the program not to deliver.

Council can apply for funding from OEH to convert an existing CZMP to a CMP. Council can apply for this funding at any time during this financial year. $40,000 of Council’s 2016/17 coastal budget allocation could be allocated to progressing a CMP. However, as previously discussed, the relevant guiding coastal management SEPP, manual and toolkit which a CMP must comply with, are yet to be finalised.

The benefit of certifying Council’s draft CZMP, is that Council will be eligible for funding, that it may otherwise miss out on for a number of years, while it transitions to a CMP.

Risk Implications

Council has until the commencement of the new Coastal Management Act to seek certification of the draft 2012 CZMP. The timeline for commencement of the Coastal Management Act, draft Coastal Management SEPP, coastal management manual and toolkit is unknown. Council has the opportunity to seek certification of its draft 2012 CZMP, which was developed with the community over a number of years and formally placed on public exhibition, and adopted estuary management plans. These documents, together with studies completed since 2012, are being and have been guiding Council’s coast and estuary program. The program is implemented in consultation with the community, Council’s Natural Resource & Floodplain management Committee and the elected Council. This will not change if the CZMP is certified.

The risk is that, if the CZMP is not lodged with the Minister prior to commencement of the new Act, Council may not be eligible for coast and estuary grant funding next year and future funding in years to come. As there remains uncertainly as to when the Government’s coastal reforms will be completed, there is also uncertainty as to when a CMP could be prepared and how long this would take.

The added benefit of a having a certified CZMP is that the government will fund the transition of a CZMP to a CMP. Without eligibility to apply for grant funding, Council will need to continue to prioritise coastal erosion restoration works and delivery of our coast and estuary program within the constraints of the available Council budget.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 15 November 2016

Page 97

ADDENDUM REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER

ORDINARY MEETING

TUESDAY, 26 JULY 2016

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

1. Coast and estuary grant program 2016/17 – requirement for a certified CZMP or coastal management program File 2498Ee

SECTION MANAGER: KELIE LOWE.

PURPOSE:

To advise Council that applications are open to apply for grant funding under the State Governments 2016/17 Coast and Estuary program. Councils are now only eligible to apply for funding if they have a certified coastal zone management plan (CZMP) or coastal management program (CMP) or have lodged a CZMP or CMP with the Minister seeking certification, before grant applications close on 18^th August 2016.

RECOMMENDED that Council

a) Seek certification from the Minister for Planning, The Hon Rob Stokes MP of Council’s draft Coast Zone Management Plan and adopted estuary management plans, before the grant applications close on 18 August 2016, to ensure Council is eligible to apply for grant funding for works under the NSW Government’s 2016/17 Coast and Estuary Program; and

b) Council apply funding under the NSW Government’s 20016/17 coast and estuary program for the four (4) projects detailed in this report; and

c) Council also write to the Minister for Planning, The Hon Rob Stokes MP seeking a one year exemption from the requirement of a certified Coastal Zone Management Plan or a Coastal Management Program, as previously resolved by Council.

OPTIONS

1. Council not apply to the Minister for Planning, The Hon Rob Stokes MP to certify Council’s draft Coast Zone Management Plan and Council not apply for grant funding under the NSW Government 2016/17 Coast and Estuary program.

2. Coastal write to the Minister for Planning, The Hon Rob Stokes MP seeking a one year exemption from the requirement for a coastal management program and not apply for funding under the NSW Government 2016/17 Coast and Estuary program.

3. Council propose an alternate option.

DETAILS

Applications are open to apply for grant funding under the State Government coast and estuary program. Council received a letter from the Minister with the grant application guidelines, stating that grants for works will not be eligible if Council does not have a certified Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) or Coastal Management Program (CMP).

Councils can still apply for funding if their plan is being finalised for certification but funding will not be provided until the plan is certified.

This information was confirmed by NSW Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH) regional office during a meeting on 21^st July with Council staff.

Grant applications close on the 18 August 2016. This means that Council would need to lodge its draft CZMP with the Minister for certification prior to the 18 August 2016 to be eligible to apply for any grants.

Council previously resolved to apply to the Minister for a 1 year exemption from the requirement to have a certified plan, however it is highly unlikely that this exemption would be granted before the grant applications are due on 18 August 2016. Council could therefore not be eligible to apply for grant funding for works, if the exemption request is not successful.

It is therefore recommended that Council requests the Minister to certify its draft CZMP together with its adopted Estuary Management Plans as soon as possible and before the 18 August 2016, so that Council can be eligible for grant funding for works identified in these documents.

It is also recommended that Council applies for grant funding to develop a CMP commensurate with the new Coastal Management Act in the next year. Funding applications for the development of a CMP are open to Councils throughout the year. The development of a CMP will allow Council to include the review of the coastal hazard risk mapping which considers Council’s adopted sea level rise projections (work in progress and to be completed by September 2016), as well as the outcomes of the ‘Our Coast Our Lifestyle’ community engagement project on coastal management. The CMP can be developed using draft CZMP but it is likely that there will also be additional information that will need to be gathered to comply with the new Act. The CMP will also combine and summarise priority actions identified in the draft CZMP and estuary management plans for each estuary or section of the coast.

Alternatively, Council could choose not to apply for any grant funding for works this financial year and apply for funding to develop a CMP, considering that there is no guarantee that Council would be awarded grant funding. However, this would mean that Council would not be able to proceed with the projects listed below, unless Council determined to fund the entire costs through re-allocation of existing budgets.

Council developed a draft CZMP in 2012 which was placed on public exhibition and reported to Council. However, the plan was never submitted to the Minister for certification because the Government announced the Coastal Reforms. Council has been using this draft plan since that time to guide our coast, estuary and flood management activities.

Council also has a number of other supporting documents that would need to be sent to the Minister as part of a CZMP package, appendices to the draft plan, such as the recent flood studies that include Council’s adopted sea level rise projections.

The draft CZMP is available on Council’s website –

http://projects.umwelt.com.au/shoalhaven-coastline/index.php

The NSW Government has commenced stage 2 of the Coastal Reforms are starting to be implemented now and include a new Coastal Management Act and a Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) which are due to come into effect later this year. The Government is due to release the draft SEPP for public exhibition.

You can find an overview of the Coastal Reforms on OEH’s website by following this link -

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/coasts/coastreforms.htm

The following grant applications that would meet the requirements of the grant guidelines and are identified in the draft CZMP and Estuary Management Plans are:

· Mollymook Foreshore south – detailed design for replacement of existing gabion structure, including community consultation and REF, probability risk analysis and cost benefit analysis (project value estimated at $200,000). (this project is required to justify the significant investment at Mollymook south to protect foreshore approx. $1.3million

· Currarong beach erosion– detailed design, community consultation, REF and works – project value estimated at $400,000

· Shoalhaven Heads, River Road erosion – detailed design and works (project value estimated at $400,000)

· Estuary Health report cards- water quality and estuary health monitoring and reporting (project value estimate $140,000 over 2 years)

These projects have been selected on a priority basis, Council’s capacity to deliver the projects as well as available funding within existing budgets, since Council must contribute at least 50% of the project costs.

Advice from OEH officers is that Council should lodge all of the relevant documents that form part of the draft CZMP. This is because Council cannot apply for funding for a particular project unless it forms part of or is referenced in a certified CZMP or CMP in accordance with the grant guidelines.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Council would not be eligible to apply for grant funding under this year’s coast and estuary program unless it lodges its draft CZMP with the Minister for certification.

Council could not apply for future grant funding until it has a certified CZMP or CMP. Council has been advised that it only has until December 2016 to lodge its draft CZMP for certification.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Council’s draft CZMP was placed on public exhibition and reported to Council in 2012. The estuary management plans and flood risk studies and plans that are part of the draft plan have also been through a community consultation process and reported to Council for adoption.

CONCLUSION:

Requesting an exemption from the State Government from the requirement of a certified plan, as resolved at Council’s Strategy and Assets meeting on 19 July 2016 as well as lodging the draft plan for certification should place Council in the best position to be eligible to apply for grant funding.

Tim Fletcher

DIRECTOR PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

R.D Pigg

GENERAL MANAGER

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 15 November 2016

Page 113

SA16.31 Dune vegetation management at Collingwood Beach - outcome of public exhibition and petitions.

HPERM Ref: D16/328027

Group: Planning & Development Services Group

Section: Environmental Services

Attachments: 1. concerns NGH - remove branding ⇩

2. Council draft Collingwood DVMP - Overall Map ⇩

3. draft Council Plan - Zone 1 description ⇩

4. draft Council Plan - Zone 2 description ⇩

5. Draft Council Plan - Zone 3 description ⇩

6. draft Council Plan - Zone 4 description ⇩

7. draft Council Plan - Zone 5 description ⇩

8. CBPG alternative approach ⇩

9. Crown Land submission ⇩

10. Jervis Bay Marine Park submission ⇩

11. OEH submission ⇩

12. petition change.org 946 signatories ⇩

13. petition approximately 1500 signatories coordinated by Vincentia Matters ⇩

14. Extract Coastal Management Bill 2016 ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To inform the Committee of the outcome of the public exhibition of the draft Council Dune Vegetation Management Plan for Collingwood Beach and alternative approach developed by the Collingwood Beach Preservation Group (CBPG).

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That

1. Council receive the petitions on this matter for information.

2. Council thank all petitioners and people who made a submissions for their input and careful consideration of this matter.

3. In view of the petitions and submissions received, Council not adopt either of the two plans that were placed on public exhibition.

4. In view of the submissions received and position of relevant Government agencies, Council engage NGH and a coastal expert to review the draft management plan and current approach and to work with and gain endorsement of, key government agencies. The new revised approach should reflect the new Coastal Management Act hierarchy of management objectives establish in section 10.3 of the Act. A further report o council would follow this review.

Options

1. As recommended

Implications: This option recognises the significant opposition received against the draft Council dune vegetation management plan and the CBPG alternative approach that were placed on exhibition. This option recognises that in view of the submissions received from residents, tourists and State Government Agencies, coastal erosion management should be the prime consideration in managing the dune system. However it also recognised that some view enhancement could be incorporated.

2. Adopt Council draft Dune Vegetation Management Plan and develop a review of environmental factors (REF), environmental assessment under Part 5 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), before proceeding with the works which includes issues outlined in the Jervis Bay Marine Park submission.

Implications: This option is not recommended as it does not take into consideration the large number of submissions opposed to the plan, and OEH submission particularly in relation to not complying with existing legislation and upcoming Coastal Management Act. Given the advice from government agencies, it is likely that an REF developed for this option would conclude that a significant environmental impact is likely to occur should the works proceed and an environmental impact statement (EIS) may be required.

3. Adopt the CBPG alternative approach and develop a review of environmental factors (REF), environmental assessment under Part 5 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), before proceeding with the works which includes issues outlined in the Jervis Bay Marine Park submission.

Implications: This option is not recommended, as it does not consider the significant opposition to the plan expressed though submissions and petitions. Before this option could be implemented an REF would need to be developed addressing the concerns of the Jervis Bay Marine Park. Given the advice from government agencies, it is likely that an REF developed for this option would conclude that a significant environmental impact is likely to occur should the works proceed and an environmental impact statement (EIS) may be required.

Background

The draft Council Dune Vegetation Management Plan for Collingwood Beach and the Collingwood Beach Preservation Group alternative approach were placed on public exhibition from 21^st September to 19^th October 2016. Both plans aim at enhancing views from the back of the dune towards the bay in an attempt to curb the number of incidences of vegetation vandalism.

Draft Council Dune Vegetation Management Plan for Collingwood Beach

The draft Council Dune Vegetation Management Plan for Collingwood Beach has been developed over the last two years after extensive community consultation. The plan and its appendices - Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix C were placed on Council’s website and are still accessible from http://shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/Environment/Coastal-Landscape/Collingwood-Beach-Dune-Vegetation-Management

The plan was originally developed by environmental consultants NGH, however NGH raised concerns about modification requested by Council in regard to zone 5 and asked their branding be removed from the modified plan (refer Attachment 1).

The Council draft plan includes a map that identifies management zones along the dune system (refer Attachment 2). The plan applies to the area located between Moona Moona Creek and Susan St. Each management zone has defined objectives and activities. A short explanation of each management zone is provided in attachment 3 to 7.

In order to facilitate the interpretation of the draft Council plan, signage indicating the start and finish points of each zone was placed on site during the public exhibition period. A sign for each management zone was also placed at a location that provides an indicative example of the zone once works would be complete.

The plan was to be implemented on a 5-year trial basis. The monitoring proposed over the 5 years was to inform the development of a longer-term management plan.

The plan aimed to work with the existing vegetation structure to minimise amount of initial disturbance. For example, hedging of trees and tall shrubs is not proposed in areas where there are existing mature banksias and other trees. The length of each management zone is reflective of the feedback received during the consultation process when developing the plan. It will either maintain views where they exist or create and enhance views that are currently obscured. In doing so it was hoped that ongoing vegetation vandalism will cease in the reserve.

Collingwood Beach Preservation Group Alternative approach

An alternative approach developed by the Collingwood Beach Preservation Group (CBPG) was also placed on exhibition during the same period. Enquiries on this alternative approach were directed to the group’s generic email address. The 11 point alternative approach is provided in attachment 8 to this report.

Community Engagement

522 submissions were received during the exhibition period.

These submissions include:

· 3 submissions from State Government Agencies- NSW DPI, NSW Lands and NSW OEH (these submissions are reported separately and are not included in the diagrams shown below)

· 1 submission on behalf of people who signed a petition on change.org with 946 signatories opposing strongly any lopping of vegetation (refer attachment 12 for full wording of petition)

· 1 submission on behalf of 1500 Vincentia residents and other users of Collingwood Beach requesting Council ‘NOT proceed with the Plans currently on exhibition’ (refer Attachment 13 for full wording of petition.

· 7 submissions from Community groups: Birdlife Shoalhaven, National Parks Association (Illawarra branch), Nature Conservation Council of NSW Inc., Lake Wollumboola Protection Association Inc., Collingwood Beach Preservation Group (CBPG), Vincentia Matters Inc. and Save Collingwood Beach. All submissions but one from the CBPG are strongly objecting to Council’s draft plan and CBPG alternative approach.

· 511 individual submissions. These include multiple submissions from same family members (the highest number recorded was for a foreshore resident family with 11 submissions). Individual submissions also include postcards produced by the Greens with individual comments

· Multiple submissions received from the same person were counted as one submission.

There were 21 submissions received after the close of the public exhibition and they are not included in the diagrams shown below, 18 of these late submissions were clearly objecting to both Council draft plan and the CBPG alternative approach.

There were 2 anonymous submissions that were not considered.

Copies of all submissions received have been placed in the Councillors room.

Most submissions were quite clear and specifically expressed their support or objection for one or both of the draft plans. However, some submissions were unclear and did not clearly express support or objections to the plans, they are reported as such.

Origin of submissions

The large majority of submissions received, 77%, were from people who gave their address as being in the Shoalhaven LGA.

What was the feedback from people outside of the Shoalhaven LGA (97 submissions)?

People from outside the Shoalhaven LGA generally support the CBPG Plan and do not support Council Plan.

What was the feedback from people from the Shoalhaven LGA (400 submissions)?

People from the Shoalhaven LGA largely oppose the CBPG Plan and Council Plan.

Submissions identified the following key reasons for supporting or not supporting the plans.

Key reasons for supporting Council’s draft plan and CBPG alternative approach (20% of submissions)	Key reasons for objecting to Council’s draft Plan and CBPG alternative approach (71% of submissions)	Council staff comments
Residents have a right to a view, beachfront owners pay higher taxes which entitle them to a view. Bought their properties in the 70s when there was a view.	There is no right to a view. People can go on the beach to have waterviews.	Legal advice confirms that ‘there is no legal right to a view in that situation’.
Low shrubs and grasses are enough to manage erosion. This statement is based on sound research and science, and Coastal Works Manual from Tasmanian government	There needs to be a mix of grasses, shrubs (low and tall) and trees to manage erosion, this is confirmed by the NSW Coastal dune vegetation manual and expert advice. Dune is the first line of defence against erosion and requires tall and healthy vegetation. Without a healthy and resilient dune it is likely that a seawall will be required in future. This will impact on amenity and impose significant cost to ratepayers.	A co-author of the Tasmanian Coastal Works Manual provided the following statement (extract): ‘The extract from the Works Manual you refer to appears to be taken out of context. The statement refers to taking action to stabilise a moving dune (or repair a blow-out) and is only appropriate as the initial repair work, or for the area known as the primary dunes and foredunes where wind-blown sand is transported up the foreshore and trapped by grasses to build up and stabilise the dunes…There are numerous other references in the Works Manual that describe planting of trees and shrubs behind the primary dune face’. OEH submission includes coastal expert advice and observations during the June 2016 storm, where areas of sparse or low lying vegetation experienced higher wave runup penetration and overtopping than areas with denser and higher vegetation. Staff professional advice is that low shrubs and grasses alone do not provide the same degree of resilience to coastal storms than a well vegetated dune with a mix of low, medium and tall vegetation species. This is supported by the NSW Coastal Dune Vegetation Manual and the literature provided in section 7 of the draft Council plan
Banksias are weeds and non-native to the area and are now forming a monoculture.		Banksias are native to the area. A ecological survey undertaken by Macquarie university students (April 2016) confirm sections of Collingwood beach that are undisturbed have a species richness (15) similar to Myola spit which is relatively pristine, the disturbed areas of Collingwood have a slightly lower species richness (12). This data clearly highlights that banksias are not forming a monoculture.
The tree roots (and in particular banksia tree roots) are causing damage to sewer and footpath and should be removed, trees/tree branches may fall on people as it presents risk to users of the pathway.	Increasing views may present risks to users of the shared path. The path is very busy at times and users should concentrate on the risk of collision with other path users, if users stop to enjoy views or are distracted by views risk of collision is increased. Dedicated viewpoints/rest areas could be provided adjacent to the path to alleviate this risk.	The shared pathway is regularly inspected for risks and hazard. Actions (such as tree branch removal or repair to pathway) implemented when required in accordance with Council’s risk management procedures. Council’s maintenance crew reports that the major damage from tree roots to the pathway are currently caused by the Norfolk Pines an introduced species.
Removal/under pruning of trees + hedging will provide much needed sun and warmth to users of the footpath.	The trees and high shrubs provide much needed sun and wind protection to users of the footpath.	The concrete path reflects both heat and light for path users particularly in summer months.
Will benefit tourism.	Will negatively impact on tourism. Tourists are coming to Jervis Bay as they appreciate the natural look and bush backdrop when on the beach- don’t want to look at houses when on beach. Proposal at odds with ‘unspoilt’ tourism campaign.	A social survey independently designed and conducted by Macquarie university students over 5 days during Easter school holidays 2016 captured the opinion of 168 visitors (including 9 workers that were also visitors). When asked whether the dune vegetation should be managed for dune stability, fauna (animals or views), clearly the majority (about 88%) favoured a dune management for stability and fauna over views (only 2%).
	Plans do not comply with legislation and Council’s policies.	Advice from OEH advises that the plans are inconsistent with the objectives of the Coastal Management Act, and do not meet the objectives of the NSW Coastal Policy. Further they state the plans are at odds with Council’s foreshore reserves policy which require installing ‘tree vandalism sign’ and replacement of vandalised vegetation.
	Create precedent and will spread to other areas of the coast and elsewhere as Council would be supporting the management of vegetation on public land for views.	Council has received enquiries from other areas (Currarong, Mollymook, Bawley Point) asking if similar plans are envisaged at these locations. A number of submissions request that the plans apply to the entire beach and include the reserve south of Susan St.
	Plans undo more than 30 years of dune rehabilitation and flies in the face of Bushcare volunteers.	Many of Council’s 854 Bushcare volunteers have raised concerns about the proposal as well as the precedent it creates. If any of the plans are endorsed this would greatly affect volunteer morale and may result in resignation of volunteers.
	Plans will have significant negative impact on fauna and in particular the Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo (feeds partly on banksias), which is often observed on the dune community and is the symbol of the Shoalhaven
Will stop vegetation vandalism.	There is no evidence that proposal will stop dune vegetation vandalism, if anything, it may increase it as the plans appear to encourage and reward vegetation vandalism.	Evidence of new instances of vandalism along the dune since the draft plans have been made public is visible.
Works could be implemented by residents.	Cost to ratepayers to implement plan and then remediate impacts of coastal erosion on public and private assets is significant. Can Council and ratepayers afford such costs, money better spent on other priorities?	The nature of the works (especially the initial trimming) is such that the majority of the pruning can’t be implemented by volunteers due to risk considerations, specific equipment required and need for arborist knowledge.
	The area is public land and is to be managed for public interest not for the benefit of a few.	The dune is crown land, trust managed by Council under the Crown Lands Act which requires that environmental protection principles be observed, natural resources be conserved wherever possible, public use and enjoyment be encouraged and that crown lands where appropriate should be used and managed in such a way that both the land and its resources are sustained in perpetuity.
	The area should be managed in view of future risk and for future generations. Proposed activities will decrease resilience to sea level rise impacts.	Council coastal hazard studies confirm that the area is vulnerable and the level of risk will increase as sea level rises. Long term negative impacts could require additional needs for coastal erosion management including beach scraping or nourishment and possibly a seawall if severe erosion occurs.

Interestingly 66 submissions (13%) supported both the Council draft dune vegetation management and the CBPG alternative approach often refer to as ‘CBPG amendments’. It is important to note the significant differences between Council draft plan and CBPG alternative approach. The CBPG alternative approach cannot reasonably be seen as an amendment to Council plan, it has a very different approach.

Key differences between Council’s draft Vegetation Management Plan and CBPG alternative approach:

· Council’s draft plan is based on a zoning approach, it includes 5 zones with different vegetation treatments and does include zone 1 (4% of the area) where vegetation is allowed to grow naturally where views are not impeded. The CBPG alternative approach is not based on zoning, the same treatment is proposed throughout the entire dune and does not include areas where vegetation is allowed to grow naturally.

· Zone 5 of Council’s draft plan proposed to reduce the height of regrowth trees and large shrubs to a height of 1m-1.5m however, low shrubs could grow in the 1.5 to 2.5 m window as long as their foliage together with existing mature trees to be retained represents 30 to 50% cover. Applying the CBPG alternative approach in this section would require maintenance of all vegetation outside of established mature trees higher than 6m (which are only very rare in zone 5) to a level between 90cm and 1m tall. This will result in a uniform hedge with some very sporadic mature trees (higher than 6 m) under pruned to a minimum height of 5 m. Mature trees that are less than 6 m height would be pruned to between 90cm to 1m tall resulting in their death.

The CBPG alternative approach requires all established mature trees higher than 6 m to be under pruned to at least 5 m in height. This represents significant under pruning that could l significantly weaken the tree and could lead to death of some trees. The Council draft plan only proposes to under prune trees in specific zones and only in the view window (1.5m to 2.5m). Such heavy pruning or lopping that is not in accordance with the Australian Standard would most likely result in epicormic growth, which could pose a risk to users of the pathway. The CBPG alternative approach requires removal of dead wood or dead trees. Council’s draft plan requires all dead material to be felled and coarsely broken up or mulched and remain in situ. This approach retains important habitat and food for wildlife and provides organic matter for vegetation nourishment.

· The CBPG alternative approach includes removal of the native tree Pittosporum south of Susan Street. Council’s draft plan does not include any activities south of Susan Street.

· The CBPG alternative approach does not include monitoring nor a 5 year trial period. Council’s draft plan includes monitoring and a 5 year trial period. The aim of the trial period is to manage potential risks presented by the proposed activities and provide the capacity to implement remediation measures should risk present unacceptable impacts. Council previously resolved on 9 December 2014 (D14/328336) to implement a 5 year trial period for any vegetation management plan developed for Collingwood Beach.

Compromises put forward

A few submissions suggested that dedicated viewpoints/rest areas could be provided adjacent to the shared path and or that light under pruning to open views in selected areas could be acceptable (to some) in order to enhance views, however such actions should be accompanied by a new vegetation vandalism policy and adequate enforcement of this policy.

Submissions by State Government agencies

Crown Land (refer Attachment 9)

Collingwood Beach dune is crown land, trust managed by Council. As such Council is the ultimate decision maker however, Council needs to consider that it is required to manage the land in accordance with the principles of the Crown Land Act 1989, provided in attachment 9.

NSW Department of Primary Industry (DPI) – Jervis Bay Marine Park (refer Attachment 10)

The Marine Estate Management Act 2014 requires Council to consider any advice given by NSW DPI on the impact of the proposed activity on the Marine Park. DPI is concerned that both plans would result in an increased need for managing beach erosion by beach scraping or sand nourishment and in turn could result in a negative impact on the Jervis Bay Marine Park. The submission requires that a detailed assessment on a number of potential impacts be included in the REF under part 5 of the EP&A Act to demonstrate that the likelihood of beach scraping or sand nourishment is not increased by the proposed plans.

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) (Refer attachment 11)

OEH does not support either plan. This submission clearly identifies that a more appropriate tool to manage this issue is through a coastal management program that has the dune vegetation management issues interlinked with coastal risks. OEH found that the draft plans in their current form do not comply with State Government coastal legislation or guidelines and implementation of either plan would have implications for coastal hazards. OEH in its submission asks that ‘proposed actions should be consistent with the NSW Government’s coastal reforms, the objectives of the upcoming Coastal Management Act and principles of the Coastal Management Manual’.

In that regard, it is interesting to note that the upcoming Coastal Management Act endorses a hierarchy of management objectives when overlapping or inconsistency in management objectives occur. In the case of Collingwood Dune section 10.3 of the upcoming Act establishes the following hierarchy (noting that Coastal wetlands and littoral rainforest does not apply to Collingwood Beach Dune) –coastal vulnerability area, coastal environment area and coastal use area.

This hierarchy of management objectives reflect the feedback received from the community, where the majority of submissions asked Council to manage Collingwood dune vegetation management system for coastal risks first (coastal vulnerability area), and for its environmental values (coastal environment area) and a minority of submissions asked Council to manage the area for views (coastal use area).

Relevant Extracts of the Coastal Management Bill 2016 (which has been passed by both houses) are provided in attachment 14.

Policy Implications

The proposed plans seek to stop vegetation vandalism on Collingwood Beach by providing improved water views, this is quite a different approach to the one adopted by Council foreshore reserves policy (section 3.4) which recommends regulatory/advisory signage, education and awareness as well as rehabilitation. However, it is recognised that in preparing the draft plan, Council sought to develop a location specific plan to address vegetation vandalism.

http://doc.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/displaydoc.aspx?record=POL16/38

The draft CBPG plan is also at odds with the foreshore reserves policy and Natural Area Plan of Management which both require all fallen or cut timber to be left in situ as their role in the provision of habitat, shelter or food is recognised.

Financial Implications

The cost of implementing Council’s draft plan is evaluated at approximately $160,000 initially with annual maintenance cost of approximately $60,000.

The cost of implementing the CBPG alternative approach is evaluated at $92,000 initially with on-going annual maintenance cost of approximately $90,000.

The potential decline of Bushcare volunteers who contribute approximately $256,000 a year of Bushcare work is significant. Currently Council has 3,101 foreshore and bushland reserves to manage, which is 33% of all Council managed land. This amount of land could significantly increase as a result of the current State Government Crown Lands review. Council relies upon Bushcare workers to manage these areas to meet its obligations under the Crown Land Act and Local Government Act.

The cost to manage coastal erosion because of decreased dune resilience due to vegetation management activities could vary depending on the scale of the storm and its associated impacts. Erosion remediation strategies vary and could include beach scraping and revegetation of the dune, estimated cost of $300,000, escalating up to the possible construction of a seawall structure (worst case scenario) if severe erosion occurred, which has an estimated cost of $30 million.

Risk Implications

OEH does not support either plan and states that “Clearing dune vegetation has the potential to increase risks from coastal hazards placing public and private assets at risk, as well as reduce the amenity of Collingwood Beach” and that Council’s draft plan ”would not meet the objectives upcoming Coastal Management Act”. The OEH submission goes on to say that Council’s draft plan “would not meet the objectives of the NSW Coastal Policy” and that the CBPG plan “would likely have even greater implications for dune vegetation health and risks from coastal hazards than the Council Plan.”

The risk to Council if any of the draft plans are adopted and implemented warrants careful consideration as Council would have to demonstrate it has acted in good faith should it adopt either plan because OEH has advised that the plans do not comply with coastal legislation and the coastal management manual. Therefore, Council should consider carefully the exemption from liability under section 733 of the Local Government Act. A separate confidential report provides more detailed advice on this matter.

Some owners of beach front residences in their submission clearly opposed the removal of vegetation in front of their property and warned Council of potential litigation should their house be impacted by future storms, others of course, have not raised this concern.

Council is aware through its coastal hazard studies that the area is at risk from coastal storms. Excessive clearing of vegetation has the potential to increase the risks to public and private assets from coastal hazards. A significant community engagement program on Coastal Management (Our Coast Our Lifestyle) has recently been completed by Council and a Councillors briefing is scheduled on this matter in the next month. This project identified that the community ‘strongly value the natural environment’, ‘expect Council to take a long-term cost effective approach to managing the risk of coastal erosion, based on scientific evidence and expert advice’, ‘supports soft protection options, and particularly dune management, over hard options, to protect existing assets except in specific circumstances’

Conclusion

In consideration of all of submissions and petitions and the information above, it is recommended that Council not adopt either the draft Council Dune Vegetation Management Plan for Collingwood Beach or the alternative approach developed by the Collingwood Beach Preservation Group (CBPG).

It is recommended that Council asks NGH to work with OEH and a recognised coastal expert to review the current approach in view of the nature of the majority of submissions received, as well as the relevant coastal management legislation. The new revised approach should reflect the new Coastal Management Act hierarchy of management objectives establish in section 10.3 of the Act.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 15 November 2016

Page 153

SA16.32 Closure of Council's free childhood immunisation service

HPERM Ref: D16/314324

Group: Planning & Development Services Group

Section: Environmental Services

Attachments: 1. Immunisation Clinic Report 15/3/16 - Ordinary Meeting ⇩

2. Future of Immunisation Clinics Report 19/7/16 - Stategy and Assets Committee ⇩

3. Letter from NSW Minister of Health confirming withdrawal of funding ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To inform Council about the withdrawal of financial support by NSW Health for Council’s free childhood immunisation clinics and recommend closure of the clinics due to continued decline in the number of children attending.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

Council close the free childhood immunisation service after the December 2016 clinics; and

1. advertise the closing of clinics and thank the community for their support over the last 50 years; and

2. write to parents who are currently using the clinics to notify them of the closure.

Options

1. As recommended.

Close the free childhood immunisation service after the December 2016 clinics; and

1. Advertise the closing of clinics and thank the community for their support over the last 50 years; and

2. Write to parents who are currently using the clinics to notify them of the closure

Implications: No additional finance required. Attendance at the free childhood immunisation clinics has declined significantly over the past several years. In response to Council’s resolution in March 2016, clinics were only held at Sussex Inlet, East Nowra, Culburra Beach, Ulladulla and Sanctuary Point (Bomaderry and Nowra library evening clinics ceased).

3. That Council continue to deliver free childhood immunisation clinics and allocate funding from Councils budget for $38,900 for the remainder of 2016/17 and $42,000 + CPI annually thereafter (Job number 12200).

Implications: The requested funds need to be sourced from Council’s existing budget. There is currently no budget allocated and NSW Health has withdrawn its financial support for the service due to a declining attendance.

4. Other option as determined by the Committee.

Background

Two reports to Council on 15^th March 2016 and 9^th July 2016 (Attachments #1 and #2) detailed the substantial decline in attendance at Council’s free childhood immunisation clinics and the subsequent withdrawal of funding by NSW Health. Council resolved as follows:

ADOPTED AT COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 15 MARCH 2016

(MIN16.210) RESOLVED that in accordance with the Committee’s delegated authority from Council, that the General Manager:

a) Continue the childhood immunisation clinics for two days per month in Sussex Inlet, East Nowra, Culburra Beach, Ulladulla and Sanctuary Point for twelve (12) months and report back to Council after this time.

b) Write to Health NSW and advise that we a streamlining a number clinics on a trial basis and seek their support with continued funding.

ADOPTED AT COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 19 JULY 2016

(MIN16.553) RESOLVED that in accordance with the Committee’s delegated authority from Council, that the General Manager:

a) Contact the Local State Members to request that they make representations to NSW Health seeking to overturn their decision regarding funding for immunisation services and that it be reinstated.

b) Write to the Federal Member to ensure she is aware of this issue.

Council’s directions were carried out with staff reducing the number of clinics, cancelling the Bomaderry and Nowra library evening service.

Staff appealed directly to NSW Health requesting they continue to financially support the clinics. NSW Health stood by their decision to withdraw funding, citing the reasons of:

· declining attendances at council clinics; and

· operating costs exceeding NSW Health immunisation program funding.

NSW Health did extend the cut off period for funding from July 2016 until September 2016.

Council also wrote to the Federal and State government local members requesting support in having the NSW Health decision to withdraw funding overturned.

A letter from Hon. Jillian Skinner MP, Minister for Health, forwarded to Council from The Hon. Shelley Hancock MP, confirms that the withdrawal of funding and support for the continuation of the clinics is due to the significant decline in attendance at the clinics. A copy of the letter is in attachment 3.

As the position of NSW Health to withdraw funding for Councils immunisation service has not changed, should Council wish to continue to deliver the free childhood immunisation clinics, a budget for this community service needs to be allocated. Additional investment in promotion and advertisement would also be required to try and increase attendance rates.

Community Engagement

In April 2016 staff began surveying the community to determine what impacts closing the clinics would have and identify ways in which the community felt the service could improve should they continue. The survey was distributed by social media, at immunisation clinics and was available on Council’s website.

Despite the survey being widely promoted only 23 surveys were completed, 14 surveys were completed online and 19 completed by clinic attendees.

In summary, clients said that they had access to other services, but Council’s service was more convenient.

When Council commenced delivering free childhood immunisation clinics in partnership with the NSW Department of Health in the early 1960’s, this was the main delivery method of the state childhood vaccination program. Local Council’s across the state held clinics at community centres or town halls with a local doctor and later immunisation nurses, administering the vaccinations to groups of children.

Shoalhaven City Council is one of the few remaining Council’s to continue delivering this service. Our community has not always had easy access to Doctors or medical centres across the City and in the past clinics were well attended.

In recent years more and more medical centres have opened, many with their own nurses that administer vaccinations. Most parents now choose to take their children to their local Doctor or medical centre for immunisation, as it is more convenient and they can attend at a time of their choosing at a location close to home or work.

The option of closing the immunisation clinics was also reported to the Council’s staff consultative committee on 9 March 2016 for information. The casual staff affected have been consulted and aware of the option of the possible closure of the clinic. The permanent administration staff will not be affected.

Should Council continue to deliver this service, a budget needs to be allocated to promote and advertise the clinics widely in an effort to significantly increase attendance rates and therefore improve productivity and community benefit.

Currently there is a low community benefit compared to the resources and cost required to deliver the clinics. At the clinics in October 14 children were immunised over the 2 days.

Overall since the timetable was changed on the 1^st May 2016, there has been a 60% decline in attendances from an average of 20 children per month to 12, mainly due to the closure of the Bomaderry and Nowra library evening clinics.

Financial Implications

The immunisation clinics have historically been funded by NSW Health with this funding paying for the cost of nurse wages, training and marketing. Council supplements the program by providing administration support, equipment, vehicle and venue hire.

Financial Year	NSW Health	Council	Total
2015/16	$16,686	$13,165	$29,851
2016/17	$3,237	$28,900	$32,137

Therefore, the budget required for Council to continue the immunisation clinics, including reinstating clinics at the Nowra library, will be $28,900 for the remainder of 2016/17 and then $32,000 + CPI annually thereafter.

It is also recommended that if Council continues the immunisation clinics that a minimum $10,000 per annum be provided for advertising and marketing to promote the service and increase attendance, which increases the total budget required to $42,000 + CPI annually.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 15 November 2016

Page 172

SA16.33 Funding of Sewer Services to St Andrew's Way Coolangatta

HPERM Ref: D16/346590

Group: Shoalhaven Water Group

Attachments: 1. St Andrews Way & Berry Bay Sewerage Scheme Maps ⇩

Purpose / Summary

In accordance with Council resolution MIN 16.281, this report provides funding options for the provision of sewerage services to the existing subdivision of St Andrew’s Way, Coolangatta.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council support “in principle”, the provision of sewerage to residential lots in St Andrew’s Way, and Berry’s Bay, Coolangatta to allow Council staff to further consult with the affected owners in regards to timing, scope, extent of services, and the proposal that properties benefiting meet 100% of the associated works.

Options

1. Council support the principle that those properties in St Andrews Way and Bolong Rd (Berry’s Bay) that will be provided with a pressure sewer system will have a special rate applied that accounts for 100% of the cost of the scheme implementation.

Implications: Detailed consultation with both Berry’s Bay and St Andrew’s Way landowners would need to be carried out. Council’s environment section will need to develop a strategy and process to communicate this to the relevant property owners. Given existing workloads this may require external assistance for facilitation.

2. Council support the principle that those properties in St Andrews Way and Bolong Rd (Berry’s Bay) that will be provided with a pressure sewer system will be subsidised by all other sewer account customers and this will be funded by additional loans in the 2019/20 financial year.

Implications: This work will need to be included in the forward sewer works program and the forward financial model adjusted for new loans. In addition, Council’s environment section will need to manage the issues arising from the management of the existing site systems until the sewerage system is constructed.

3. Council support the principle that those properties in St Andrews Way and Bolong Rd (Berry’s Bay) that will be provided with a pressure sewer system will have a special rate applied that accounts for X% of the cost of the scheme implementation, where X is determined by Council based on the proportion of cross-subsidy to be allocated to all other sewer fund customers.

Background

In 2003, Council approved a development application for a 23 lot subdivision, now known as St Andrews Way, Coolangatta and 99 Edward Wollstonecraft Lane, Coolangatta (the estate). The parcel of land is a Special Rural Lifestyle Area No.4 with allotment sizes ranging from 1,380 m² - 3,100 m². Nineteen of the approved lot sizes are now less than the minimum lot size of 2500 m2 presently required by Council in Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 for the subdivision of unsewered properties.

As part of the original assessment of the subdivision Council received and considered a report from an environmental consultant dealing with the collection and disposal of effluent on each of the sites within the subdivision. Further reports from environmental consultants were also received and considered by Council as part of the assessment of individual dwellings in the estate, leading to approvals.

Despite the positive assessments provided by the environmental consultants, problems have been encountered within the estate with on-site sewage management systems not working as they were designed. In 2011, the NSW Food Authority, in conjunction with Shoalhaven City Council, undertook water quality testing in order to verify pollution sources impacting on the Berry’s Bay oyster harvest area downslope of the St Andrews Way development. The results of this study revealed that there was evidence of human faecal contamination downstream of the development and evidence of effluent from the development reaching the outlet of the Berry’s Bay catchment to the Shoalhaven River.

In addition to the problematic nature of the St Andrew’s Way subdivision, the operation of on-site sewage systems at 11 properties located immediately adjacent to Berry’s Bay has also been identified as being at a potentially high risk to public health and the environment. These properties are No.’s 1260 – 1280 Bolong Rd, Coolangatta. These lots are potentially at a higher risk due to their relatively smaller size (1,051 m² – 1, 644 m²), close proximity to Berry’s Bay oyster lease area (less than 50 m to some properties) and the potential for future development (e.g. extensions, dual occupancy). There are presently a number of smaller, older houses on properties. The impact of new development may mean larger houses which have a larger footprint that may impact on available area for effluent disposal and a larger effluent disposal area may be required to support the development.

The poor and constrained site characteristics and the close proximity to the Berry’s Bay oyster lease area have led Council to seek alternative long term management options to deal with the wastewater/effluent generated from the St Andrews Way subdivision and the Berry’s Bay properties.

Council considered a report in April this year and resolved the following:

a) Council recognise in principle, that the long-term wastewater needs for St Andrews Way estate, Coolangatta; 99 Edward Wollstonecraft Lane, Coolangatta and No.’s 1260 – 1280 Bolong Rd, Coolangatta (Berry’s Bay) is to connect to pressurised reticulated sewer, pending Council approval of a financial plan to fund the scheme;

b) The financial plan will determine what, if any, additional contributions may be payable by existing residents; and

c) Options to fund the sewer scheme are to be reported to Council once the outcome of the potential merger with Kiama Council is determined, in accordance with section 23A of the Local Government Act (merger guidelines).

Community Engagement

Residents of St Andrews Way (and 99 Edward Wollstonecraft Lane which was part of this subdivision) were provided with an opportunity to make a submission on whether they are in favour of connecting to sewer and whether or not they are opposed to providing funding towards such a scheme. As a result, 20 of the 23 property owners were in favour of connection to sewer but were not willing to financially contribute. One property owner was not in favour of connecting to sewer and two residential developments were still under construction at the time.

At this time, residents of No.’s 1260 – 1280 Bolong Rd, Coolangatta have not been provided with an opportunity to comment on the potential to connect to reticulated sewer.

Two maps are attached showing preliminary layouts of pressure sewer systems with and without Bolong Road connected.

Policy Implications

This situation highlights the risks associated with developments that have on-site sewage management systems. Owners have bought blocks in good faith that the original determination of on-site systems would be sustainable in the long term.

The view could also be taken that the provision of a reticulated sewerage system will add value to the current allotments and therefore those that benefit from this should bear the cost of the scheme.

Financial Implications

Three funding options are available to Council:

Option	Comments/Constraints
Council funded scheme - Requires Council to seek additional loan funds and would also require the cost of the scheme to be spread across all sewer customers in the City	Due to the current program, and in particular the REMS1B project, the sewer fund is fully committed for the next 3 years, with significant loans being taken up at this time. It is unlikely that additional loans could be taken up before the 2019/20 financial year. No budget is currently available in the sewer fund that could apply to the implementation of sewerage facilities to St Andrews Way or the Coolangatta area.
Property owner funded scheme– Council could levy a special rate to build a reserve to fund the scheme	Under Section 495 of the LG Act a council may make a special rate for or towards meeting the cost of any works, services, facilities or activities provided or undertaken, or proposed to be provided or undertaken, by the Council within the whole or any part of the Council’s area, other than domestic waste management services. The special rate is to be levied on such rateable land in the Council’s area as, in the Council’s opinion: (a) benefits or will benefit from the works, services, facilities or activities, or (b) contributes or will contribute to the need for the works, services, facilities or activities, or (c) has or will have access to the works, services, facilities or activities.
Part Council / part property owner funded scheme	Council could apply a percentage of the scheme costs to be levied on the affected properties.

The following table summarises the current cost estimates and 3 possible scenarios for funding of this work:

Risk Implications

As noted above, only those property owners affected by the effluent discharge issues emanating from the St Andrews Way subdivision have been consulted over this matter, and they have expressed opposition to any cost being imposed on them for a sewerage service. Consultation with the Berry’s Bay landowners would need to be initiated before any final decision is made by Council on the total value of any cost attribution. Although Council has determined that the provision of sewerage services is the only long term solution to address the environmental problems that have been identified, the equity implications of any means of funding needs to be determined.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 15 November 2016

Page 180

SA16.35 Tenders - Vincentia Tower Redevelopment

HPERM Ref: D16/346001

Group: Shoalhaven Water Group

Section: Water Asset Planning & Development

Purpose / Summary

To inform Council of the tender process for the design and construction of a new Vincentia Telecommunications Tower, to replace the existing monopole tower located at the Vincentia water reservoir site.

In accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993, some information should remain confidential as it would, if disclosed, prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it. It is not in the public interest to disclose this information as it may reveal commercial-in-confidence provisions of a contract, diminish the competitive commercial value of any information to any person and/or prejudice any person’s legitimate business, commercial, professional or financial interests. This information will be considered under a separate confidential report.

Recommendation

That the Committee consider a separate confidential report in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993.

Options

1. As recommended.

Implications: The confidential report will be considered.

2. Propose an alternative process for consideration of the issue.

Implications: This is not recommended as an extensive tender evaluation process has been undertaken comprising of price and non price criteria in accordance with the Tender Evaluation and Probity Plan.

Details

Council at it’s Ordinary meeting on 18 March 2014 endorsed the construction of a new tower adjacent to the existing compound at Vincentia Reservoir, including the transfer of equipment, and removal of the old tower.

The Tower at Vincentia was built by Vodaphone in 1997 with the ownership transferred to Council for a 20 year rent free lease. Over the past 19 years the tower and foundations have been enhanced numerous times to provide capacity for additional loading, however the tower has now reached its ultimate capacity.

The existing site is located within the Vincentia Reservoir compound owned by Council, and consists of the 30m monopole, with antennae and dishes attached, and four ground level communications huts.

The existing monopole provides telecommunications and emergency communications services to the area, as well as used by Shoalhaven Water and Shoalhaven City Council communications. It is also used for transmitting the community radio station, Bay & Basin FM, as well as communications for other government and non-government users to service the local area. Use of telecommunications is growing, along with mobile data, and the current pole is not able to support the additional infrastructure necessary to accommodate the anticipated growth.

Council has recently declined requests from Telstra, Optus and other telecommunication providers to install additional equipment onto the tower due to the lack of capacity. Optus have delayed a site development at Vincentia STP due to the inability to install equipment on Vincentia tower to provide a link to the new site. The lack of capacity is also hindering Council’s ability to enhance it’s equipment on the tower.

In order to provide capacity for existing user enhancements and new future users, it was determined that Council would build a new 52m high three legged lattice type tower. Existing users equipment would be transferred to the new tower and then the existing monopole tower demolised and removed from the site. The project will be in 2 phases. Phase 1 will consist of design and construction of the new tower. Then once all licenees have moved phase 2 will consist of demolition of the existing monopole.

Council’s Strategy and Assets Committee (under delegation) endorsed a Review of Environmental Factors at its meeting on 20 October 2015.

Tenders Received

Tenders were received from the following:

Tenderer	Location
DTE Management Group Pty Ltd	Yagoona NSW
Australian Radio Towers	Murwillmbah South NSW
Future Engineering & Communications Pty Ltd	Cockburn Central WA

Details relating the evaluation of the tenders are contained in the confidential report.

Community Engagement:

Shoalhaven Water commissioned a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) which was completed in June 2015. The completed REF was then placed on public exhibition between 15 June 2015 to 3 July 2015.

In addition to the public exhibition 66 local land holders/stakeholders were advised by mail of the exhibited REF and were encouraged to view the document and provide a written submission to Council in relation to the proposal.

Three responses to the REF were recevied from Office of Environment and Heritage/NSWNP, The Department of Defence and a local resident.

No negative responses were received as part of the public exhibition or as a result of the direct mail out.

Council’s Strategy and Assets Committee (under delegation) endorsed the REF at its meeting on 20 October 2015.

Consultation has been ongoing with licence holders/stakeholders on the site and Shoalhaven Water has provided draft antenna locations and timetables to all current tower occupants. The current licence holders have all been given notice that the tower will be removed after April 2017.

The 3 main telecommunications providers (Telstra, Optus and Vodaphone) all have licence agreements that expire on the 31/3/2017. To assist with the transition draft licence agreements have been sent to all occupants.

Vodaphone and Telstra have both engaged contractors for the transfer process. Shoalhaven Water has been in discussion with Optus Operations Manager and engineers however they are yet to appoint a contractor to manage the transfer process.

For the smaller occupants it is expected Shoalhaven Water’s technicans will manage the transfer process.

Ongoing community consultation will be as per the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan prepared for the construction phase.

Policy Implications

Purchasing Policy – POL16/103

The tender for this project has been undertaken and in accordance with Council’s Purchasing Policy. The recommendations for this report are consistent with the provision of Councils Purchasing Policy.

Financial Implications:

Sufficent funds have been allocated in the Towers budget for the 2016/17 financial year. Contract management will be done in conjunction with GHD through the PPME partnership Shoalhaven Water has with GHD. Site inspections are to be undertaken by Shoalhaven Water’s nominated construction inspectors and communications technicans.

It is proposed to start construction of the project in March 2017 with design and preconstruction works to commence late November 2016. Completion of the project is subject to licence holders relocating to the new tower and is proposed for June 2017.

Conclusion

Shoalhaven Water have undertaken a comprehensive tender evaluation in accordance with the approved tender evaluation & probity plan. It is recommended that a contract be awarded in accordance with the details included in the separate confidential report.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 15 November 2016

Page 185

SA16.37 BOM National Performance Report Audit

HPERM Ref: D16/315191

Group: Shoalhaven Water Group

Section: Water Customer & Business Services Manager

Purpose / Summary

This report is submitted to advise Council of the results of the independent audit conducted on Shoalhaven Water relating to the submission of water and sewerage data to be used in the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), National Performance Report 2015-16. The National Performance Report for water utilities is a requirement of the National Water Initiative Agreement.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council note the successful outcome of the 2015-16 independent audit of the National Performance Indicators for Shoalhaven Water.

Options

1. Council could seek additional information on the detail of this audit.

Background

This report provides an overview of the results of the recent independent audit conducted on Shoalhaven Water data that will be included in the annual BOM National Performance Report and which will be published mid-2017. The National Water Commission (NWC) Benchmarking Report is used widely by the Industry, media and general public to compare the performance of utilities across the nation.

The independent audit is carried out every three years and its success is integral to ensure that Shoalhaven Water’s performance is able to be benchmarked for comparison each year. The audit must find each indicator to be fully or substantially compliant in order for results to appear within the NWC publication. The independent audit provides political representatives, government agencies and the community with a level of confidence in the accuracy of the results submitted each year by water utilites across the 150 performance indicators.

Detail

In April 2006 all states became parties to the National Water Initiative (NWI) and agreed to report independently, publicly and on an annual basis the benchmarking results of pricing and service quality for urban water utilities. Under the terms of the NWI all water utilities with greater than 10,000 connections who provide urban water services are required to submit audited data for a range of performance indicators (in 2014-15 there were 80 water utilities and 7 bulk water suppliers servicing over 20 million people). The report is designed to;

· Outline water consumption trends, resource and services across the urban water industry,

· Provide a nationally consistent definition and approaches which enable comparisons to be made,

· Inform customers about the level of service they are receiving,

· Build community confidence and improve the water literacy of the community,

· Inform the decision making processes of government, regulatory agencies and water businesses, and

· Encourage greater transparency in the way water is managed.

The indicators used by the NWC are contained within 7 broad headings as follows;

· Water Resources

· Assets

· Customers

· Pricing

· Environmental

· Finance, and

· Health

The last independent audit of the National Performance Indicators for NSW Local Government Water Utilities was conducted in 2013. A summary of the audit findings for Shoalhaven at that time were;

· 37 indicators subject to audit,

· 32 indicators found to be fully compliant,

· 5 indicators found to be substantially compliant, and

· Nil indicators found to be non-compliant.

Audit Result 2015/16

For the 2015/16 audit, compilation of data commenced following the end of the financial year and details were submitted within a set timeframe (September each year) in order for Shoalhaven Water to comply with the NSW Government Best Practice Management framework. The independent audit was then carried out on a range of nationally selected indicators across the broad heading groups as shown below;

· 33 indicators subject to audit

- Water Resources (9 indicators)

- Assets (6 indicators)

- Customers (10 indicators)

- Environmental (6 indicators)

- Health (2 indicators)

A summary of the audit result revealed;

· 29 indicators found to be fully compliant,

· 4 indicators found to be substantially compliant, and

· Nil indicators found to be non-compliant.

The successful outcome of this audit will result in Shoalhaven Water’s performance being fully reported over the next 3 years. Council will be advised further of the data results for Shoalhaven Water and the subsequent benchmarking of the information once it is available. It is important to note that the results will be an accurate and true reflection of the performance of Shoalhaven Water in all of the NWC auditable indicators, against its contemporaries throughout Australia for the provision of Water and Sewerage services to the community.

Community Engagement

Performance reporting for water supply and sewerage must be relevant, useful and provide meaningful comparisons of key issues affecting water utilities and their customers. A transparent and consistent approach to the process of collecting and reporting data is required and therefore an independent, rigorous and comparable audit is necessary to ensure that the information is a true reflection of the services provided against similar sized water utilities. This information is used to provide information to the Shoalhaven community regarding the performance of its local water utility.

January 2017
Monday 23	5:00 pm	Development Committee
Tuesday 24	5:00 pm	Strategy & Assets Committee
Monday 30	5:00 pm	Ordinary Meeting
February 2017
Monday 6	5:00 pm	Development Committee
Monday 13	5:00 pm	Strategy & Assets Committee
Monday 20	5:00 pm	Ordinary Meeting
March 2017
Monday 6	5:00 pm	Development Committee
Monday 13	5:00 pm	Strategy & Assets Committee
Monday 20	5:00 pm	Ordinary Meeting
April 2017
Monday 3	5:00 pm	Development Committee
Monday 10	5:00 pm	Strategy & Assets Committee
Tuesday 18	5:00 pm	Ordinary Meeting
May 2017
Monday 1	5:00 pm	Development Committee
Monday 8	5:00 pm	Strategy & Assets Committee
Monday 15	5:00 pm	Ordinary Meeting
June 2017
Monday 5	5:00 pm	Development Committee
Tuesday 13	5:00 pm	Strategy & Assets Committee
Monday 26	5:00 pm	Ordinary Meeting
July 2017
Monday 17	5:00 pm	Development Committee
Monday 24	5:00 pm	Strategy & Assets Committee
Monday 31	5:00 pm	Ordinary Meeting
August 2017
Monday 7	5:00 pm	Development Committee
Monday 14	5:00 pm	Strategy & Assets Committee
Monday 21	5:00 pm	Ordinary Meeting
September 2017
Monday 4	5:00 pm	Development Committee
Monday 11	5:00 pm	Strategy & Assets Committee
Monday 18	5:00 pm	Ordinary Meeting
October 2017
Tuesday 3	5:00 pm	Development Committee
Monday 9	5:00 pm	Strategy & Assets Committee
Monday 16	5:00 pm	Ordinary Meeting

Lessee	Dorothy Curnow
Property	11 Lamonds Lane, Nowra and 4 car parking spaces
Term	3 years with a further 3 year option
Initial Rent	$19,219.43 per annum plus GST
Outgoings	100% of all expenses relating to the operation of the leased premises
Permitted Use	Rehabilitation / exercise studio, consulting room and ancillary facilities

Tenderer	Location
Skilltech Consulting Services Pty Ltd	Tenderlink Portal