Agenda of Strategy and Assets Committee

Minutes of the Strategy and Assets Committee

Meeting Date: Tuesday, 16 May 2017

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

Time: 5:02pm

The following members were present:

Clr Andrew Guile - Chairperson

Clr Joanna Gash

Clr Nina Cheyne

Clr Kaye Gartner - arrived 5.04pm

Clr Amanda Findley

Clr Mitchell Pakes

Clr Greg Watson

Clr Mark Kitchener - left the meeting - 7.26pm

Clr Bob Proudfoot

Mr Russ Pigg - General Manager - arrived 5.04pm

Apologies / Leave of Absence

Apologies were received from Clr Levett, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Alldrick

Confirmation of the Minutes

RESOLVED (Clr Findley / Clr Cheyne) MIN17.383

That the Minutes of the Strategy and Assets Committee held on Tuesday 18 April 2017 be confirmed.

CARRIED

Declarations of Interest

Clr Gash – SA17.132 - Surrender of Lease - Reflections Café - Slice of Life – less than significant non pecuniary interest declaration – will remain in the room and will take part in discussion and vote – Karen Anstiss is known to her and stood for Team Gash in the 2012 election.

Mayoral Minutes

MMS17.1 Mayoral Minute - Question on Notice - Kangaroo Valley Footbridge	HPERM Ref: D17/146223
Note: Clr Gartner and Russ Pigg arrived, the time being 5.04pm.
Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority) That Staff provide a brief status report to Council on the Upper Kangaroo River Footbridge issue – advising when a report would be forthcoming about the future management of the bridge.
RESOLVED (Clr Findley / Clr Guile) MIN17.384 That Staff provide a brief status report to Council on the Upper Kangaroo River Footbridge issue – advising when a report would be forthcoming about the future management of the bridge. CARRIED

MMS17.2 Mayoral Minute - Variation to Camping Fees for Nowra Showground & Other Campgrounds

HPERM Ref: D17/148491

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council adopt a flat fee of $25 per week for persons registered with the Homeless hub and camping at Nowra Showground and any other of Councils facilities that attract a fee, excluding Holiday Haven.

MOTION (Clr Findley / Clr Cheyne) MIN17.385

For: Clr Gash, Clr Cheyne, Clr Gartner and Clr Findley

Against: Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

LOST

Procedural Motion - Bring Item Forward

RESOLVED (Clr Findley / Clr Cheyne) MIN17.386

That the matter of item SA17.122 - Improvements to Nowra Showground – Nowra Ideas Day be brought forward for consideration.

CARRIED

SA17.122 Improvements to Nowra Showground - Nowra Ideas Day

HPERM Ref: D17/115403

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Continue to retain existing arrangements at Nowra Showground which involves daily Ranger site visits.

2. Consider an allocation of $10,000 in 2017/18 to develop a Nowra Showground Review and Strategy which will consider but not limited to the future camping, caravanning and management structure options.

3. Consider an allocation of $354,000 in 2017/18 budget to undertake identified road sealing and maintenance works.

4. In partnership with the Nowra Show Society, continue to seek funding to undertake embellishments such as arena fencing, seating and painting.

5. Complete the resolution (MIN16.706) to transition the current 355 Management Committee for Nowra Communal Hall to an occupancy agreement as per the adopted resolution in October 2016.

Motion (Clr Findley / Clr Gash)

That Council:

1. Continue to retain existing arrangements at Nowra Showground which involves daily Ranger site visits.

3. Consider an allocation of $354,000 in 2017/18 budget to undertake identified road sealing and maintenance works.

4. In partnership with the Nowra Show Society, continue to seek funding to undertake embellishments such as arena fencing, seating and painting.

5. Nowra community hall move to an occpancy agreement as per the cl resolution 2016? to ensure the use of the hall which is conditional

6. Council hold a community meeting with all stakeholders in relation to proceeding with a Section 355 Committee for the complete showground site

Amendment (Clr Pakes / Clr Watson)

That Council:

1. Continue to retain existing arrangements at Nowra Showground which involves daily Ranger site visits.

3. Consider an allocation of $354,000 in 2017/18 budget to undertake identified road sealing and maintenance works.

4. In partnership with the Nowra Show Society, continue to seek funding to undertake embellishments such as arena fencing, seating and painting.

5. Council establish a 355 Committee (Showground Committee) across the whole showground site, and staff report back on the establishment of the Committee, Terms of Reference and membership.

For: Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

Against: Clr Gash, Clr Cheyne, Clr Gartner, Clr Findley and Clr Kitchener

CARRIED on the CASTING VOTE of the chair

The AMENDMENT Became the MOTION, however during debate was further amended prior to resolution

RESOLVED (Clr Guile / Clr Pakes) MIN17.387

That Council:

1. Continue to retain existing arrangements at Nowra Showground which involves daily Ranger site visits, Until such time that a caretaker arrangement can be determined

3. Consider an allocation of $354,000 in 2017/18 budget to undertake identified road sealing and maintenance works.

4. In partnership with the Nowra Show Society, continue to seek funding to undertake embellishments such as arena fencing, seating and painting.

5. Council establish a 355 Committee (Showground Committee) across the whole showground site, and staff report back on the establishment of the Committee, Terms of Reference and membership.

For: Clr Guile, Clr Gash, Clr Cheyne, Clr Gartner, Clr Findley, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

Against: Nil

CARRIED

Deputations and Presentations

Prof. Gary Moore (Secretary of the Upper Kangaroo River Progress Association) addressed the Committee in relation to MMS17.1 – Kangaroo Valley Footbridge and tabled the following petition

Presentation of Petitions

Prof. Gary Moore (Secretary of the Upper Kangaroo River Progress Association) presented a petition containing 1,156 signatures which states “Please STOP the plans for the demolition of the footbridge across the Kangaroo River in the Upper Kangaroo River area of Kangaroo Valley. Please continue to maintain this historic footbridge for the benefit of the local residents of Kangaroo Valley, the wider Shoalhaven and the many who visit here. The Shoalhaven prides itself on being a tourist destination. It is vital that you do not remove one of the jewels in the crown of Shoalhaven’s beauty and history!”

Ms Gail Drummond (Sussex Inlet Community Forum) addressed the Committee in relation to SA17.120 – March 2017 – Quarterly Budget Review.

Procedural Motion - Bring Item Forward

RESOLVED (Clr Findley / Clr Guile) MIN17.388

That the matters of the following items be brought forward for consideration.

SA17.120 - March 2017 Quarterly Budget Review
SA17.133 - Old Bakery - Disposal of property 124 -126 Jacobs Drive, Sussex Inlet

CARRIED

SA17.120 March 2017 Quarterly Budget Review

HPERM Ref: D17/130938

Recommendation

That the March Quarterly Budget Review and vote movements outlined in the Quarterly Budget Review Statement be adopted by Council.

Recommendation (Clr Findley / Clr Proudfoot)

That Council:

1. Adopt the March Quarterly Budget Review and vote movements outlined in the Quarterly Budget Review Statement;

2. Fund the Sussex Inlet Streetscape improvements for the full scope of works, which will cost Council an additional $500K. Council has identified $500,000 in the draft 2017/18 DP/OP & budget documents for “Streetscape renewals” funded by the SRV. This could be allocated to Sussex Inlet Stage 2 if council decides to adopt the 13.2% rate increase approved by IPART.

CARRIED

Procedural Motion - Bring Item Forward

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr Watson) MIN17.389

That the matter of item SA17.124 - Shoalhaven Tourism Advisory Group - Quorum and Membership be brought forward for consideration.

CARRIED

SA17.124 Shoalhaven Tourism Advisory Group - Quorum and Membership	HPERM Ref: D17/137336
Recommendation That the Terms of Reference for STAG be amended as follows; 1. Membership The membership shall comprise of the following delegates: - A maximum of 9 skills based Industry Representatives, each position holding one membership vote each - All Councillors to be recognized as official members, with membership vote limited to two positions, voting Councillors to be nominated to STAG by Council. - Chairperson of the Shoalhaven Sports Board - A representative of National Parks and Wildlife (NPWS) as nominated by NPWS, holding one membership vote - The Mayor 2. The quorum be set to 7 members.
Recommendation (Clr Pakes / Clr Watson) That: 1. The Terms of Reference for Shoalhaven Tourism Advisory Group (STAG) be amended as follows; a. The membership shall comprise of the following delegates: b. A maximum of 9 skills based Industry Representatives, each position holding one membership vote each c. All Councillors to be recognized as official members, with membership vote limited to two positions, voting Councillors to be nominated to STAG by Council. d. Chairperson of the Shoalhaven Sports Board e. A representative of National Parks and Wildlife (NPWS) as nominated by NPWS, holding one membership vote f. The Mayor 2. The quorum be set to 7 members. 3. Council delegate to the STAG the following powers a. To endorse the Tourism Promotions budget b. To review the Tourism Promotions budget on a quarterly basis c. To expend the funds from the Tourism promotions budget CARRIED
Note: Council be provided with a briefing on Tuesday 24 May 2017 at 4.00pm to consider how Council could delegate a budget to the Shoalhaven Tourism Advisory Group for future operations.

SA17.133 Old Bakery - Disposal of property 124 -126 Jacobs Drive, Sussex Inlet	HPERM Ref: D17/139588
Recommendation Council: 1. Advertise its intention to dispose of the Old Sussex Inlet Bakery in accordance with Policy 16/256 and if no objections are received, authorise the sale by public auction of the property located at 124-126 Jacobs Drive, Sussex Inlet comprised in Lots 97 & 98 DP 21038 2 Authorise the General Manager to set the auction reserve (based on valuation advice) and to finalise the terms of a sale within 10% of the reserve or list price in the case of a private treaty sale if the property fails to sell at auction. 3. Fund all costs associated with the sale from job 88818 and the net income be placed in the Strategic Property Reserve; and 4 Grant authority to affix the Common Seal of the Council to any documents required to be sealed and that the General Manager be authorised to sign any documents necessary to give effect to this resolution.
Note: Clr Kitchener left the meeting, the time being 7.26pm
Recommendation (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Pakes) Council: 1. Advertise its intention to dispose of the Old Sussex Inlet Bakery in accordance with Policy 16/256 and if no objections are received, authorise the sale by public auction of the property located at 124-126 Jacobs Drive, Sussex Inlet comprised in Lots 97 & 98 DP 21038 2 Authorise the General Manager to set the auction reserve (based on valuation advice) and to finalise the terms of a sale within 10% of the reserve or list price in the case of a private treaty sale if the property fails to sell at auction. 3. Fund all costs associated with the sale from job 88818 and the net income be placed in the Strategic Property Reserve; and 4 Grant authority to affix the Common Seal of the Council to any documents required to be sealed and that the General Manager be authorised to sign any documents necessary to give effect to this resolution. CARRIED

Procedural Motion - Adjournment of Meeting

Motion (Clr Pakes / Clr Watson)

That the meeting be adjourned for 10 minutes.

CARRIED

Note: The Meeting adjourned, the time being 7.27pm.

Note: The meeting reconvened, the time being 7.40pm.

When the following members were present:

Clr Andrew Guile - Chairperson

Clr Joanna Gash

Clr Nina Cheyne

Clr Kaye Gartner

Clr Amanda Findley

Clr Mitchell Pakes

Clr Greg Watson

Clr Bob Proudfoot

Mr Russ Pigg - General Manager

Report of the Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Committee - 19 April 2017

CBD17.26 Additional Item - Applications for Membership Interview Panel

Recommendation:

1. That appointments to the Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Committee be made by the Council following recommendation from the Committee.

2. Recommendations for appointment as members will be made to the Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Committee by a Membership Appointment Panel comprising of:

- Chairperson or Nominee of the Chairperson

- Council staff Committee member or staff nominee

- Governance Unit Business Manager

3. Update the Committee’s Terms of Reference to reflect the changes.

RESOLVED (Clr Gash / Clr Guile) MIN17.390

1. That appointments to the Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Committee be made by the Council following recommendation from the Committee.

2. Recommendations for appointment as members will be made to the Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Committee by a Membership Appointment Panel comprising of:

- Chairperson or Nominee of the Chairperson

- Council staff Committee member or staff nominee

- Governance Unit Business Manager

3. Update the Committee’s Terms of Reference to reflect the changes.

CARRIED

Reports

SA17.118 Public Policy for Review - Anzac Day Services - Wreath Laying Ceremonies

HPERM Ref: D17/140747

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That the public policy, Anzac Day Services - Wreath Laying Ceremonies, be adopted with with changes as indicated in the Attachment.

RESOLVED (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Pakes) MIN17.391

That the public policy, Anzac Day Services - Wreath Laying Ceremonies, be adopted with changes as indicated in the Attachment together with the following amendment.

Council allows Councillors to attend whichever ceremony they nominate.
Council to provide one wreath per ceremony

For: Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

Against: Clr Gash, Clr Cheyne, Clr Gartner and Clr Findley

CARRIED

SA17.119 Proposal to commence Part Year Rating

HPERM Ref: D17/130565

Recommendation

That Council commence Part Year Rating from the 2017/18 Rating Year and approve the creation of a new full-time Rates Officer position.

Recommendation (Clr Gartner / Clr Cheyne)

That Council commence Part Year Rating from the 2017/18 Rating Year and approve the creation of a new full-time Rates Officer position.

CARRIED

SA17.120 March 2017 Quarterly Budget Review

HPERM Ref: D17/130938

Item dealt with earlier in the meeting.

SA17.121 Paringa Park - Adoption of Non motorised Water Sports Hub Master Plan

HPERM Ref: D17/78736

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council

1. Finalise and adopt the draft Paringa Park – Non-motorised Water Sports Hub with the minor amendments as summarised in this report and outlined in the Attachment to this report.

2. Consider an allocation of $80,000 in the 2017/18 budget to undertake detailed design of the master plan in order that the project is shovel ready for possible future grant applications.

RESOLVED (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Gash) MIN17.392

That Council;

1. Finalise and adopt the draft Paringa Park – Non-motorised Water Sports Hub with the minor amendments as summarised in this report and outlined in the Attachment to this report.

2. Consider an allocation of $80,000 in the 2017/18 budget to undertake detailed design of the master plan in order that the project is shovel ready for possible future grant applications.

CARRIED

SA17.122 Improvements To Nowra Showground - Nowra Ideas Day

HPERM Ref: D17/115403

Item dealt with earlier in the meeting see MIN17.387.

SA17.123 Grant Funding - Sanctuary Point Shop CCTV additional cameras

HPERM Ref: D17/133195

Recommendation

That Council accept the Safer Communities Funding to the value of $31,000 to enable the installation of two additional CCTV units at the rear of the Sanctuary Point Shops and vote the funds for the works.

Recommendation (Clr Gash / Clr Proudfoot)

CARRIED

SA17.124 Shoalhaven Tourism Advisory Group - Quorum and Membership

HPERM Ref: D17/137336

Item dealt with earlier in the meeting.

SA17.125 2017 NSW Local Roads Congress - Making Our Roads Work

HPERM Ref: D17/142413

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council

1. Notes the details of the 2017 NSW Local Roads Congress – Making our Roads Work scheduled for Monday 5 June 2017 in Parliament House, Sydney NSW.

2. Authorises available Councillors to attend the conference and such attendance be deemed Council Business.

3. Travel, accommodation and all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses be met in accordance with its adopted policy.

4. Request Councillors attending the conference to provide a written report within 30 days of returning from the conference.

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr Findley) MIN17.393

That Council

1. Notes the details of the 2017 NSW Local Roads Congress - Making our Roads Work scheduled for Monday 5 June 2017 in Parliament House, Sydney NSW.

2. Authorises available Councillors to attend the conference and such attendance be deemed Council Business.

3. Travel, accommodation and all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses be met in accordance with its adopted policy.

4. Request Councillors attending the conference to provide a written report within 30 days of returning from the conference.

CARRIED

SA17.126 Local Government Remuneration Tribunal - Determination - Councillor and Mayoral Fees, and the Categorisation of Councils 2017/18

HPERM Ref: D17/143049

Recommendation

That Council note the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal review of annual fees and agree to adjust Councillor and Mayoral fees for the 2017/18 financial year to $19,310 and $42,120 respectively.

Recommendation (Clr Watson / Clr Gash)

That Council note the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal review of annual fees and agree to adjust Councillor and Mayoral fees for the 2017/18 financial year to $19,310 and $42,120 respectively.

CARRIED

SA17.127 Huskisson Public Wharves - Access Working Party

HPERM Ref: D17/131844

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That the report on the outcomes from the Huskisson Wharf working party, on vessel access at the Huskisson Public Wharves be received for information.

RESOLVED (Clr Guile / Clr Proudfoot) MIN17.394

That the report on the outcomes from the Huskisson Wharf working party, on vessel access at the Huskisson Public Wharves be received for information.

CARRIED

SA17.128 Accessible Car Parking Spaces - Graham Street and McGrath Ave Nowra

HPERM Ref: D17/96657

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That:

1. A location in McGrath Avenue, Nowra be identified for two accessible car parking spaces and associated parking changes.

2. Proceed to public consultation on McGrath Avenue car parking improvements and if broad community support is received, refer the item to Shoalhaven Traffic Committee for review and determination.

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr Proudfoot) MIN17.395

That

1. A location in McGrath Avenue, Nowra be identified for two accessible car parking spaces and associated parking changes.

2. Proceed to public consultation on McGrath Avenue car parking improvements and if broad community support is received, refer the item to Shoalhaven Traffic Committee for review and determination.

CARRIED

SA17.129 Outdoor dining on public footpaths - Review of fee waiver

HPERM Ref: D17/122659

Recommendation

Council reintroduce annual outdoor dining fees for the use and occupation of public footpaths across the Shoalhaven at the flat rate of $62.4/m² per annum and an application fee of $161.2, commencing 1^st July 2017.

Recommendation (Clr Guile / Clr Proudfoot)

That:

1. The report be received for information;

2. The waiving of the flat rate continue and outdoor dining fees be reveiwed within 12 months;

3. The application fee of $161.20 commence 1^st July 2017.

CARRIED

SA17.130 Update Council on negotiations with property owners affected by the Bomaderry Nowra Regional Sports & Community Precinct Master Plan

HPERM Ref: D17/137888

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

Receive the report for information on negotiation with property owners.

RESOLVED (Clr Gash / Clr Findley) MIN17.396

That the report be received for information on negotiation with property owners.

CARRIED

SA17.131 Proposed Deed of Agreement with adjoining owner - Lot 25A DP5996 Bryces Road, Far Meadow

HPERM Ref: D17/142513

Recommendation

That Council, in accordance with Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993, consider a separate confidential report on this matter.

RESOLVED (Clr Guile / Clr Proudfoot) MIN17.397

That Council, in accordance with Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993, consider a separate confidential report on this matter.

CARRIED

SA17.132 Surrender of Lease - Reflections Cafe - Slice of Life	HPERM Ref: D17/137786
Clr Gash – SA17.132 - Surrender of Lease - Reflections Café - Slice of Life – less than significant non pecuniary interest declaration – remained in the room and took part in discussion and vote – Karen Anstiss is known to her and stood for Team Gash in the 2012 election.
Recommendation Council, in its capacity as the Worrigee (R97869) Reserve Trust agrees to the surrender by Slice of Life Australia of the Reflections Café lease as at 31 May 2017.
Recommendation (Clr Findley / Clr Cheyne) That Council, in its capacity as the Worrigee (R97869) Reserve Trust agrees to the surrender by Slice of Life Australia of the Reflections Café lease as at 31 May 2017. CARRIED

SA17.133 Old Bakery - Disposal Of Property 124 -126 Jacobs Drive, Sussex Inlet

HPERM Ref: D17/139588

Item dealt with earlier in the meeting.

SA17.134 Progress on Community Concept Plan - Larmer Ave, Sanctuary Point

HPERM Ref: D17/133284

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Endorse the concept plan for Bherwerre Wetland as the basis for future negotiations once funding is available; and

2. Congratulate both the Basin Villages Forum and The Bay and Basin Community Resources for actively leading local residents through a cooperative planning process.

RESOLVED (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Gash) MIN17.398

That Council:

1. Endorse the concept plan for Bherwerre Wetland as the basis for future negotiations once funding is available;

2. Ensure that in future management of the site, that drainage through the site is identified as an essential link in storm water drainage in Sanctuary Point and this will require regular maintenance in the future

3. Congratulate both the Basin Villages Forum and The Bay and Basin Community Resources for actively leading local residents through a cooperative planning process.

CARRIED

SA17.135 Re-Adoption of Pesticides Use Notification Plan - 2017

HPERM Ref: D17/137060

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council re-affirm the Pesticides Use Notification Plan with minor amendments outlined in the report.

RESOLVED (Clr Guile / Clr Pakes) MIN17.399

That Council re-affirm the Pesticides Use Notification Plan with minor amendments outlined in the report.

CARRIED

SA17.136 Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Performance Reporting 2015-2016

HPERM Ref: D17/113031

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That the information in this report be noted and council acknowledge the excellent results.

RESOLVED (Clr Findley / Clr Guile) MIN17.400

That the information in this report be noted and council acknowledge the excellent results.

CARRIED

SA17.137 Review of Shoalhaven Water Group Policies

HPERM Ref: D17/118362

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council reaffirm the following policies with minor changes:

1. POL16/83 – Community Service Obligations – Water Supply, Wastewater, Effluent, Trade Waste Services and Section 64 Contributions

2. POL16/92 – Water Meter Services – Downsize, Disconnect or Nominal Sizing

RESOLVED (Clr Guile / Clr Cheyne) MIN17.401

That Council reaffirm the following policies with minor changes:

1. POL16/83 – Community Service Obligations – Water Supply, Wastewater, Effluent, Trade Waste Services and Section 64 Contributions

2. POL16/92 – Water Meter Services – Downsize, Disconnect or Nominal Sizing

CARRIED

SA17.138 Extinguishment of Water Supply Easement - 55 Meroo Road Bomaderry

HPERM Ref: D17/147203

Recommendation

That

1. Council resolve to extinguish the Easement for Water Supply 3.048 wide over Lot 1 DP249217 at Bomaderry, as shown by hatching on copy of DP249217 marked ‘Attachment 1’.

2. Council’s costs to extinguish the easement are to be met from Shoalhaven Water’s Water Fund.

3. The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven be affixed to any documents required to be sealed.

Recommendation (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Guile)

That

1. Council resolve to extinguish the Easement for Water Supply 3.048 wide over Lot 1 DP249217 at Bomaderry, as shown by hatching on copy of DP249217 marked ‘Attachment 1’.

2. Council’s costs to extinguish the easement are to be met from Shoalhaven Water’s Water Fund.

3. The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven be affixed to any documents required to be sealed.

CARRIED

Procedural Motion - Matters of Urgency

Motion (Clr Proudfoot / Pakes)

That an additional item in relation to the detention basin to the east of Maxwell Crescent and the south of Copeland Avenue, Sanctuary Point be introduced as a matter of urgency.

The Chairperson ruled the matter as urgent for local reasons and as there had been damage to Council assets

SA17.139 Detention Basin Sanctuary Point - Installation of Barrier to Prohibit Vehicle Access

RESOLVED (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Pakes) MIN17.402

That Council, as a matter of urgency, install an adequate amount of bollards or barriers so as to prevent motor vehicles from illegally accessing the grassed basin floor in the detention basin to the east of Maxwell Crescent and the south of Copeland Avenue, Sanctuary Point

CARRIED

Confidential Reports

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

No members of the public made representations.

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr Cheyne) MIN17.403

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

CSA17.9 Renewal Agreement - Illuminated Street Name Signs - Claude Outdoor Pty Ltd

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)

There is a public interest consideration against disclosure of information as disclosure of the information could reasonably be 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.

CSA17.10 Proposed Deed of Agreement with adjoining owner - Lot 25A DP5996 Bryces Road, Far Meadow

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 8.43pm.

The meeting moved into open session, the time being 8.44pm.

There being no further business, the meeting concluded, the time being 8.45pm.

Clr Guile

CHAIRPERSON

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 13 June 2017

Page 44

SA17.148 Event Policy Update

HPERM Ref: D17/152355

Group: Finance Corporate & Community Services Group

Section: Tourism

Attachments: 1. Draft Sustainable Events Policy (under separate cover) ⇨

Purpose / Summary

To adopt the revised Events Policy after feedback was received during the public exhibition period.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council endorse the new Events Policy taking into consideration the changes made from the comments received during the public exhibition period.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation

Implications: Accepting the recommendation will lead to the policy being adopted. Approval will align the council Event Policy with the current Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and allow council staff to stream line event approvals on public land in line with the relevant legislation.

2. Adopt the recommendation with an amendment.

Implications: Any significant change to the policy should consider consultation with council staff because of legislation requirements and/or may have a resourcing implication.

3. Rescind the recommendation

Implications: The existing policy does not align with the LEP and creates issues for staff and event organisers.

Background

In late 2016, there was a change to the LEP, which resulted in Temporary Events being exempt from a Development Application under certain circumstances. If an event meets all the listed criteria outlined in the clause it would be exempt from requiring a Development Application (outlined under Part 4 of the EP&A Act).

Due to this change the Sustainable Events Policy required review and all associated forms and templates that related to approvals for events on public land.

Extensive staff consultation has been conducted to deliver this Draft Events Policy and ensure both the legislative and Council risk needs are appropriately addressed.

Consideration was also given to cutting the red tape for event organisers were possible so that the Shoalhaven remains “open for business”. Staff consultation included workshops with representatives from Parks and Recreation, Planning, Waste, Strategic Planning, Executive Strategy, Insurance and Risk and Tourism

Research was also conducted into best practice for event approvals across a variety of Local Government Areas to ensure the Draft Policy was competitive and in line with approvals required in other areas.

Community Engagement

The Draft Policy has been on public exhibition for 28 days and submissions receipted for 42 days.

Policy Implications

Submission Author	Submission Content	Comment
Sanctuary Point Community Pride Inc. - External	Section 3.4.2 Para 51 which states: Bonds will be released back to the event organiser within 14 days after the scheduled date of the event subject to and inspection by Council and the public land being returned to its original condition. As most Council properties are quite insecure (eg. Francis Ryan Reserve) this condition can only be applied equitably if Council operators inspect the venue immediately prior to occupation by the event management and immediately following the point at which the event management considers that the venue is ready to vacate. There is nothing to prevent external parties damaging a venue some time before or after an event but after, or prior to, Council inspection. A procedure must be developed to protect event organisers from this likelihood.	Noted. Council staff do conduct a “before” and “after” inspection as close to the event start and finish as possible. The event organiser may also choose to provide “before” and “after” photographs of the site if they are concerned about possible third party damage.
Strategy Planning – Internal	• Under this Policy, you appear to be issuing approvals under the Local Government Act and the Roads Act. It is strongly recommended that you liaise with Strategic Planning to formulate any provisions that should be included in Council’s single Local Approvals Policy (LAP) which is currently being prepared by Strategic Planning. • You note in Section 3.1 (Step 1) that in some cases a DA may be required. The exempt provisions in Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (SLEP) 2014 need to be outlined/referenced in the Policy. You should also include commentary on when development consent is required and what planning instruments and policies would be relevant in those circumstances (e.g. SLEP 2014, Development Control Plan 2014, Contributions Plan). • In section 2, paragraph 2, you note that this Policy applies to markets, then say that ‘separate requirements apply to markets’. Please clarify this inconsistency and clearly specify what these provisions are. It would be helpful to view this prior to the Policy being finalised. • Although you make reference to approvals being required for events within the road reserve, there is limited commentary in the Policy. • I have attached a copy of the draft Policy noting typos, formatting etc for your consideration.	Noted. Noted. Event organisers are encouraged to liaise directly with Council in relation to their event so DA requirements (if applicable) can form part of that discussion. However, a hyperlink to the exempt provisions of SLEP 2014 will be inserted in the Policy. Noted. The relevant Terms & Conditions and any other DCP requirements for markets will be inserted in the Policy OR a separate policy is being developed to address markets that no longer require a DA to be lodged. Noted. The process for lodging a Section 138 (or Roads Act) application is already outlined on the Council website – as follows, so it is not repeated in the Policy document: https://www.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/Planning-amp-Building/Development/Section-138-applications Noted.
Private Individual - External	I have been involved in events in the Shoalhaven - in organisation, management, stall holding and volunteering. These have included RSPCA Nowra Million Paws Walk, RSPCA Ulladulla Dogs Day Out, RSPCA Nowra Puppy Dogs Picnic and various other events such as Huskisson Easter Carnival, Australia Day at Nowra Showground, Relay for Life, Spring into Sanctuary Point and most recently the Huskisson Triathlon. I have read through the draft policy and the only concern I have is clause 3.23 - Toilets. The events I have managed or taken part in for the RSPCA have had between 100 and 300 patrons and with a duration of 4-6 hours. These have been held in the past at Nowra Showground, Harry Sawkins Park, White Sands Park, Milton Showground, Mollymook Beach Reserve and Lions Park, Burrill Lake. The existing toilet facilities at these sites have always been adequate for our events (and one of the reasons we have chosen those places to hold our events). But under this draft policy we would be required to organise extra toilets at some sites, which I believe is firstly, not warranted and secondly, adding an unnecessary cost to our events. As a charity we need to keep costs down as much as possible. One thing to note is that there is a big difference between 100 and 500 people, so I think this should be recognised in the Policy, perhaps by making it another reducing factor, along with the reduction for shorter duration events - especially since smaller events would be better at smaller venues where there are fewer existing toilets. Another concern is that the draft policy states “Separate toilet and handwashing facilities should be made available for food handlers” - I have never seen this in place and I believe it is not a feasible requirement, I can’t even think of how this would be done, unless a portable toilet with handwashing facilities and a keyed lock was supplied. A table was also provided showing the toilet requirements (under this Policy) on some public reserves. I was also wondering about unisex toilets - I believe they are the future of public toilets - but the policy doesn’t specify what the requirements are if there are only unisex and not separate male and female toilets. And just to be pedantic, when reducing the number required, what happens when you have a half - do you provide for the rounded down or rounded up number?	Noted. The toilet requirements under Section 3.23 of the Policy reflect best practice and are consistent with the current requirements being used for events that require DAs and those that don’t require DAs in the Shoalhaven. It is further noted the Policy provides a guide and should an event organiser demonstrate that toilet facilities are adequate, based on the specific circumstances of their event, then Council will not demand toilet provision that is not required. This may be the case where an event is located in various locations or moves between locations. However, Council must ensure that during any event health & safety requirements for community members is satisfactory.
Private Individual - External	In keeping with "a plastic conscience or plastic wise Shoalhaven" I'd like to propose that the events policy updates its policies to best reflect this including the minimising single use plastics, banning the use of balloons and single use plastic bags, maximising recycling opportunities, offering information opportunities on alternatives and possibly incentives through charges based intended practices or positive outcomes.	Noted. This is a matter that can be addressed in the WMP (under Section 3.2.2 of the Policy). However, additions have been made setting out the current legislation.

Financial Implications

Previously, when an event required a DA, applicants had to pay DA fees. With the changes to the LEP these fees no longer apply for many events who now no longer require a DA. Administration fees have been created to assist with costs of processing the Event Applications.

Fees associated with the new policy relate to small, medium and large events. A category for Community Not for Profit events has also been created. Fees will be reported to council as part of the usual Fees and Charges process but are listed below as a reference.

· Community Not For Profit - $25.00

· Small Events - $123.00

· Medium Events - $270.00

· Large Events - $392.00

· Preapproved* Small Event No Change - $61.50

· Preapproved* Medium Event No Change - $135.00

· Preapproved* Large Events No Change - $196.00

*Throughout the region there are events that run regularly, often annually.

In the past, event organisers could apply for a DA for an event with the option for approvals for up to 5 years. Organisers would then also apply for an “Event Permit” per event to use public land. This is necessary to check insurances and valid licences are in place and valid.

Under the proposed changes, event organisers will now only need to complete an “Event Application” for approval, but this will need to be done per event without the option of long term blanket approvals. The reduction of fees for “preapproved” events recognises that if there are no significant changes to the event organisation and running year on year, there is far less work involved in processing the application.

Risk Implications

Risk implications have been considered in the development of the new policy and discussed during the staff consultation process. The purpose of this policy is to reduce risk to council for public events on public land and place the responsibility onto the event organiser where appropriate.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 13 June 2017

Page 96

SA17.154 Section 355 Management Committee - Terms of Reference - Nowra Showground

HPERM Ref: D17/165021

Group: Finance Corporate & Community Services Group

Section: Recreation Community & Culture

Attachments: 1. Management Committee Policy ⇩

2. Management Committee Guidelines (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Management Committee Subsidy Application Form 2016-17 ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To identify Terms of Reference for the proposed Section 355 Management Committee to have delegated care, control and management of the whole Nowra Showground site including leased and licensed facilities, under Section 377 of the Local Government Act, 1993.

Recommendation

That Council

1. Endorse the Terms of Reference and committee membership numbers for the establishment of a 355 Management Committee for Nowra Showground as outlined in the report,

2. Advertise for members to establish a 355 Management Committee for Nowra Showground.

3. In accordance with MIN15.622 and the delegation provided therein, the General Manager approve the membership appointments to the 355 Management Committee for Nowra Showground.

4. The once the committee is established staff continue to work with the committee to establish an appropriate operational budget and determine how works will be undertaken (i.e. existing council staff, contract or volunteers).

Options

1. Council adopt the recommendations

Implications: this will allow Council staff to act on the resolution MIN17.387

2. Council adopt the recommendations with amendments(s)

Implications: Council may resolve to remove or add to the recommendations

3. Council not adopt the recommendation and provide an alternative recommendation

Implications: This may not meet the expectations of the community and current users of the site.

Background

The Strategy & Assets Committee resolved on 16/05/2017 and adopted MIN17.387 D17/115403 that:

“Council establish a 355 Committee (Showground Committee) across the whole showground site, and staff report back on the establishment of the Committee, Terms of Reference and membership”.

This report outlines Terms of Reference for the Management Committee. Once these are endorsed, staff will proceed to seek membership to form the Committee.

Guidelines

The Terms of Reference for a Section 355 Committee are detailed in the Management Committees Policy POL12/185 and Management Committee Guidelines (attached to this report). The Guidelines document the essential roles and functions of Committees, and the protocols and procedures that they must follow in carrying out these roles. Where circumstances occur that the Guidelines do not cover, liaison with Council may be required to clarify responsibilities/obligations.

Currently Council has 30 Section 355 committees operating effectively under these Terms of Reference and Guidelines. The Berry, Milton and Kangaroo Valley showground committees all operate within these guidelines.

The Management Committee operates as a Committee of Council. Members are volunteers who agree to comply with Council’s Code of Conduct, and to maintain in every respect Council’s obligation to operate in a fair and equitable manner, with transparency, accountability and responsibility, and within all procedural, policy and legislative requirements. All facilities and funds managed by the Committee belong to Council, and Council should be notified, and approval has to be sought from Council prior to any major works being undertaken.

The following list of responsibilities, including but not limited to, summarises the Committee’s responsibilities, as detailed in the Guidelines:

a) Provision of an Annual Facility Management Plan,

b) Provision of Annual Financial Statements (profit & Loss and Balance Sheet) & Forecast Budget,

c) Administration of Hire arrangements – booking, invoicing, bond refunds – subject to Council’s adopted Fees & Charges, utilising the proposed on-line booking system, and managing potential conflicting applications for use,

d) Set up, manage the finances and bank account for the Nowra Showground Management Committee, and submit the quarterly GST returns to Council’s Finance Section,

e) Provision of Facility Maintenance covering the whole site including amenities and licensed facilities but excluding leased facilities. This includes but is not limited to:

a. water and electricity accounts;

b. air-conditioning;

c. security & alarm services;

d. engagement and supervision of contractors;

e. line-marking, grounds maintenance, floodlight repairs, power boxes;

f. cleaning & consumables;

g. vandalism & graffiti;

h. maintenance such as internal & external-touch-up repainting, replacement of worn or broken items, plumbing, potholes, gutters, trees;

i. repairs (as further detailed in the Management Committee Guidelines),

f) Bookkeeping of Management Committee accounts – all operational income and expenses,

g) Undertake Risk Management – maintenance and reporting in accordance with Council’s WHS procedures,

h) Keep and maintain accurate records and minutes of meetings and submit to Council,

i) Induct and train new members in accordance with the requirements for volunteers. (Note - Council will initially provide start up training for the Management Committee)

j) Participate in four (4) yearly review of the Nowra Showground Plan of Management (POM).

How the Committee manages their operational responsibilities is a decision to be taken by the Committee, upon consideration of their member skills base and capacity.

All professional services must be performed by contractors with relevant industry certification, or by Council staff (in which case, staff wages and costs are on-charged to the Management Committee – at cost). Most other Committee functions are usually performed by volunteers, however some Committees have elected to contract out for services such as grounds maintenance & mowing, cleaning buildings, Booking Officer, bookkeeping, camping manager/fee collection. Strict legislative conditions apply to the engagement of contractors, which must be observed by the Committee, and will be advised by the Facility Officer.

4.2 Membership (abridged from the Management Committee Guidelines)

Council will actively seek members (from the community) with the potential to enhance the depth and balance of committee skills. This may be done by advertising committee elections. It is Council’s usual practice to consult with committees before appointing additional members. If vacancies exist, these are to be advertised on facility notice boards or in the press with a request for nominations to fill the vacant positions.

All user groups are entitled to have equal representation on the Committee. No one user group can have a majority of members, other than Showground Management Committees.

The Guidelines allow that Showground Management Committees may permit:

· Five (5) voting members from show societies and

· Two (2) from each of the other user groups (MIN10.654)

Members of general community – no set number or limit.

In this case, as the Nowra Showground has so many user groups, it is proposed to invite:

· Five (5) voting members from Nowra Show Society,

· One (1) voting member from each regular user group with high frequency bookings listed below, and

· Two (2) members of the general community.

The Committee shall consist of a minimum of ten (10) committee members. The following committee positions need to be filled for the committee to be viable and function effectively:

· Chairperson,

· Deputy Chairperson,

· Treasurer,

· Secretary,

· Booking Officer,

· Maintenance Officer,

· Plus four (4) other members to give flexibility covering positions when required.

When new regular users with high frequency bookings become established at the Nowra Showground site they will be eligible to join the management committee on the membership basis detailed above. The Management Committee will seek approval via Council’s Liaison Officer.

Office bearers are to be elected by the Committee on the following basis to maintain continuity:

a) Every year, in conjunction with the Annual General Meeting, all positions will be declared vacant. Executive office bearers will be elected (re-elected) before the committee members.

b) The Executive office bearers will comprise Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson, Secretary, Treasurer, Booking Officer and Maintenance Officer.

c) Committees can designate additional positions (such as Publicity Officer, Assistant Secretary, Assistant Treasurer, etc.) with such positions being filled by any committee member.

d) A committee member shall not hold more than one executive position at any one time.

e) If an executive office bearer ceases to hold the position, an election should be held at the next General Meeting or at a special meeting called for that purpose.

f) 4.2.4 Motion of No-confidence
Council has the right to remove any member from a committee, if seventy five percent (75%) of the committee entitled to vote, who are present at an Extraordinary Meeting convened to consider this option, vote in favour of a motion of no-confidence.

In establishing the Management Committee, consideration will need to be given to the skill sets required and expertise of potential office bearers – e.g. computer literacy, accounting experience, governance expertise etc. Similarly, nominations from community members for the two (2) places will need to be assessed against the requirements of the Committee once the regular users have confirmed their nominees.

Regular User Group	Facilities Used	Tenure	Membership on Committee
Nowra Show Society	All of Showground	MOU with Council	5
Shoalhaven Citizens Youth Club Nowra Gymnastics Club	Community Youth Hall	Management Committee -transitioning to lease by 04.10.2018	1
Woodcraft Society	Caretaker’s Cottage	Lease	1
Spinners & Weavers	Caretaker’s Cottage	Lease	1
Nowra Men’s Shed	Caretaker’s Cottage	Lease	1
West Street [Nowra] Croquet Club	Croquet Lawn and Clubhouse	Lease	1
Nowra Poultry Club	Poultry Pavilion	Licence	1
Shoalhaven Dog Training Club	Dog Clubhouse Added Area Sports field	Regular user	1
Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District - Aboriginal Vascular Health – Auntie Jean	Pavilion/Committee Room Regular Hirer	Regular hirer	1
Helping The Homeless in Nowra Soup Kitchen	Pavilion/Committee Room Regular Hirer	Regular hirer	1
Nowra Cricket Club	Main Arena, Added Area, Amenities Building (store room), Shed behind Caretakers Cottage	Nominated home ground – seasonal bookings	1
Shoalhaven Twilight Cricket Association	Added Area Sports field	Seasonal bookings	1
Nowra Warriors Rugby League Football Club	Main Arena and Grandstand Pavilion Kitchen Amenities Building	Nominated home ground – seasonal bookings	1
Nowra Bomaderry JETS	Main Arena and Grandstand Pavilion Kitchen Amenities Building	Nominated home ground – seasonal bookings	1
General Community	Vicinity	None	2
TOTAL MEMBERSHIP POSSIBLE			20

Meetings of committees may be held as often as considered necessary or desirable for their purposes. However, meetings must be held at least quarterly. The Annual General Meeting (AGM) is to be held between 1 July and 30 September. A simple majority of committee members shall constitute a quorum. All decisions must be adopted by a majority of members present.

Committees are representatives of Council. As such, they are subject to Council’s requirements for transparency, accountability and responsibility. To ensure these aims are met, meetings are to be open to the public. Committees should note that public observers do not have voting rights and may only address the committee if agreed to by the committee representatives. Confidential and sensitive matters may be discussed with Council’s Liaison Officer.

Induction and Training will be provided in the first instance by Council for members appointed Nowra Showground Management Committee. Subsequent induction and training of new members will be the responsibility of the Management Committee. Induction and Training will be recorded and reported annually to Council. This will include, but not be limited to:

· Code of Conduct Training,

· Committee Meeting Practice,

· Work Health & Safety training and induction to the manual and reporting requirements,

· Risk Assessment,

· Incident Reporting,

· Workplace Inspections,

· Manual Handling,

· Workplace Chemical Awareness and maintaining the on-site Chemical Register,

· Electrical Tagging & Testing and maintaining the on-site electrical Appliance Register,

· Training in relevant Safe Work instruction (SWI’s) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s),

· Nowra Showground Plan of Management (POM) Awareness.

Community Engagement

Community Engagement will proceed once Terms of Reference have been resolved, in order to seek membership and establish Committee.

All Nowra Showground stakeholders listed above will be contacted directly.

In addition, this opportunity will be advertised via:

· Public Notice,

· Council’s website and Facebook platforms,

· Media release.

Policy Implications

The proposed committee membership formulation is a change to the membership make-up of the existing Management Committee Guidelines constitution. As such this variation requires Council endorsement.

Annual Crown Reserves Reporting requirements apply to the Crown Land sections of the Showground (all areas north of Worrigee Street). The Committee will be responsible for providing usage, facility management, and financial data each year.

Financial Implications

The establishment of the committee will be within existing staff and budgetary allocations.

Council staff will work with the Nowra Showground Management Committee, throughout the transition to develop a site-wide Facility Management Plan, to manage all operational functions.

In general, Management Committees are required to meet all operational expenses from income derived from the facilities. However, a maintenance subsidy is provided to sportsground and showground Management Committees that provide services that do not attract hire income (sportsgrounds). Application is made annually by the Committee to Council, including detailed financial statements. Financial viability is considered, and the subsidy is to be phased out as income increases at the facilities. The subsidy for 2016/17 at Milton Showground was $30,000 (/annum) and Berry Showground, $25,000 (/annum).

Currently Council staff perform operational maintenance at the Nowra Showground, funded from operational budgets. The new Committee will elect to perform these functions via volunteer labour, engaging contractors, or requesting Council staff to undertake works (Council labour would be charged to the Committee at an on-cost basis).

Due to the extensive infrastructure and current low camping revenue at Nowra Showground, the maintenance subsidy that will apply will need to be assessed in consideration of the Committee’s finances, as the site’s Facility Management Plan is developed. The development of the Facility Management Plan will involve the establishment of a set of accounts for the site, and monitoring and analysis of the operational budgets.

An initial funds allocation will be made for operational cash-flow, and dedicated Job Numbers will be established.

Factors that will require further investigation in particular, are:

· expenditure budget to cover all operational requirements;

· possible impacts on Council’s resourcing of the services provided to the showground.

In relation to any changes in resourcing at the Showground, consultation is required with staff in relation to workplace change before a definite decision is made, this is in accordance with the Local Government (State) Award 2014. The change in resources will depend on the formation of the committee and if their plans for management impact current operations which at this stage has not been determined.

In the future, grant applications to other funding bodies will provide additional funding for major infrastructure replacement/upgrade. Management Committees are responsible for making application, with support from Council’s Facilities Coordinator.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 13 June 2017

Page 109

SA17.156 Crown Land Management Act 2016

HPERM Ref: D17/151835

Group: Assets & Works Group

Section: Business & Property

Attachments: 1. Impacts of Crown Land Management Act 2016 for Local Government ⇩

2. Fact Sheet - Crown Land for the Future - Fit for Purpose Legislation for Crown Land and Roads ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To advise of the current status of the Crown Land Management Act 2016.

Recommendation

That Council receive the report for imformation on the Crown Land Management Act 2016 and refer this to the Natural Resource and Floodplain Committee for information.

Options

1. Resolve as recommended.

Implications: The Crown Land Management Act 2016 came about as a result of the first comprehensive review of Crown lands legislation in twenty four (24) years and this report provides Council with an overview of the legislation and aspects of it which are of importance to local government.

2. Propose an alternative and provide further direction to staff.

Background

The review of Crown Lands and the management of the Crown estate has been undertaken as a result of the Crown Lands Legislation White Paper which was published in 2014 and culminated in the passing into legislation of the Crown Lands Management Act 2016 on 9 November 2016 (assented to 14 November 2016).

The aim of the review was “…improving the management of Crown land and increasing the benefits and returns from Crown land to the community”.

The principal reforms of the 2016 Act are:

· Dedicated or reserved Crown land will no longer be vested in reserve trusts;

· The Minister will, instead, be able to appoint Crown land managers for dedicated or reserved Crown land;

· The Minister will be able to create statutory land managers for appointment as Crown land managers (with board members of reserve trusts being automatically appointed by the proposed Bill to statutory land managers for former reserve trust lands);

· Better governance structures and conduct requirements will be introduced for Crown land managers and their boards (where applicable);

· The Minister will be able to issue Crown land management rules for the management of dedicated or reserved Crown land;

· The Minister will be required to approve community engagement strategies for certain dealings or other action affecting Crown land;

· Terms and conditions of certain holdings will be permitted to deal with particular matters (eg determination and redetermination of rent);

· Rent determinations and redeterminations in relation to Crown land holdings will be rationalised and simplified;

· The holder of a holding or permit will be required to pay rent due to the Crown before the holder can effect a transfer of the holding or permit;

· A local Council appointed as a Crown land manager of dedicated or reserved Crown land will be able to manage the land in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 applicable to community land;

· The Minister will be able to transfer Crown land to local councils if the land is of local (and not State) significance;

· Special provisions will be introduced to protect native title rights and interests;

· The current land assessment programme will be discontinued;

· More flexible arrangements will be introduced for the sale, use and leasing of Crown land in the Western Division;

· Modern and robust provisions will be introduced for investigating compliance with, and enforcing, the proposed Bill and holdings granted under it; and

· The Minister will be required to approve 10 year State strategic plans for Crown land.

The Act delivers on the promise of reforms identified through the comprehensive review of land management (the 2014 Crown Lands White Paper) by providing for:

a) Stronger and more effective community engagement in decisions about Crown land

Comment: The government has prepared a position paper which sets out its expectations for a community engagement strategy. Shoalhaven City Council already has a Community Engagement Strategy which needs to be assessed against the government’s model to ensure consistency.

In addition to the requirement that Councils follow community engagement provisions under the Local Government Act 1993, the Minister will be able to require Crown land managers to establish community advisory groups. Shoalhaven City Council has established a commitment to community consultation through the formation of community consultative bodies which are based on defined geographic areas.

b) Continuing community involvement in the management of Crown land reserves

Comment: It appears that there is an intent to further encourage community involvement in Crown land management. At the same time, the legislation takes a risk based approach to the level of Ministerial oversight by providing incentives for managers of Crown reserves to develop enhanced capacity and governance abilities.

Notwithstanding the intent, there are some anomalies which have been identified eg under the Local Government Act 1993, a lease can be granted for 5 years or less without approval from the Minister. Under the Crown Land Management Act 2016, a lease for 10 years or less can be granted without the Minister’s consent.

c) Local management for the benefit of local communities

Comment: Shoalhaven City Council strongly supports the principle of managing local lands at a local level and acknowledges the finding in the Crown Lands review that “…the NSW Government added marginal value by continuing to own locally significant Crown land.”

The supporting documentation on the DPI Lands website suggests that the 2015 Local Land Pilot was conducted to explore the concept that local land should be transferred to local councils.

The pilot tested the draft criteria for identifying local land as recommended by the review, negotiated hypothetical outcomes and identified implementation issues and it has been publically acknowledged that the “…pilot found that there was support for the implementation of the local land transfer concept.”.

Whilst there is no reason to doubt this assertion, it will be reassuring to understand a detail account of the pilot and the conclusions arising from it.

Questions about resourcing continue to dominate discussion about this reform but unfortunately there is no information which has been made available to inform a debate about the merits of this concept.

Employees of the test pilot Councils were required to sign confidentiality agreements.

It is noted that implementation of the framework for the transfer of local land to local councils commenced in the pilot by local government areas in 2017 with further rollout to other areas across the state to be negotiated.

It is also noted that there will be no forced transfers and that any Crown land identified as local land will generally be transferred to local councils as “community land”.

d) Local interests to be managed locally

Comment: The underlying principle of the legislation is to manage Crown land in such a way that it continues to provide significant benefits to the people of NSW. In some cases these benefits are realised at a local level and in other cases the benefits are broader.

A key objective of the review was to identify who is best placed to manage Crown land and identify and protect Crown land that is important to the state and local communities. In 2015 the Local Land Pilot was conducted to explore the concept that local land should be transferred to local councils to enable better decisions about the land to be made by local communities.

The NSW Government will retain land that is of state significance ie land that:

· Currently provides, or is required for, planned core government services and infrastructure;

· Is part of a state or regionally significant system or network;

· Is of high environmental value at a state or regional scale and is required for addition to the conservation network, including land identified for future reservation;

· Is iconic or contains an iconic asset;

· Has or contains an item of state or heritage importance;

· Includes beaches, coasts, estuaries and adjoining, contiguous foreshore lands; and

· Produces or has the identified and earmarked potential to produce significant income for the state.

This definition of state significant land is wide ranging and suggests that there is a very real possibility that land of extreme importance to Council may be taken back by the State.

The government will involve Aboriginal Land Councils in voluntary negotiations using the new Aboriginal Land Agreement (ALA) provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 to encourage the settlement of multiple land claims, enable opportunities for sustainable social, cultural and economic benefits for Aboriginal people and greater certainty for all parties over Crown land. Council is actively working with a number of the Land Councils in our area and the timely resolution of land claims is considered to be in everyone’s interests. As such it hoped that this process may assist in this regard, however the NSW Government need to ensure that the resolution of land claims is appropriately resourced.

Any Crown land identified as local land will generally be transferred to local councils as “community land”.

e) Protecting our environment, social and cultural heritage

Comment: The intent of the legislation is to explicitly require environmental, social, cultural heritage and economic considerations to be taken into account in decision making about Crown land. This is to be achieved through the community consultation process and/or by Ministerial direction.

To deliver a consistent whole-of-state approach, land use on Crown land will be governed by a combination of the environmental and planning framework and the reserve purpose including but not limited to Local Environmental Plans, regional plans, environmental and other land management legislation.

The proposed legislation is silent on the issue of climate change and sea level rise although it is acknowledged that references to “environmental considerations” might be expected to cover these issues.

Crown land that is retained by the Crown should be adequately resourced to ensure the appropriate and timely management of weeds, pests, feral animals, anti-social behaviour and degraded access to mitigate the adverse impacts on adjacent lands and communities.

f) Meaningful involvement for Aboriginal communities in Crown land

Comment: The existing Crown land legislation has supported involvement of Aboriginal communities to use and co-manage Crown land. However, the legislation has not referenced Aboriginal involvement or acknowledged their traditional connection to the land and their rights under land claim and native title legislation.

The positive objectives of the legislation include consideration of Aboriginal land rights and continuing to involve Aboriginal groups in discussions about the transfer of local lands to councils.

The legislation requires each local council in NSW to have a native title manager to oversee and approve specific dealings and actions that may affect native title. The Minister for Lands will be able to determine the relevant training and/or qualification for the native title manager to ensure that local councils managing Crown land under the LGA comply with native title legislation.

Native Title is not referred to in the current Crown lands legislation which commenced prior to the commencement of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993. The new legislation references the Native Title Act 1993 and acknowledges the spiritual, social, cultural and economic importance of land to the Aboriginal people of NSW.

g) Effectively managing Crown land with native title rights and interests

Comment: See (f)

h) A fairer and more consistent approach to Crown land tenures

Comment: Whilst it is unclear, it does appear that tenures will continue to be managed by the NSW Government and will not impact on Shoalhaven City Council.

i) Facilitating a sustainable and prosperous Western Division

Comment: Not applicable to Shoalhaven City Council.

j) Greater powers to stop illegal activity on Crown land.

Comment: The Crown Lands review found that there was broad support for a stronger compliance and enforcement regime to help protect Crown land against illegal activity that threatens environmental values and/or public use and enjoyment of Crown lands.

The legislation contains updated and expanded enforcement and compliance provisions for Crown land ensuring that Crown land is appropriately used and managed.

CURRENT ADVICE FROM CROWN LAND

The most recent correspondence (refer Attachment 1) from Department of Industry – Lands explains the various aspects of the new legislation. Whilst it is acknowledged that most issues relating to the new legislation are covered in this correspondence, the key omission is any reference to what is to be defined as “State” lands, or alternatively land of primarily local significance that could be vested in Council and it is intended that further clarification be sought on this issue as a matter of critical importance to Council.

The following commentary relates to issues identified in the most recent advice:

· Commencement of the Act in early 2018 will provide time to “…prepare the required policies and systems to support the implementation of the Act” is a concern. Presumably the experiences of the Councils involved in the pilot study will be used to inform the composition of policies, regulations and systems but my understanding is that the details of the pilot study are generally not available (participants were required to sign confidentiality agreements).

· “The Department has initially written to all local Councils about the key impacts of the new legislation” –what has been sent out is of little value.

· Under the new legislation, Councils will move from being “Crown reserve trust manager” to “Crown land manager”. Councils will be required to manage Crown reserves as if they are community land and will have to prepare plans of management for each. Concessions offered include the phasing in over three years of the requirement to have plans of management prepared and the offer of some funding.

· The Minister for Lands is to retain a level of oversight:

Ø Consent requirements for the categorisation of Crown reserves transferred to Council as community land;

Ø Appointment instruments that may apply certain restrictions or requirements for reserve management; and

Ø Publication of “ministerial” rules that may apply to some or all Crown land managers (a recent example of this is the rules written for management of surf clubs on Crown land – onerous, restrictive and difficult to enforce).

· “Local lands” may be vested in Councils and “State” lands will be retained by the State. There are many concerns including but not limited to:

Ø Definitions?

Ø Dispute resolution?

Ø Is there a default position? Status quo?

Ø It is envisaged that negotiations will be three cornered between State, Councils and local Aboriginal Land Councils and they are to be referred to as the Land Negotiation Programmes.

Ø The first of these negotiations will happen during 2017 and will involve local land pilot participants – Tweed, Tamworth, Federation and Northern Beaches LGAs.

Ø EOI process to be employed to determine subsequent participants 2017 – 2020.

· Any transfer of land will be entirely voluntary and by agreement – the interesting time will come when there is no agreement and conflict resolution becomes important.

· Under the legislation, Councils will be required to employ/engage a qualified native title manager “…to ensure compliance with obligations under native title legislation.” Council staff had been under the impression that this person was to be the link between Councils and the aboriginal land claims unit and more broadly, the aboriginal community and would assist Councils and the community in dealing with land claims. It is noted that Lands has offered to pay for the training of a suitable candidate for the position. Given the explanation of this person’s role, a reasonable argument can be put forward in support of Shoalhaven Council appointing a native title manager and contracting that person to Wollongong, Shellharbour and Kiama to assist those Councils in dealing with native title matters.

· There is still no conversation about Crown roads?

· What additional resources does Council have to commit to the management of the Crown estate because of this legislation?

There is no question that Council has to deal with the new legislation but surely the major concern has to be with a lack of detail in the information intended to inform Councils on a way forward. This has been a major concern all the way through the entire process of legislative review.

NOTE: 7% of the Shoalhaven LGA or 33,000ha is Crown land and that there are about 600 parcels of Crown land and about 800km of Crown roads within the LGA.

SHOALHAVEN CITY COUNCIL - CURRENT POSITION

Shoalhaven City Council has been, and continues to be, supportive of the recommendations in the 2014 Crown Lands White Paper and the legislative reforms in the Crown Lands Management Act 2016.

However, Council is concerned that apart from (a) the information of a general nature contained in the explanatory notes, (b) the most recent correspondence from the Department and (c) information on the Department of Industry, Lands website, there is very little detail available which can be taken into account when considering the effect on Council of the legislation especially in terms of gaining an understanding of all/or any cost and resourcing implications.

It is not anticipated that Councils generally will have a clear understanding around these issues until the pilot study has been completed and the regulations have been written and formally adopted by government.

CROWN LAND LEGISLATION AMENDMENT ACT 2017

On 10 May 2017 the NSW Parliament passed the Crown Land Legislation Amendment Act 2017.

The Act makes changes required to certain legislation that deals with Crown land as a consequence of the Crown Land Management Act 2016. The changes do not alter the intent of the Crown Land Management Act but will ensure all legislation is consistent and correctly references the new Crown land legislation (refer Attachment 2).

This Act completes the consolidation process that began with the Crown Land Management Act by incorporating relevant provisions of the Public Reserves Management Fund Act 1987 into the Crown Land Management Act. Financial support for improving Crown reserves across NSW will continue under the newly named and more flexible “Crown Reserves Improvement Fund”.

The Act also updates the provisions for Crown roads in the Roads Act 1993 in accordance with the recommendations of the Crown Lands Management Review and subsequent community consultation. Key changes include simplifying the process for closing and selling Crown roads and more flexible payment options for land owners wanting to buy Crown roads on their properties.

The Act removes the requirement for the Minister for Lands to approve the closure of council roads. This is a positive outcome for local council as it will remove inefficiencies and double handling. Stringent safeguards are in place to ensure a closure of a council road is appropriate and does not deny access to a property, including thorough consultation and notification requirements.”

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 13 June 2017

Page 128

SA17.159 Proposed Road Closure of Part Battys Road Upper Kangaroo River, sale to Robert McCarron and Annette Miles and consolidation with Lot 2 DP839210 and Lot 1 DP846976

HPERM Ref: D17/146784

Group: Assets & Works Group

Section: Business & Property

Attachments: 1. Aerial View ⇩

2. Plan - Proposed Road Closure - Battys Road Upper Kangaroo River ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To obtain a resolution of Council to close and sell part of the Battys Road road reserve, Upper Kangaroo River to the adjoining owners Robert McCarron and Annette Miles.

Recommendation

That:

1. Council resolves to make an application to the Minister administering the Roads Act 1993, for the northern part of Battys Road, Upper Kangaroo River shown by hatching on Attachment “1” to be closed and sold to the owners of the adjoining Lot 2 DP839210 and Lot 1 DP846976, Robert McCarron and Annette Miles;

2. Authority be granted to affix the Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven to any documents requiring to be sealed;

3. Council authorise the sale of the closed road to Robert McCarron and Annette Miles for $7,000.00 (plus GST if applicable) provided that the land comprised in the closed road, Lot 2 DP 839210 and Lot 1 DP 846976 are consolidated into one (1) lot; and

4. All costs associated with this road closure are to be met by Robert McCarron and Annette Miles.

Options

1. Resolved as recommended.

Implications: The closure of the northern part of Battys Road adjacent to land owned by the applicants will provide those landowners with improved privacy and security as well as an improved amenity by denying public access along a section of road immediately adjacent to their property which is not required for public access.

2. Refuse the application to close the road.

Implications: The public may continue to impact on the privacy, security and amenity of the adjoining owners.

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

Background

Battys Road, Upper Kangaroo River was declared public road by notification in the Government Gazette dated 25 March 1881(folio 2029).

On 14 December 1993, Council resolved to close the part of Battys Road now comprised in Lot 2 DP 839210 so that the land could be sold to the owner of the adjoining land at the time, Mrs Una Batty. This came about as a result of an identification survey which revealed that the Batty residence and other buildings were in fact located within the road reserve (refer Attachment 1).

To compensate for the loss of part of Battys Road through the road closure process, it was agreed in negotiations involving staff from the office of Crown Lands and Council that the vacant unreserved Crown land comprised in Lot 1 DP 839210 was to be dedicated as road and that no compensation was to be paid. The dedication of Lot 1 DP 839210 did not eventuate because Crown Lands staff insisted that Council acquire the land by way of compulsory acquisition (payment of compensation implied) and then dedicate the land as public road under the provisions of the Roads Act rather than the Crown simply dedicate the land as public road under Section 12 of the Roads Act.

Council staff were of the view that Council could not justify the considerable cost in compulsory acquisition of Crown Land for road because, at the time, a road in that location was not required for public access. As Lot 1 DP839210 was not acquired by Council for road purposes or opened by the Crown as road under Section 12 of the Roads Act, it remains vacant unreserved Crown land.

Crown Lands staff refused to take action to dedicate the land as road under Section 12 of the Public Roads Act 1993 which provides that:

“The Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette, dedicate any unoccupied Crown land as a public road.”

The consequence of not dedicating Lot 1 DP 839210 as public road is that Battys Road is severed and public access along the road is only available to a point just north of the former Batty residence (now owned by McCarron and Miles).

It is noted that despite an agreement at the time that the road closure and opening be undertaken with no compensation payable, it is Council’s understanding that the Crown sold the land in Lot 2 DP 839210 to Mrs Batty.

On 3 March 1995 Council received notification that the part of Battys Road comprised in Lot 2 DP839210 was officially closed and ownership transferred to the adjoining owner of Lot 1 DP846976 (Batty).

Current Situation

In or around November 2016, the current owners of Lot 2 DP839210 and the adjoining property, Robert McCarron and Annette Miles, sought clarification of the status of Batty Road and the Crown land adjacent to Brogers Creek as a result of concerns they had about the public accessing the area generally.

An onsite meeting was held with McCarron and Miles on 17 November 2016 to discuss these issues. Special mention was made of:

· the importance of understand

· ding that Battys Road has no continuous legal access past the McCarron/Miles house; and

· the vacant Crown land adjacent to Brogers Creek can be accessed by the public (pedestrian access only) but there is no legal entitlement to vehicular access through the vacant Crown land.

As a consequence of the information disclosed at the meeting, the subject road closure and purchase application relative to those parts of Battys Road shown hatched and cross hatched on Attachment 2 was lodged with Council by McCarron and Miles on 12 December 2016.

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 reserve the land remains vested in Council (Section 38).

Investigations have revealed that the bank of Brogers Creek has been severely eroded and as a result the part of Battys road shown by cross hatching on Attachment “1” is to be retained as public road to guarantee access to the Crown land. The applicants have officially withdrawn this part of the road closure from their application and this partly addresses the concerns of the Crowes.

The land within the road reserve proposed to be closed has been valued by Consultant Valuers Walsh and Monaghan on the basis of the land being consolidated with the adjoining land. Based on this valuation the applicants have agreed in writing to pay Council compensation in the amount of $7,000 excl GST for the land within the closed road.

The road closure proposal has been considered by the various departments of Council and no objections to the closure has been raised. There is no objection to the closure from any of the statutory authorities including Endeavour Energy, Jemena Asset Management (GAS) and Telstra.

During the public notice period, Council received objections in relation to the closure from the adjoining property owners Philip & Sarah Crowe as owners of land in the area and from Hones Lawyers on behalf of Philip & Sarah Crowe.

Both objections voiced concerns about the lack of future access to the Crowes’ property comprised in Lot 2 DP846976 (east of the McCarron/Miles property) via the unmade road and the general public being unable to access Brogers Creek and the adjoining Crown land.

The area of Battys Road proposed to be closed does not provide legal access currently to the Crowes’ property as the road has no continuous legal access past the McCarron/Miles house. In relation to access to Brogers Creek and the adjoining Crown land, Council has ensured access to the adjoining Crown land and Brogers Creek has been provided by leaving a 20 meter wide access to the unreserved Crown land, this access is to the north of the part of the road proposed to be closed.

Extensive correspondence and meetings have been held with the Crowes to ensure they understand the application and process for the road closure and to ensure their concerns are taken into account.

The adjoining property owners continue to object to the closure and a public petition has commenced on Change.org titled “Save public riverfront land in Kangaroo Valley” and an article was placed in the Kangaroo Valley Voice titled “Council to sell off public river front land”. It is noted that information provided on both the web and article referring to the sale of pubic river front land is not correct. There has never been any discussion about the sale of vacant unreserved Crown land which is the “riverfront” land referred to.

Two submissions were also received after the public notice period. The concerns raised in these submissions have been taken into account when assessing the merits of the application. In general terms these submissions are similar to some of the earlier concerns raised, related to the sale of public land fronting Brogers Creek.

Community Engagement

The road closure process required public notification and advertising calling for submissions by any interested parties on the merits of the proposal. This consultation has been undertaken and the submission period closed on 17 March 2017; two submissions were received during the notice period and two more since.

Financial Implications

If the road is closed and sold to the adjoining owner Council will receive compensation in the amount of $7,000 excluding GST and all costs associated with this matter are to be met by the owner of the adjoining land being Mr McCarron and Ms Mile. The sale proceeds are to 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 13 June 2017

Page 134

SA17.160 Transfer of Land within Heritage Estates to NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service

HPERM Ref: D17/156728

Group: Assets & Works Group

Section: Business & Property

Attachments: 1. Aerial Map - Worrowing Heights Heritage Estate ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To seek Council’s approval to complete the transfer of the Council owned lots within the Heritage Estates to the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) for addition to Jervis Bay National Park. Council has previously resolved to be part of the scheme and to donate its land, but to enable this to now happen, the resolution needs to state that the Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven be affixed to the transfer and any documents required to be sealed.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Advertise its intention to transfer, for nil consideration, the Council owned lots located within the Heritage Estates at Worrowing Heights, listed in the table below, transfer to the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (or their nominee) and if no objections are received and subject to no adverse implications for the transfer from the pending court case, authorise the transfer of the Council owned lots:

DEPOSITED PLAN	LOTS
*DP8590*	47-48, 74, 77, 130, 136, 138-139, 162, , 172, 183, 186, 188, 194-195, 217, 274, 309, 357
*DP8591*	1, 14, 25, 28, 58, 60, 81, 87, 106-107, 148, 152-155, 199, 209, 228, 259, 264, 315
*DP8770*	8, 23, 27, 31, 34, 44, 71, 73, 97, 100-101, 110-112, 189A, 195
*DP8771*	26, 35, 40, 44
*DP8772*	4-6, 76, 104-105, 125, 135, 137, 144-145, 158, 167, 201, 204, 210, 223, 224, 244, 251
*DP625153*	1

2. Grant authority to affix the Common Seal of the Council to any documents required to be sealed.

Options

1. Resolve as recommended.

Implications: Transferring the lots currently in Council’s ownership will help to fulfil Council’s commitments concerning this land that helped secure $5.5M of Australian Government funding for the Voluntary Heritage Estates Land Purchase (HELP) project that is currently still active.

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

Background

The ‘Heritage Estates’ is a long running 1,200 lot paper subdivision located at Worrowing Heights. As part of Council’s efforts to find a solution for the long-term tenure and management of the land following the discontinuation of the rezoning investigations, a report on a voluntary land donation / tax incentive scheme was considered by Council on 24 November 2009 when Council resolved (MIN09.1635) that:

a) Council in principle support an offer to contribute Council’s land (lots and roads) to any Government acquisition arrangement (including voluntary land donation/tax incentive scheme) for the Heritage Estates;

b) Indicate that Council is willing to enter into a partnership agreement with FNPW and DECCW to make a joint submission to the Federal Government for funding and support the voluntary land donation scheme;

c) Council not support the waiver of outstanding rates; and

d) Community consultation take place in accordance with Council policy on land disposal.”

Subsequently, on 17 May 2011 it was resolved (MIN11.477):-

“That Council:

a) Prepare and submit an application for funding under the Australian Government’s ‘Caring for Our Country’ program, to acquire the Heritage Estates, Worrowing Heights, for addition to the National Park system, in partnership with the NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service and any other bodies such as the Foundation for National Parks & Wildlife by the deadline of 30 May 2011.

b) Acknowledge that if successful the Australian Government would fund a maximum of two-thirds of the purchase price; and

i) that Council contribute its land, as part of the acquisition package subject to creation of easements to accommodate infrastructure;

ii) seek a contribution from the NSW Government.

c) Write to both Joanna Gash MP, Federal Member for Gilmore and Shelley Hancock MP, State Member for South Coast seeking letters of support to submit with the funding application.”

Following consideration of the abovementioned application for funding, the Australian Government allocated $5,493,400 to achieve the objectives outlined in the above resolution. As a result of this grant, NPWS working in partnership with the Foundation for National Parks and Wildlife (FNPW) with input from Council and the Australian Government, have created and managed the Voluntary Heritage Estates Land Purchase (HELP) project. The project is still active and allows landowners within the Heritage Estates to sell their land for $5,000/lot to NPWS for addition to Jervis Bay National Park.

In accordance with point b)(i) of MIN11.477 Council is assisting NPWS and FNPW and has committed to contribute the Council land within the Heritage Estates to NPWS. Over many years, Council has acquired the listed lots from previous landowners in lieu of unpaid rates. The transferred lots will be included within Jervis Bay National Park, for permanent protection. The NSW Government will manage the land as part of Jervis Bay National Park under the Plan of Management for the Park. More than 460 lots have been purchased under the Voluntary HELP project, which will continue until the end of 2017.

As noted in previous reports on this matter, the road reserves will be donated at the appropriate point in the future, potentially in stages, to avoid land-locking any privately owned land.

Other efforts undertaken by Council in recent years to help resolve tenure and/or management of the Heritage Estates have included: rezoning the land to E2 – Environmental Conservation; the installing signage and barriers to exclude recreational vehicles, trailbikes and illegal dumpers; and securing NSW Environmental Trust funding to address erosion on land owned by Council and NPWS. NPWS has provided significant support in relation to the latter two.

Of the 81 lots in the table above, 17 are categorised as “Community Land”, refer to Attachment 1, however Section 45 (4) of the Local Government Act 1993 states:

“This section does not prevent a council from selling, exchanging or otherwise disposing of community land for the purpose of enabling that land to become, or be added to, a Crown reserve or to become, or be added to, land that is reserved or dedicated under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.”

Community Engagement

In accordance with Council’s Development and/or Disposal of Council Land Policy (POL16/256), Council will publicly notify its intention to dispose of the abovementioned properties.

Financial Implications

Council will not recoup the costs expended in the transfer of the lots to NPWS (or nominee), which are expected to be minimal.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 13 June 2017

Page 153

SA17.167 Coastal Hazard Review- Outcome of public exhibition

HPERM Ref: D17/36024

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Attachments: 1. Technical Review of Submissions - Advisian (under separate cover) ⇨

2. Coastal Hazard Review Draft Report placed on exhibition (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Coastal Hazard Review Mapping - Collers (under separate cover) ⇨

4. Coastal Hazard Review Mapping - Callala (under separate cover) ⇨

5. Coastal Hazard Review Mapping - Warrain (under separate cover) ⇨

6. Coastal Hazard Review Mapping - Shoalhaven Heads (under separate cover) ⇨

7. Coastal Hazard Review Mapping - Narrawallee (under separate cover) ⇨

8. Coastal Hazard Review Mapping - Mollymook (under separate cover) ⇨

9. Coastal Hazard Review Mapping - Currarong (under separate cover) ⇨

10. Coastal Hazard Review Mapping - Culburra (under separate cover) ⇨

11. Coastal Hazard Review Mapping - Collingwood (under separate cover) ⇨

12. Councillor Presentation - Shoalhaven Coastal Hazard Mapping (under separate cover) ⇨

Purpose / Summary

To inform Council of the outcome of the public exhibition of the revised Coastal Hazard Study for beach compartments in Shoalhaven.

Recommendation

That Council

1. Adopt the Shoalhaven Coastal Hazard Review, that includes Council’s adopted sea level rise projections, in accordance with Council’s resolution (D15/39660); and

2. Submit the adopted Shoalhaven Coastal Hazard Review to the NSW Government, replacing the 2009 Coastal Hazard Assessment, as part of the Shoalhaven draft 2012 Coastal Zone Management Plan for certification, in accordance with Council’s resolution (MIN16.849); and

3. Review the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 and Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 to reflect the outcomes of the Shoalhaven Coastal Hazard Review and a further report be provided on the proposed amendments

Options

1. As recommended in this report. Council completed a review of its 2009 Coastal Hazard Study to update it with Council’s adopted sea level rise projections, in accordance with Council resolution. Council also resolved to update the draft 2012 Coastal Zone Management Plan with the revised study for which Council is seeking certification.

Implications: This option is merely implementing Council’s resolution to update its coastal hazard review with its sea level rise projections. It does not give regard to the outcome of the public exhibition. The review has also incorporated additional data that has become available since the 2009 to include current beach and post storm survey data.

2. Council do not adopt the Shoalhaven Coastal Hazard review 2016 in view of the submissions received during public exhibition.

Council request the State Government (Department of Planning and OEH) to provide the probabilistic coastal risk assessment and mapping that was carried out by OEH for the NSW draft Coastal SEPP and that this probabilistic risk assessment inform Council review of the Shoalhaven LEP, DCP, the NSW Coastal SEPP and development of a Coastal Management Program for the Shoalhaven.

Implications: This option takes into consideration that the majority of submissions received during the public exhibition raised concerns or were not supportive of the Shoalhaven Coastal Hazard Review. This option also proposes a way forward that resolves the many concerns raised being:

a) the OEH probabilistic mapping does not adopt one particular set of sea level rise projections but rather considers the full range of potential sea level rise and their associated probabilities;

b) the OEH probabilistic mapping does not use the Bruun rule; and

c) any future potential liability as a consequence of Council adopting the State Government mapping may be transferred to the State Government.

3. Council undertake a peer review of the coastal hazard review.

Implications: This option won’t solve the concerns raised by community members related to sea level rise, is likely to be very costly, may result in a similar outcome as the OEH probabilistic mapping and is unfunded.

4. Alternative recommendation.

Implications: Unkown.

Background

At its meeting on 13 December 2016, Council resolved to place on public exhibition the draft Shoalhaven Coastal Hazard review and to receive a report after the public exhibition period. Attachments 2 to 11 contain the draft report and maps placed on public exhibition.

At the same meeting Council resolved to readopt its sea level rise policy thereby reindorsing the following sea level rise projections on which the Coastal Hazard Review is based on:

· 100mm for 2030;

· 230 mm for 2050; and

· 350mm for 2100.

The review also incorporated additional data that has become available since the 2009 coastal hazard assessment was completed, including:

· Photogrammetry data

· LiDAR ground level information

· Bathymetric surveys

· Field survey transects

· Post storm survey information

· Coastal compartments information

The review also uses advances in analysis techniques developed by consultant Advisian. Advisian Principal Coastal Engineer presented the methodology and findings at a Councillor briefing on 29^th November 2016. A copy of the presentation is contained in attachment 12.

At the 15 November 2016 Strategy & Assets Committee meeting, in accordance with the Committee’s delegated authority from Council the Committee resolved to:

1. Adopt and submit Council’s draft 2012 Coastal 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.

2. The Minister be advised that Council is aware that the hazard lines within the revised hazard study do not reflect Council’s adopted sea level lines and is urgently reviewing those lines.

3. Council commits to amending the certified Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) as soon as the revised coastal hazard study has been adopted and by 30 June 2017.

In 2015, Council resolved to update its 2009 coastal hazard study with its adopted sea level rise projects (D15/39660).

Community Engagement

The draft Shoalhaven Coastal Hazard review was placed on public exhibition from 4 January 2017 to 3 February 2017. To help with the understanding of this very technical document, the presentation given by Advisian to Councillors was also included in the exhibition. The documents were available at the City Administrative Centre, Bridge Road, Nowra, at the Ulladulla Civic Centre, Princes Highway Ulladulla and the Bay and Basin Leisure Centre, The Wool Road, Vincentia. In order to advise the community of the exhibition, formal advertisement, notification to CCBs and a media release were issued.

The Collingwood Beach Preservation group requested a presentation by staff of the review and this occurred on Friday 13^th January at the Vincentia Community Hall. Approximately 30 people attended the meeting. The Collingwood Beach Preservation Group also requested that Council engage consultants to review and respond to the public submissions. Council engaged Advisian to review and provide comment on those submissions that raised technical matters. Advisian’s responses are contained within attachment 1.

Outcome of public exhibition

A total of 44 submissions were received. 35 submissions were received during the formal exhibition period. 9 submissions were received a few hours after the close of formal exhibition (extension was granted by Director Planning and Development).

22 submissions (50%) were not supportive of the review. 18 (40%) were supportive of the review (noting some were still raising a number of concerns). 4 submissions raised concerns about the review and requested some amendments, but were unclear as to whether they were generally supportive of the review or not. A copy of all submissions received has been provided in the Councillors room.

Of the 44 submissions received, 4 were from community representatives group, being the Collingwood Beach Preservation Group, Lake Wollumboola Protection Association, Save Collingwood Beach and Shoalhaven Heads Community Forum. Only the submission from the Shoalhaven Heads Forum was generally supportive of the review (despite concerns that the analysis did not extend inside the Shoalhaven river estuary). The main concerns raised by the 3 non-supportive community groups were the number of technical flaws in the report and the inaccuracy of sea level rise projections considered in the report.

Main concerns raised in submissions:

1) The sea level rise projections adopted in the report are flawed, Council will be financially and legally liable for future damages to public and private assets, the risks into the future won’t be reduced and ratepayers will have to pay the bill.

Response: The report is based on sea level rise projections adopted by Councillors. Councillors are fully aware that, based on the best available competent scientific information, the sea level projection adopted for 2100 has an 85% chance of being exceeded. Council also resolved to periodically review these projections.

2) The report does not consider all locations and fails to address all coastal hazard risks such as coastal inundation by east coast lows or coastal risk erosion within estuaries.

Response: the report is an update of Council’s previous coastal hazard assessment as resolved, which focused on areas where development could be at risk. It would be very expensive to model the entire coastline of the Shoalhaven and only priority areas have been assessed in detail at this stage. Where Council receives a development application and through the assessment process it is identified that a coastal hazard is likely to exist, Council can require assessment of this risk under Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (SDCP) Chapter G6 Coastal Management Areas.

The report does take into consideration coastal inundation at the modelled locations. Coastal inundation impacts along waterways and estuaries are assessed as part of the floodplain risk management program. The erosion risk within estuaries are generally assessed as part of the development of estuary management plans. A coastal hazard assessment for estuaries may be required as part of the future development of a coastal management program under the new Coastal Management Act when it comes into force. At time of writing this report, it is unknown when the coastal reforms will be completed and therefore when this Act will come into effect.

3) The report is not based on robust engineering assessment and has the same technical flaws the 2009 report had. SCC must engage an expert coastal engineer to undertake a peer review of the Advisian report.

Response: the report has been developed by Chris Admantidis and reviewed by Lex Nielsen, both highly qualified coastal engineers and with a combined 58 years experience in this specific field. Lex Nielsen was not an author nor reviewer of the 2009 report by SMEC and his review of the 2016 draft report by Advisian constitutes in itself a peer review.

The submissions that raised technical issues was reviewed by Advisian, see attachment 1.

4) The report uses the Bruun rule which is not considered by the engineering community as best practice.

Response: the only known alternative to the Bruun rule that is endorsed by the State Government is the probabilistic method. This method was used by the Department of Planning to map the coastal hazard risk in the initial NSW draft Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP). The guidance documents produced by the NSW Government detailing the probabilistic methodology as part of the NSW Coastal Reforms, of which the draft SEPP is part, have not been finalised and are still in draft form.

Policy Implications

Once adopted the Shoalhaven Coastal Hazard review was to inform the review of the Shoalhaven LEP and DCP, NSW Coastal SEPP and the development of a Coastal Management Program for the Shoalhaven.

Financial Implications

The cost of Shoalhaven Coastal Hazard review was approximately $24,000 plus $4,000 for review of technical submissions. A peer review including a new assessment of sea level rise with a different methodology to the Bruun rule could cost approximately $80,000 to $120,000.

It is expected that adopting OEH probabilistic assessment would have a minimal cost to Council (transfer of data), but may have a financial impact on applicants for development approval as they are likely to be required to engage coastal engineers to do specific reports on their development to deal with the coastal risks. Council has previously decided to adopt a position that will avoid this necessity and hence cost to future applicants.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 13 June 2017

Page 164

SA17.169 Review of Biodiversity Conservation Legislation in NSW and proposed Vegetation SEPP - Council Submission

HPERM Ref: D17/157645

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Environmental Services

Attachments: 1. Submission - Review of Biodiversity Conservation Legislation in NSW & Proposed SEPP Vegetation ⇩

2. Previous Council submssion - Biodiversity Legislation Review 2016 - Biodiversity Reforms ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To outline the proposed changes to the biodiversity conservation legislation in NSW and to endorse a proposed Council submission (Attachment 1).

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council make a submission based on the contents of this report (including Attachment 1) to the NSW Government on the exhibited Land Management and Biodiversity Conservation Legislation Reforms and the proposed State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation) 2017.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation and endorse Attachment 1 as Council’s submission to the NSW Government on the exhibited Land Management and Biodiversity Conservation Legislation Reforms and the proposed Vegetation SEPP.

This is the preferred option as it ensures that Council comments on the proposals by the closing date of 21 June 2017. It is essential that Council comment on the proposed reforms given the likely impact on Council and Shoalhaven generally.

2. Change the draft submission (Attachment 1) as necessary and submit to the NSW Government.

It is important that the issues identified in Council’s submission are considered and addressed by the NSW Government in finalising the legislation. If items are removed or adjusted, they will potentially not be able to be addressed and there would not be sufficient time to report to Council with an amended submission.

3. Not make a submission.

This is not preferred, the exhibited Land legislation reforms will have an impact on Council, including operational resourcing requirements.

Background

In June 2014, an independent panel of experts was appointed to conduct a comprehensive review of biodiversity conservation legislation in NSW. The panel released its final report, with 43 recommendations, in December 2014.

The subsequent draft reform package went on exhibition in June 2016 and a copy of the Council endorsed submission is included as Attachment 2.

In November 2016, the NSW Parliament passed the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Bill and the NSW Local Land Services Amendment Bill.

Most recently on 10 May 2017, the NSW Government released the draft Regulations for the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act 2016) and the Local Land Services Amendment Act 2016 (LLS Act 2016). The Government also released the Explanation of Intended Effect for a proposed State Environmental Planning Policy on Vegetation (the Vegetation SEPP) as well as a suite of supporting advice.

The exhibition period for the current package of supporting reforms closes on 21 June 2017. It is in Councils interest to provide a submission on these changes, noting that it has already been flagged that the reforms are scheduled to commence on 25 August 2017.

The exhibition documents and factsheets are available for viewing on the reforms website at: https://www.landmanagement.nsw.gov.au/

Councillors and Council Staff participated in a specific local government ‘webinar’ on the 31^st May 2017 regarding the proposed reforms.

As noted in the draft submission, an extension of time was sought to make a submission. This would have allowed adequate time to digest the large package of information and compile comments, however at the time of writing no response has been received. Thus, the following information provides a brief overview of the proposals and Council’s draft submission is included as Attachment 1.

Key Aims of the Reform Proposal

The NSW Government has indicated that it is adopting a ‘risk-based approach’ in this regard. This approach includes reducing the responsibility on them for compliance and transferring some of the burden across to Local Government.

The key aims of the reform proposals are:

· Establish a single set of rules for land clearing and simplify the task for farmers of managing their land,

· Protect biodiversity at a bioregional level and state scale,

· Improve biodiversity assessment in the early planning stages,

· Improve agricultural productivity, and

· Providing incentive to landowners to conserve biodiversity.

The proposed reforms to achieve these aims, include:

· Introducing a system of self-regulation for some clearing of agricultural land, creating increased flexibility for farmers,

· Expanding the system for biodiversity offsetting and certification, using a modified Biodiversity Assessment Method (BAM) – a scientifically robust method to assess biodiversity impacts.

· Introducing a tiered system of private landowner agreements aimed at encouraging biodiversity conversation.

· Implementing a conservation program for threatened plants and animals (with a commitment to provide an additional $100 million in funding over 5 years).

· Creating a new trust to invest in private land conservation and manage private land conservation agreements.

· Expanding the definition of ‘ecologically sustainable development’ to require the effective integration of social, as well economic and environmental considerations in decision-making.

· Developing an accreditation scheme for assessors to ensure the BAM is applied correctly and consistently.

· Improving the existing biodiversity certification scheme to encourage assessment and protection of biodiversity values at the early stages of planning for land use change. The changes proposed include: giving biodiversity certification access to individuals as well as planning authorities; improving consistency of biodiversity outcomes by aligning biodiversity and development assessment process; and, providing incentives for Councils to consider the biodiversity impacts of future land use changes.

· Recognising “serious and irreversible impacts” – biodiversity impacts that increase the risk of species extinction must be avoided for non-major proposals.

The Biodiversity Conservation Regulation

Bio-certification

The reforms remove the requirement for individuals to seek approval for biodiversity certification via a sponsoring Council. Both individuals and planning authorities can now apply for biodiversity certification. Non-planning authorities will incur an application fee of $5000. There is no fee for planning authorities making an application. However, now that applicants do not require Council to be a ‘sponsor’ to their proposal this could have resourcing implications. Currently proponents fund Council staff time spent on their application. Under the new process, Council’s role will be limited to reviewing the finished proposal (with no ability to charge a fee for service). This has the potential to have an effect on the funding available to employ qualified staff to assess these projects.

There are loose criteria for the Minister to use when deciding whether to declare an area for ‘Strategic Biodiversity Certification’. The criteria are broad and unspecific in nature and include, for example, consideration of economic outcomes and the size of the land.

In the situation where an individual applies for biodiversity certification, they have to give the local Council notice of the intention in writing. This includes a copy of the application for certification. The Council has 42 calendar days to make a submission on the application to the applicant who will then give the Council submission and their response to the NSW Minister for the Environment.

There appears to be no level of community consultation during the biodiversity certification process, which would be a point of concern for the community and appears to be at odds with the NSW Planning & Environment reforms proposing increased community participation early in the strategic planning process.

Once biodiversity certification is granted, there is a provision allowing the proponent to apply to modify the certification by extending the area of land that is certified. This can include areas that were originally set aside to avoid or minimise impacts on biodiversity values. Any changes to the original approval require the Ministers agreement and may involve additional conservation measures where required. While this will potentially benefit developers, this process could erode community confidence, as they may have the assumption that areas certified for conservation purposes will stay that way in perpetuity.

Council has resolved to pursue a biodiversity certification application for the Halloran Trust Planning Proposal at Culburra Beach/Callala Bay/Kinghorn. It will be important to ensure that this application is ‘saved’ under the proposed transitional arrangements in this regard.

Changes to Offsetting Rules

Offsets must be within 100 km of the impact site. Rather than anywhere in the state. This is a welcome change and will assure the community that local impacts are locally offset. Therefore, the conservation funding will generally stay in Shoalhaven.

The new reforms will also enable offsetting for the loss of hollow bearing trees and ancillary rules will be published for the purposes of the interpretation and application of the offset rules and variation rules.

An important change is the ability for developers to pay into the trust fund for an offset upfront rather than try to find one. This will provide certainty for the developer and allow them to move forward without the delay of finding an offset. However, there is no guarantee that the money paid into the fund will be spent locally. There is also no time-frame specified for when the trust must find the offset.

Increased costs for local developments due to offsetting of impacts

Projects above a regulated threshold and all major projects will need to complete an assessment using the BAM to determine the offset liability. This involves the preparation of a Biodiversity Assessment Report (BAR) that will outline the consent conditions to avoid impact where possible and any offset requirements for the development.

There is likely to be pressure from the development industry for Council to find ways to avoid the need to provide a BAM assessment once the clearing threshold is exceeded. This is due to the added expense to developers, as clearing over the threshold will require an assessment and possibly an offset.

Council has the discretion to ‘discount’ the number of required credits for a proposed development. However, they will need to clearly state the reasons for the reduction in credits and gain concurrence from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).

The NSW Government estimates that 6.5% of local developments will exceed the BAM threshold and require an assessment. In Shoalhaven, the percentage may be much higher due to the amount of native vegetation compared to more urbanised environments. The 6.5% is based on a ‘sample’ of local governments (6811 development applications reviewed). The table below demonstrates the Biodiversity Offset Scheme (BOS) clearing thresholds that will apply. Once they are triggered, the proponent will be required to do a BAM assessment and offset the impact.

The thresholds for triggering a BAM assessment are:

· Clearing of land included on the Sensitive Biodiversity Values Land Map

· Clearing which exceeds the declared thresholds (see table below)

Minimum lot size associated with the property	Threshold for clearing, above which the BAM and offsets scheme apply
Less than 1 Ha	0.25 ha or more
Greater than 1 ha, less than 40ha	0.5 ha or more
Greater than 40ha, less than 1000ha	1 ha or more
Greater than 1000 ha	2 ha or more

An analysis of previous Part 4 development assessments could provide guidance on the potential impact in Shoalhaven. Generally, we have very few Part 4 developments that have triggered ‘a significant impact’ under the current system. However, it is unclear how many developments would trigger the clearing threshold.

The Sensitive Biodiversity Values Land Map

A draft map has been released for comment, but it is unfortunately not at a scale that can be interrogated at a local level and there is no legend to identify the layers. It is unclear whether the map will remain ‘locked’ at this scale or whether the final maps will provide the ability to drill down to a finer detail. Local scale detail is essential given that this map is one of the triggers for a BAM assessment. To date, Council has also not received a request for input into this map.

The draft Regulation lists the following types of land, with high biodiversity value, that may be included in the Map:

· Where littoral rainforests and coastal wetlands referred to the Coastal Management Act/SEPP 14 and SEPP 26 are present;

· Land that comprises important koala habitat identified under SEPP 44 (Koala Habitat Protection);

· Ramsar wetlands;

· Land that contains endangered ecological communities and threatened species that are most at risk of extinction from potential development;

· Protected riparian land;

· High conservation value grasslands;

· Site-managed Saving our Species projects;

· Land declared as an Areas of Outstanding Biodiversity Value under the Biodiversity Conservation Act; and

· Land identified by Local Government Authorities (and approved by the NSW Minister for the Environment) that contains connectivity features or threatened species habitat that support the object of the Biodiversity Conservation Act to conserve biodiversity at bioregional and state scales.

However as noted earlier, It is currently unclear which of these layers have been included on the exhibited map due to the scale.

Local Land Service Amendment Regulation 2017 and Land Management (Native Vegetation) Code 2017

This legislation is proposed to cover all ‘non-urban’ land.

Native vegetation maps are being prepared by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). They will divide land in NSW into “exempt land”, “regulated land” and “excluded land”. Landowners will be able to self-assess what category their land falls into and whether or not approval is required for clearing activities. This is a significant change from the existing regime where native vegetation across the State can only be cleared in accordance with a consent or a Property Vegetation Plan.

The following is a brief explanation of the three categories of land:

Category 1 – exempt land: Clearing of native vegetation on exempt land will be allowed without approval. This land will generally be cleared and vegetation identified as regrowth (cleared post 1990). Other legislative restrictions will continue to apply, such as any requirements under other NSW laws or the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Category 2 – regulated land: This is generally land that has not been cleared of vegetation as at 1 January 1990 (or has subsequently been illegally cleared) and in the opinion of OEH has conservation value (as prescribed in the related Act).

Category 2 Regulated land also includes:

· Vulnerable regulated land (riparian land, steep or highly erodible land that will be subject to additional restrictions)

· Sensitive regulated land (land that has SEPP 14 wetlands, Rainforest, Critically Endangered Community or native vegetation that was grown or preserved with the assistance of public funds or land that is subject to remedial action to restore or protect biodiversity values). This can also include grasslands of high conservation value.

Clearing of Category 2 land can occur if the clearing is:

· An “allowable activity” (for example, it is necessary to remove an imminent risk of personal injury or to obtain timber to be used in the construction or operation of rural infrastructure), or

· In accordance with a “The Land Management (Native Vegetation) Code 2017”, that is designed to facilitate clearing to support more efficient farming methods and systems, while balancing environmental risks. However, sensitive Category 2 land cannot be cleared using the Code 2017,

Category 3 – excluded land – this includes land not categorised on the Maps and to which the Act does not apply. This will essentially be land in urban zones, Environment Protection Zones E2, E3 and E4 zones and Large Lot Residential R5 zones under Local Environmental Plans. Clearing on excluded land will continue to be regulated by the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

Private Conservation Agreements

While the Regulation is clear in its description of the process for Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements (BOA) – it is less clear about the process for Conservation Agreements. BOA’s will be similar to the current Bio-banking Scheme agreements. These are quite complex agreements that require the use of the Bio-banking Methodology.

It is important to have a simple and low cost legally binding conservation mechanism like the current Property Vegetation Plans (PVP’s). PVP’s were being successfully used to protect residual, environmentally sensitive land in locations such as Verons Estate, Sussex Inlet. The DCP chapter for this Estate currently requires 75% of each 8ha lot to be protected through a legally binding conservation agreement, in conjunction with proposed development. The process for achieving a conservation agreement under the proposed legislation is not clear. If the Bio-banking Methodology has to be used, this will not be a simple low cost option. PVP’s will also be extinguished in exchange for the establishment of remnant set aside areas.

Overall Issues

· The complexity of all of the pieces of this legislative reform package is a significant concern. The new legislation has the potential to lead to delays in development application turnaround times until the community, developers and consultants become familiar with the new BAM requirements.

· The role of advising the community on the new legislation and its processes is likely to fall to Councils

· The cumulative impacts of increased clearing without assessment (through codes of practice and exempt land) may change the character of our small rural towns and villages. It may also have a negative impact on the ability of native animals to move across the landscape. The ability for landholders to clear endangered ecological communities using a code of practise may also have a negative impact on some of our sensitive areas.

· Council staff will be required to advise on development applications that trigger the BAM threshold.

· Council must ensure a Biodiversity Assessment Report (BAR) has been prepared in accordance with the BAM and must ensure compliance with the offset requirements and mitigation measures via conditions of consent. Council staff undertaking these tasks will be required to be accredited and maintain accreditation under the Act and there will be costs for Council in this regard.

· There are currently no guidelines proposed to deal with potential disputes about the BAM thresholds, (the requirement to prepare a BAR).

· Councils will also be responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with BAR requirements, as they will form part of the development consent conditions. This has serious accountability and capacity implications for Councils. The compliance and enforcement burden is unknown.

· There is an allowable increase in clearing permitted without approvals on rural land. There is risk of increased use of these allowable activities to cumulatively clear land potentially for development prior to a development application.

· The perception that clearing is not a ‘significant impact’ when a BAM is not required is likely to create high expectations for development approval on unregulated -Category 1, and Exempt -Category 3 land.

Proposed State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation) 2017

Overview

Under the proposed Vegetation SEPP clearing of native vegetation in urban areas and environmental conservation and management zones, that does not require development consent will be subject to the BOS.

The draft SEPP proposes two approval pathways:

· Pathway 1 – Clearing above the BOS threshold

Clearing that exceeds the BOS thresholds (discussed above), will require assessment under the BAM and approval by the Native Vegetation Panel. A Native Vegetation Panel will be set up to make decisions on native vegetation clearance applications that do not require a development application but are above a threshold amount. Council will make the decision for clearing below the threshold using a similar system to the current DCP that sets out the rules for clearing in urban areas.

The Panel is required to consider the Local Land Services Act, as well as biodiversity, heritage and amenity considerations set out in an applicable DCP. The panel will determine the approval and the relevant offset the proponent of the clearing must contribute.

The Panel may delegate its approval role for clearing in urban areas and on land zoned environmental conservation to the local Council.

· Pathway 2 – Clearing not exceeding the BOS threshold

Will continue to be regulated by Councils via their DCP and the issuing of permits.

Implications

Currently Councils can elect to have their Tree Management DCP chapter cover sensitive non-urban land. This includes land of particular amenity value (rural roadsides) and important environmental land (riparian corridors on rural land). The new scheme does not propose to allow this land to be captured by the DCP unless it is zoned urban or environmental conservation. This is a potential concern as it could lead to a significant change in the character of some of our rural towns/villages. Riparian areas will at least be captured as ‘regulated land’ and require assessment under the Local Land Services Act 2016.

The new Vegetation SEPP intends to repeal Clauses 5.9 and 5.9AA of the Principal Local Environmental Plan (Standard Instrument) which will automatically repeal those clauses in Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014. This will most likely require an amendment of Chapter G4: Tree and Vegetation Management of the Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014. Clauses 5.9 and 5.9AA currently require development consent from Council for the removal of trees or vegetation that is prescribed for the purposes of the DCP.

There is a significant concern about the legislative basis of the changes in this regard. The clauses in the LEP currently create the basis for the DCP. It is understood that the SEPP will contain provisions to now facilitate the DCP, although the exact wording of the provisions in this regard have not been made available. Additionally DCP’s traditionally only play a role where development consent is required and it has been suggested that clearing allowed via the DCP will be via a permit or similar. Previously it was also understood that Tree Preservation Order permits were a form of development consent. As such, it is critical that the legislative basis for the DCP is clarified so there is no confusion in this regard and there is a sound legal basis for the proposed system

The new DCP chapter that will be required will no longer have the discretionary ability to cover any non-urban land or land that is covered by another SEPP (e.g. rainforest or wetlands). Thus, this will involve changing all the associated maps as well. The exhibited Fact Sheets on the proposed Vegetation SEPP explains that savings and transitional provisions will mean that existing DCPs will continue to have effect and for the time being there will be no requirements for Council to change their DCPs; however, existing provisions requiring development consent of non-heritage vegetation will be replaced with a permit.

There is a need for greater clarity about the proposed SEPP and its operation. It is disappointing that the actual SEPP instrument was not released for review and comment, as has been the case with other reforms. It is difficult to fully ascertain, from the “explanation of intended effect” that has been released, what the actual SEPP will contain and thus how it will operate. There is a real concern that, depending on final wording, there could be a range of issues or difficulties with its wording.

Relevant Land and Environment Court Case

Council successfully brought proceedings in the NSW Land and Environment Court (LEC) against the owner of land at Griffin Street, Callala Bay, in relation to the clearing of vegetation undertaken in 2015. The judgement Council of the City of Shoalhaven v Elachi [2015] NSWLEC 85 is available at the following link:

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5562c139e4b06e6e9f0f5cf0

Subsequently, the landowner lodged an appeal against the decision and on 18 February 2016, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered judgment by finding in Council’s favour and dismissing the appeal. The Court of Appeal judgement Elachi v Council of the City of Shoalhaven [2016] NSWCA 15 is available at the following link:

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/56c39a53e4b0e71e17f4f3d8

In doing so, the NSW Court of Appeal found that development consent was required for the clearing of the vegetation and as a result, there was a breach of section 76A(1) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) by the landowner.

While the decision was favourable to Council, both judgements highlighted inconsistencies between Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 and Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014. This initiated Council to review Chapter G4 of Shoalhaven DCP 2014.

The Court of Appeal made a number of observations about the role of local environmental plans and development controls plans in the context of the statutory framework of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and whether the exemptions in the Native Vegetation Act 2003 for Routine Agricultural Management Activities and exempt development in State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008) negate the need for development consent.

The judgement identified issues with both Clause 5.9 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 (a ‘standard’ Clause from the Standard Instrument LEP) and Chapter G4: Tree and Vegetation Management in Shoalhaven DCP 2014. Council addressed the issues related to the DCP through an amendment to the DCP Chapter and is currently preparing a Planning Proposal to map areas mapped by Chapter G4 on the Local Clauses (Clause 5.9) map in Shoalhaven LEP 2014. This Planning Proposal is currently on hold, as the proposed Vegetation SEPP will repeal Clause 5.9 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014. The changes to the DCP clarified that a development application must be submitted where the tree or other vegetation is prescribed for the purposes of Clause 5.9(2) of the LEP and included a note that Council no longer issues tree removal permits. However, the proposed SEPP intends to reintroduce permits that can be conditioned rather than development approvals.

The judgement also included commentary that suggested that a review of Clause 5.9 is warranted. Council wrote to the NSW Department of Planning & Environment to highlight the points raised in the judgement and requested that they consider a review of Clause 5.9 in the overall Standard Instrument LEP.

Council continues to take appropriate action concerning the unauthorised clearing of land if consent is/was required under Clause 5.9 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014. It is important that the integrity of Council’s development controls are maintained to protect important vegetation. The local community is supportive of Council’s approach to protect trees and vegetation for biodiversity and amenity purposes and it would be disappointing if the changes propose clearing of trees and vegetation with minimal regulation or without a strong statutory framework.

Proposed SEPP - Issues and Recommended Changes

There are a number of concerns with the proposed Vegetation SEPP and the following issues should be considered and addressed through the drafting of the actual Vegetation SEPP to ensure it is workable and Council can continue to protect local trees and vegetation for their biodiversity value and amenity:

· There is a concern that other areas currently covered by Clauses 5.9 and 5.9AA in the LEP that are not zoned urban or environment will lose protection. Thus consideration should be given to retaining Clause 5.9 (or its intent) in the Standard Instrument LEP to ensure that Council can continue to protect all trees and vegetation (including rural areas) prescribed by Shoalhaven DCP 2014 Chapter G4: Tree and Vegetation.

· The details on the transitional arrangements following the notification of the Vegetation SEPP and the repeal of Clause 5.9 need to be very clear.

· The SEPP provides a clear and legally robust link to the suggested Council DCP for the purposes of prescribing vegetation to require development consent or a permit from Council.

· The term ‘a risk to human life or property’ is a very broad - Council will need to define what constitutes ‘a risk to human life or property’ unless this is something that will be defined as part of a future template DCP or clarified as the reforms are released.

· Council has resolved to implement urban heat management principles into Council’s DCP, the proposed Vegetation SEPP is likely to impact on this intention and on conditions of consent and approved developments that include deep soil planting and other amenity tree planting.

· Council only issues development consents for the removal of trees and vegetation as per Council’s DCP Chapter G4 and no longer provides tree permits. Council supports the ability of conditioning permit applications, however any fee charged should cover the total cost of Council staff time.

· There is an overall concern that the new approach facilitated by the SEPP may be more difficult or confusing for everyone, particularly given that we have not seen the actual detail of the SEPP. Additionally we may not see this detail until it is published and will then have to respond to its contents, possibly within a limited timeframe.

It appears from the consultation material provided, that Council will be able to maintain the existing exemptions within its current DCP, including the 45 degree rule. However, this will not be known until the SEPP is released.

The new system will essentially mean that many forms of clearing will no longer require consent and will be covered by codes of practise. In urban areas, not much will change but in rural areas the risk based approach gives landholders more control than they previously had. In some zones controls over sensitive areas such as endangered ecological communities have also been reduced.

Community Engagement

The material in this regard was publicly exhibited for review and comment from 10 May and 21 June 2017. Given the amount of material to review an extension of time to comment was sought, however no response was received at the time of writing this report.

All submissions received will be published by the NSW government. It is a significant concern that the released material already notes that the next legislation will commence in August 2017 and as such there is limited confidence that any issues or concerns raised will be given due consideration.

Policy Implications

The commencement of the Biodiversity reforms in August 2017 will most likely result in a number of significant policy implications for Council. This will include the repeal of Clause 5.9 in Shoalhaven LEP 2014 and the need to confirm or adjust the operation of the current Chapter G4: Tree and Vegetation Management in the Shoalhaven DCP 2014.

Financial Implications

These changes appear to result in significant additional requirements being passed down to Councils, including inheriting responsibility for enforcing various provisions of the new Biodiversity Conservation Act. The NSW Government has indicated that additional resources (8 Officers NSW wide) and capacity building for local government (training program with 400-500 places) will be provided to assist in this regard. However, the adequacy of this support is unknown.

Council’s assessment staff will need to be trained in relation to when to require a Biodiversity Assessment Report where development exceeds thresholds for clearing.

It appears that most of the stewardship agreements will be funded by the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Trust. However, the Regulation does not specifically address whether Tier 1 and 2 agreements will receive rates rebates. If so, the cost should not be imposed on local government and should be funded by the Biodiversity Conservation Trust.

Strategy and Assets Committee – Tuesday 13 June 2017

Page 188

SA17.170 Renew Deed of Agreement - Shoalhaven REMS

HPERM Ref: D17/67782

Group: Shoalhaven Water Group

Section: Shoalwater Operations & Maintenance

Attachments: 1. REMS User Deed of Agreement - Draft (under separate cover) ⇨

Purpose / Summary

To present options for renewing the Deed of Agreement between Council and reclaimed water end-users participating in the Northern Shoalhaven Reclaimed Water Management Scheme (REMS).

Recommendation

That Council

1. Authorise the General Manager to sign the new REMS Deeds of Agreement with each participating land manager using reclaimed water

2. Approve the signing and use of the Common Seal of Council on the Deeds if required;

3. Provide reclaimed water at no charge to end users for a further 15 year period

Options

1. Renew Agreements providing reclaimed water at no charge

Implications: Free supply is a continuation of the current REMS pricing arrangements as well as for the other reuse schemes operated by Council (Berry, Shoalhaven Heads, Kangaroo Valley, Sussex Inlet and Ulladulla). The absence of pricing would result in the greatest volume of water recycled. This position is also consistent with community preference to support recycling over environmental discharge.

2. Renew Agreements and introduce usage charges for reclaimed water where is it used to substitute for potable water consumption (farm yard wash down and stock drinking water).

Implications: This option would allow the direct costs of supplying reclaimed water to farm properties to be recovered. A new metering and meter reading system would need to be implemented as potable substitution would need to be deducted from bulk (irrigation) usage.

3. Renew Agreements and introduce reclaimed water usage charges for both potable substitution and bulk usage (large scale farm, golf course and sporting ground irrigation)

Implications: As with option 2, introduction of usage charges would allow Council to recoup direct costs of reclaimed water supply to end-users. Introduction of usage charges may result in a reduction in bulk reclaimed water usage and a corresponding increase in environmental discharges. A meter reading and billing system would need to be introduced.

Background

The Northern Shoalhaven Reclaimed Water Management Scheme (REMS) is one of the largest and more complex reclaimed water management schemes undertaken by an Australian local government authority. REMS has been developed to beneficially re-use up to 80% of the reclaimed water produced by six wastewater treatment plants (Callala, Culburra Beach, Vincentia, St Georges Basin, Nowra and Bomaderry. The REMS has been successfully operating since 2001 and has resulted in over 20,000ML of reclaimed water being recycled onto farm land and sporting grounds, representing nearly 70% of the reclaimed water produced in Stage 1A of the Scheme from 2001-2016.

The REMS was conceived as a result of the preference by the local community and State Government to remove the (then) release of tertiary treated reclaimed water from Jervis Bay. The initial strategy, for an ocean outfall at Governor’s Head, did not proceed due to community opposition and the declaration of the Jervis Bay Marine Park in the ACT. Subsequent to extensive investigations, liaison with Government Regulatory, Health and Agricultural Departments, extensive community consultation was undertaken with a resultant majority community support for land based application of reclaimed water on the Nowra flood plain. The community also supported an increase in average sewerage bills of up to $140 per annum (in 1996) as being acceptable to help fund the implementation and operation of the REMS.

To ensure sufficient demand for the reclaimed water produced through the REMS, an extensive consultation process was undertaken with dairy farms and other potential end-users including golf courses and Council sporting grounds. An expression of interest process resulted in Stage 1A of the REMS being fully subscribed with a waiting list for future allocations. Over 90% of the reclaimed water was allocated to 14 dairy farms for irrigation with small allocations also provided to sporting grounds, a golf course and several dairy farms for yard wash down only.

To provide a long-term management framework for the REMS, User/Supply agreements (Deed of Agreement) were developed in consultation with end-users. These agreements included such matters as:

· Responsibilities for both Council and end-users

· Individual property water allocations and scheme operating procedures

· Standard contractual matters (eg notifications, dispute resolution, provisions for default)

· A 15-year commitment to supply reclaimed water at no cost to all end-users.

Council, in March 2001, authorised the General Manager to affix Council’s seal of the completed REMS Deed of Agreements.

The 15 year term and free supply period of the REMS Deed of Agreement has expired in October 2016. Development of a revised and updated REMS Deed of Agreement is required to maintain an operating framework for the REMS.

Shoalhaven Water has undertaken a review of the Deeds of Agreement in consultation with end-users. Legal advice was obtained to review the recently expired Agreement to ensure the Agreement conditions align with current Legislative requirements. In addition the agreements are being aligned with the current National Framework for Water Recycling.

With the construction of REMS 1B works and the transfer pipeline to the existing REMS distribution network an additional 6 properties will be offered reclaimed water allocations and will be required to enter a Deed of Agreement with Council.

A draft revised REMS Deed of Agreement is attached.

The majority of the proposed changes to the Deed of Agreement are designed to improve its currency and functionality. Key changes include:

· Updating definitions, legislative and regulatory requirements

· Removal of a number of obsolete provisions and clauses

· Adding stock drinking water to the list of permitted uses for reclaimed water as per National Reclaimed Water Guidelines.

Council is requested to consider the terms of the Deed of Agreement, and in particular the pricing of reclaimed water.

Community Engagement

There has been extensive community and stakeholder engagement during the development and operational phases of the REMS. As noted above community support for the REMS has been highly positive.

Council has maintained a close working relationship with participating dairy farmers and other end-users. Initially through the formation of a Farm Irrigation Committee to assist development of the Scheme and more recently through the REMS Management Advisory Board which has input into the ongoing operations of the Scheme.

A meeting was held at Council in January 2017 with end-users to discuss possible changes/updates to the Deed of Agreement. Council has also written to all reclaimed water irrigators requesting comments on the draft revised REMS Deed of Agreement.

Comments were received from end-users on a number of provisions, including temporary transfer of reclaimed water, provisions for insolvency, scheme efficiency, and enhanced quality of reclaimed water. These comments have been considered and incorporated into the draft Deed of Agreement following concurrence by the legal advisors.

Irrigators have informally advised that there would be a reduction in bulk irrigation water demand if usage charges are introduced.

Policy Implications

The previous Council approach has been to provide reclaimed water to end-users free of charge across all reuse schemes in the Shoalhaven, including the REMS. This ‘free supply’ position has been predicated in recognition of the social and environmental benefits of land application (reuse) of reclaimed water and the relatively small private benefits from irrigation in a high rainfall area.

As the REMS was established to achieve a high rate of water recycling (80%), the capital and operating costs of the scheme were fully incorporated into the financial planning to encourage maximum participation and water utilisation.

Currently there is no consistent established pricing framework for water recycling schemes in NSW or Australia. Recycled water prices in Australia, if any, are set on a case by case basis and are based on a ‘beneficiary pays’ approach. The primary benefits from water recycling include:

· Use value – the private financial benefit gained from utilising reclaimed water including increased pasture production on farms. Financial studies done as part of the development of REMS found that reclaimed water had increased dairy farm incomes by up to $450 per mega litre irrigated depending on seasonal conditions and farm gate prices (Aither Economic study – 2015 prices).

· Avoided wastewater costs – the savings from avoided wastewater treatment and disposal costs. For example a decrease in chemical use for removing phosphorous from wastewater before discharge to waterways.

· Avoided potable water costs – Reclaimed water can be used in lieu of potable water such as for farm yard wash down and irrigation of sporting fields. Currently there is approximately 300ML per year less potable water used in the Shoalhaven as a result of the availability of reclaimed water to farms and sporting grounds. This results in a savings of potable water supply operating costs (chemicals, electricity).

· Community willingness to pay – There has been widespread community support for Council initiated water recycling schemes. Community surveys undertaken as part of the development of the REMS found nearly 80% supported recycling of reclaimed water onto land. The majority of these respondents also indicated that they were willing to pay additional wastewater charges to support such initiatives.

· Other environmental/community benefits – These benefits include :

o protecting environmental water quality in Jervis Bay by eliminating discharge of reclaimed water (and associated nutrients)

o minimising discharge of reclaimed water to the ocean outfall at Penguin Head

o sustainable management of wastewater flows treated by Council wastewater treatment plants including protection of local waterways and groundwater systems.

The above points indicate that while there are clear private (end-user) benefits for farms and sporting field utilising reclaimed water for irrigation in the Shoalhaven, there are substantial community and environmental benefits.

Financial Implications

The incremental cost to Council of providing reclaimed water for irrigation is relatively low, estimated to be in the order $200,000 -$250,000 per annum. These costs relate to the operations and maintenance of the REMS transfer pipelines, distribution storage and bulk storage/chlorination facilities. Such costs distributed over the total customer base represent approximately $5 per annum (or 0.6%) of the current annual sewer bill.

The majority of costs in the waste water treatment process are to meet environmental and public health requirements and would be incurred by Council even if there was no water recycling and all of the reclaimed water is discharged to the environment.

Council has the option to continue to fully subsidise the supply of reclaimed water to end users based on the environmental, social and demand management benefits that are provide for the Shoalhaven as a whole.

Alternatively fixed or consumption based charges could be introduced to recover these direct supply costs and/or contribute to ongoing Shoalhaven Water major maintenance and capital costs. Some possible methodologies are explored below.

Broad based charge – An across the board charge could be placed on reclaimed water used for both irrigation and also for potable water substitution. The amount of water used for potable substitution is relatively constant from year to year in the REMS and is around 300ML. The amount of irrigation water used depends on seasonal conditions and can be as low as 400ML per annum up to 1,800ML in extremely dry years. Based on a long-term average of around 1,400 ML of reclaimed water consumption a purely cost-recovery charge would be approximately $0.18 per kilolitre.

Year	REMS Reuse ML	Potential Revenue @ $0.18/kL
2001/02	612
2002/03	1,652	297,360
2003/04	1,668	300,258
2004/05	1,274	229,302
2005/06	1,926	346,680
2006/07	1,562	281,196
2007/08	1,022	183,984
2008/09	1,433	257,940
2009/10	1,784	321,120
2010/11	810	145,872
2011/12	650	117,000
2012/13	1,643	295,740
2013/14	2,103	378,532
2014/15	1,316	236,796
2015/16	1,225	220,450

Average 1,433 $258,000

Targeted Charges – Potable water substitution – Usage charges could be introduced to recover costs from farms and Council sports ground that have substituted recycled water for previous potable water usage. Activities include farm yard wash down, stock water and sports ground irrigation. Based on an estimated an estimated potable substitution of 300ML per year a simple cost recovery charge would be for potable substitution water would be in the order $0.83 per kilolitre. There would also be costs to Council to establish a metering system to separately measure potable usage on farms as currently both irrigation and potable substitution water are measured by the same device on farms.

Risk Implications

The introduction of usage charges is likely to result in a reduction of demand for reclaimed water, particularly for irrigation. A number of participating dairy farms have informally advised that their use of reclaimed water would decrease in order to manage their production costs. This would particularly be the case during non-drought times where the reclaimed water has a smaller overall productivity benefit.

Introduction of cost recovery charges for reclaimed water usage may therefore result in a negative trend to the community objective of maximising recycling and minimising the volume of reclaimed water discharged to the environment.