Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 18 December 2018

Ordinary Meeting

Meeting Date: Tuesday, 18 December, 2018

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

Time: 5.00pm

Membership (Quorum - 7)

All Councillors

Please note: The proceedings of this meeting (including presentations, deputations and debate) will be webcast and may be recorded and broadcast under the provisions of the Code of Meeting Practice. Your attendance at this meeting is taken as consent to the possibility that your image and/or voice may be recorded and broadcast to the public.

Agenda

1. Acknowledgement of Traditional Custodians

2. Opening Prayer

3. Australian National Anthem

4. Apologies / Leave of Absence

5. Confirmation of Minutes

· Ordinary Meeting - 13 November 2018

· Extra Ordinary Meeting - 4 December 2018

6. Declarations of Interest

7. Presentation of Petitions

8. Mayoral Minute

9. Deputations and Presentations

10. Notices of Motion / Questions on Notice

Notices of Motion / Questions on Notice

CL18.345..... Rescission Motion - CL18.344 - Employee Remuneration Review - Funding Strategies........................................................................................................ 1

CL18.346..... Notice of Motion - Employee Remuneration Review - Funding Strategies... 2

CL18.347..... Rescission Motion - SA18.282 - Sustainablity Program Update................... 3

CL18.348..... Notice of Motion - Toilet Block Maintenance - Burrill Lake Park................... 4

CL18.349..... Notice of Motion - Burrill Lake View from Lions Park.................................... 5

CL18.350..... Notice of Motion - Reporting on Status of Notices of Motion......................... 6

CL18.351..... Notice of Motion - DE18.76 - Amendment - Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 - Medium Density 'Housekeeping' Amendments.................................. 7

11. Committee Reports

CL18.352..... Report of the Development Committee - 4 December 2018....................... 20

DE18.80...... Development Application – 20 Norfolk Avenue, SOUTH NOWRA - Lot 30 DP 790535 - Concrete Batching Plant

CL18.353..... Report of the Strategy & Assets Committee - 11 December 2018.............. 21

SA18.261.... Notice of Motion - Indoor Sporting Stadium / Old Basketball Courts

SA18.269.... Council Committee Structure & Purpose

SA18.271.... Milton Library - Budget Reallocation - Ongoing Funding

SA18.279.... Licence to Desert Developments Pty Ltd - 83 South Street Ulladulla

SA18.289.... Lease of land at Yalwal for new communications tower site

CL18.354..... Report of the Aboriginal Advisory Committee - 26 November 2018............ 25

AA18.33...... Expressions of Interest for Aboriginal Advisory Committee Membership

CL18.355..... Report of the Shoalhaven Arts Board - 29 November 2018........................ 26

AB18.35...... Shoalhaven Arts Board Action Plan - Audience Engagement Projects - Reallocation of Arts Awards Funding

AB18.39...... Shoalhaven Regional Gallery 2020 Strategic Plan update

AB18.40...... NOW Contemporary Art Prize - Information and Update

AB18.41...... Policy Changes - Public Art - Maintenance and Conservation

CL18.356..... Report of the Inclusion & Access Advisory Group - 3 December 2018....... 27

IA18.30........ Access to Council Owned Property

IA18.31........ Citywide DCP Chapter for Accessibility

CL18.357..... Report of the Council Bushcare Representatives Group - 4 December 2018 28

BR18.8........ Bushcare Group Action Plan Schedule

CL18.358..... Report of the Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Committee - 5 December 2018...................................................................................................................... 29

CBD18.112. Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Committee Terms of Reference - Committee Role

CBD18.110. Progress Update - Nowra CBD Historical Walk Interpretive Signage and Heritage Near Me App Grant Funding Project

CBD18.119. Additional Item - Additional Item - Streetscape / Landscape Budget - Distribute Report

CL18.359..... Report of the Shoalhaven Traffic Committee - 13 November 2018............ 31

TC18.102.... Proposed Pedestrian Signals - O'Keeffe Avenue Nowra

TC18.103.... Proposed No Stopping Zone - Links Ave, Sanctuary Point

TC18.104.... Proposed Relocation Pedestrian Refuge - Victoria St, Berry

TC18.105.... Raised Concrete Island With Pedestrian Refuge - Yurunga Dr, North Nowra

TC18.106.... Proposed No Stopping Zone - Isa Rd, Worrigee

TC18.107.... Raised Pedestrian Crossings & 40km/h High Pedestrian Activity Area - Jacobs Dr, Sussex Inlet

TC18.108.... Proposed Roundabout - Green St & Warden St, Ulladulla

12. Reports

General Manager

CL18.360..... Industrial Land Development - Woollamia................................................... 51

Finance Corporate & Community Services

CL18.361..... Stage 1 - Artie Smith Oval - Status Update - Stage 2 - Progression of SCaRP Master Plan with Athletics Track, Pavilion Incorporating 50m Indoor Pool............. 54

CL18.362..... Boongaree - Update and Next Steps........................................................... 61

CL18.363..... Acceptance of Grant Funding - Museums & Galleries NSW - Audience Development Fund.............................................................................................................. 69

CL18.364..... Annual Review of POL18/8 Investment Policy............................................ 71

CL18.365..... Investment Report - November 2018........................................................... 82

Assets & Works

CL18.366..... Intersection of Jervis Bay Road & Princes Highway - Falls Creek - Update 86

CL18.367..... Traffic Calming - River Road, Shoalhaven Heads....................................... 97

CL18.368..... Egan's Lane Precinct - Expression of Interest - Auric International.......... 108

CL18.369..... Proposed Retail Lease of Shop 43/43 Kinghorne Street Nowra............... 109

CL18.370..... Proposed Retail Lease of Shop 39a/43 Kinghorne St Nowra................... 111

CL18.371..... Solar Garden - Final Report....................................................................... 113

CL18.372..... Supply and delivery of Drainage and Recycled Pavement Materilas - Recycling and Waste Facilities.......................................................................................... 119

Planning Environment & Development

CL18.373..... Proposed Council Submission - Draft Community Participation Plan, NSW Department of Planning & Environment..................................................... 121

CL18.374..... Development Application – 8 Admiralty Crescent Huskisson – Lot 4 DP 16055 128

CL18.375..... Halloran Trust Lands - Ownership of Paper Roads................................... 164

Shoalhaven Water

CL18.376..... Tenders - Berrara Creek & Nerrindillah Creek HDD Crossing.................. 165

Councillor Conference Report

CL18.377..... 30th Anniversary - Aboriginal Conference................................................. 167

13. Confidential Reports

Reports

CCL18.20.... Egan's Lane Precinct - Expression of Interest - Auric International

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

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

CCL18.21.... Tenders – Supply and Delivery of Drainage and Recycled Pavement Materials - Recycling and Waste Facilities

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

CCL18.22.... Halloran Trust Lands - Ownership of Paper Roads

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

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

CCL18.23.... Tenders – Confidential - Berrara Creek & Nerrindillah Creek HDD Crossing

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

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 18 December 2018

Page 0

CL18.351 Notice of Motion - DE18.76 - Amendment - Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 - Medium Density 'Housekeeping' Amendments

HPERM Ref: D18/432898

Submitted by: Clr Andrew Guile

Purpose / Summary

The following Notice of Motion, of which due notice has been given, is submitted for Council’s consideration.

Recommendation

That Council

1. Retain A6.2 as originally adopted and instead amend A6.4 as follows:

The landscaping provided at A6.1, A6.2 and A6.3 excludes any ~~encroachments (i.e. any part of a building or structure), hardstand areas and any~~ areas used for storage, clothes drying, and water tanks.

2. (as per staff recommendation): Amend P1.1 as follows:

To promote good built form outcomes and the efficient utilisation of land, lot consolidation/ amalgamation avoids the isolation of smaller lots that would prevent future medium density development on those lots.

This performance criteria only relates to:

· • Dual occupancies in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

· • Multi dwelling housing in any zone.

· • Multi dwelling housing (terraces) in any zone.

· • A manor house in any zone.

3. Recommendation (as per staff recommendation): Delete P28.1 and P28.2. The performance criteria do not add any additional value to the assessment of an application beyond what is already covered in effective P28.3 and P28.4.

4. Recommendation: Table 2 and Figure 3 of Chapter G13 of the Shoalhaven DCP 2014 be amended as follows:

Front Setback

Front Setback Secondary Road

Side Setback

Side Setback Secondary Road

Rear Setback

Rear / Side Setback to Foreshore reserve

Lots under 600m²:

· 5m to walls of dwellings & 4m to verandahs, patios and awnings.

Lots over 600m²:

· 6m to walls of dwellings & 5m to verandahs, patios and awnings.

Lots over 900m²:

· 7.5m to walls of dwellings & 6.5m to verandahs, patios and awnings.

For any of the above setback requirements, reduced setbacks may be approved where the prevailing street character permits and the future desired character of the area is not prejudiced. The suitability of reduced setbacks must be demonstrated through addressing the relevant objectives and performance criteria of the DCP in support of the application.

Detached Dual Occupancy:

Average of the setbacks of the front and adjacent dwelling or 5m, whichever is the lesser. Refer to figure 3 below.

Attached Dual Occupancy Dwelling:
3m to the wall of the dwelling & 5.5m to garage.

900mm for single storey structures

1.2m for any two storey component / structures

Attached Dual Occupancies & side by side:

3m (average)

Detached Dual Occupancies (one behind the other):

3m (average) for rear of the rear dwelling.

Note: No rear setback applies for front dwelling (i.e. dwelling closest to the street).

7.5m

A close up of a logo

Description generated with very high confidence

5. Recommendation: Amend A20.1 to read:

In addition to storage in kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, the following storage is ~~to be provided~~ encouraged per dwelling:

· 1 bed: 6m3.

· 2 bed: 8m3.

· 3+ bed: 10m3.

6. Recommendation: A20.2 of Chapter G13 of the Shoalhaven DCP 2014 be deleted.

7. Recommendation: The General Manager prepare a draft amendment to Chapter G13 of the Shoalhaven DCP 2014 as follows:

a. Table 2 and Figure 3 of Chapter G13 of the Shoalhaven DCP 2014 be updated as follows:

Replacement Table 2 – Chapter 13

Front Setback

Front Setback Secondary Road

Side Setback

Side Setback Secondary Road

Rear Setback

Rear / Side Setback to Foreshore reserve

Lots under 600m²:

· 5m to walls of dwellings & 4m to verandahs, patios and awnings.

Lots over 600m²:

· 6m to walls of dwellings & 5m to verandahs, patios and awnings.

Lots over 900m²:

· 7.5m to walls of dwellings & 6.5m to verandahs, patios and awnings.

Detached Dual Occupancy:

Average of the setbacks of the front and adjacent dwelling or 5m, whichever is the lesser. Refer to figure 3 below.

Attached Dual Occupancy Dwelling:
3m to the wall of the dwelling & 5.5m to garage.

900mm for single storey structures

1.2m for any two storey component / structures

Attached Dual Occupancies & side by side:

3m (average)

Detached Dual Occupancies (one behind the other):

3m (average) for rear of the rear dwelling.

Note: No rear setback applies for front dwelling (i.e. dwelling closest to the street).

7.5m

Replacement Figure 3 – Chapter 13

A close up of a logo

Description generated with very high confidence

b. A20.2 of Chapter G13 of the Shoalhaven DCP 2014 be deleted.

8. Recommendation: The draft DCP amendment be place on public exhibition.

9. Recommendation: Following public exhibition, a further report be prepared for Council’s consideration detailing the results of any submissions and for finalisation.

Note by the General Manager

It is noted that the matters presented in this further Notice of Motion related to the medium density Chapter of the DCP are effectively those (highlight added below) referred to in part 2 of the resolution from the Development Committee dated 5 December 2018 (MIN18.945):

2. Consider any other amendments relevant to the Chapter G13 as the matters arise prior to part 3 of this recommendation, including relevant requested amendments from development industry representatives and others as required.

The full motion carried unanimously on 5^th December was:

That Council:

1. Commence preparation of an amendment to Chapter G13: Medium Density and Other

Residential of Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014 consistent with Table 1 in

this report and progress the amendment as part of the next appropriate housekeeping

amendment to the DCP.

2. Consider any other amendments relevant to the Chapter G13 as the matters arise prior to part 3 of this recommendation, including relevant requested amendments from development

industry representatives and others as required.

3. Receive a further report on this matter as part of the relevant housekeeping amendment

before proceeding to public exhibition.

FOR: Clr Findley, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr

Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

AGAINST: Nil

CARRIED

In some quarters the Notice of Motion could be viewed as a rescission motion to alter the previous decision and hence require three signatures to properly consider the matter - Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that council resolve to note the Notice of Motion for information and refer the matters to council staff to consider in accordance with the Resolution of the Development Committee as referenced above.

The Industry represent one part of Shoalhaven’s community and further investigation is required to ensure that the proposed amendments are in the broader public interest.

In this regard it is noted that the new Chapter G13 has only been in place for less than 2 months and at the time of writing, only six (6) development applications have been lodged under the new provisions with none of these determined as yet. A housekeeping amendment to this DCP Chapter should be timed appropriately to ensure that staff, industry and other users have spent time working with the recently adopted document so meaningful feedback can be obtained as to effectiveness of the provisions in it.

However if council wishes to consider the Notice of Motion in detail, each of the proposed recommendations put for in the Notice of Motion are discussed below. This includes staff commentary on the implications of the proposed changes.

Recommendation

Discussion and Implications

Retain A6.2 as originally adopted and instead amend A6.4 as follows:

Landscaping (defined as landscaped area) in the state-wide Standard Instrument LEP, means part of a site used for growing plants, grasses and trees, but does not include any building, structure or hard paved area.

Including buildings, structures and handstand areas in the landscaped area defeats the purpose of ‘landscaping’.

This amendment could mean that instead of providing up to 30% landscaping on a site (current acceptable solutions A6.1 and A6.2 combined), only 10% may be realised.

This is substantially below comparable industry standards, for example:

· Wollongong – 30%

· Kiama – 25% required as landscaped deep soil zone.

· Eurobodalla – 35% (20% for R3 zoned land).

This has the potential to lead to undesirable outcomes and quality of life outcomes for future residents.

(as per staff recommendation): Amend P1.1 as follows:

This performance criteria only relates to:

· Dual occupancies in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

· Multi dwelling housing in any zone.

· Multi dwelling housing (terraces) in any zone.

· A manor house in any zone.

Clarity is needed in regard to this item.

This is the proposed acceptable solution as resolved (MIN18.945):

P1.1 To promote good built form outcomes and the efficient utilisation of land, lot consolidation/ amalgamation avoids the isolation of smaller lots that would prevent future medium density development on those lots.

The following 4 dot points were intended to be a note for the reader of the Council report to explain when the performance criteria would apply:

· Dual occupancies in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

· Multi dwelling housing in any zone.

· Multi dwelling housing (terraces) in any zone.

· A manor house in any zone.

To be clear, the 4 dot points should not form part of the performance criteria.

Existing acceptable solutions A1.3 and A1.4 already provide clarity in this regard.

Recommendation (as per staff recommendation): Delete P28.1 and P28.2. The performance criteria do not add any additional value to the assessment of an application beyond what is already covered in effective P28.3 and P28.4.

Supported - this is as resolved (MIN18.945).

Recommendation: Table 2 and Figure 3 of Chapter G13 of the Shoalhaven DCP 2014 be amended as follows:

The amendments proposed to Table 2 and Figure 3 require further consideration. The main areas of concern are addressed below:

Removal of ‘category of land column’

The categories of land clearly identify areas with prevailing characteristics based on age/subdivision etc. Removal of this classification system creates uncertainty and there are concerns that in making the provision generic, it may erode the existing setback pattern and in some areas character, despite the proposed exception.

Front setbacks based on size of the lot

The intent of the current setback provisions is to reinforce a consistent setback based on whether the area is categorised as infill, or a newer subdivision.

The proposed amendments may result in staggered front setbacks resulting in an inconsistent setback pattern despite the proposed exception. This look is generally eclectic and does not result in good built form or streetscape outcomes.

In relation to the note, it does not appear that consideration has been given to increasing the required setback. In some areas, a setback on a lot between 600-899m² will be greater than 6m (for example existing infill areas with prevailing setback of 7.5m).

The proposed setbacks are based on lots under 600m², lots over 600m² and lots over 900m². It could be interpreted that a lot of 900m² could apply a 6m front setback as technically it is greater than 600m² in area. This is confusing and will be tested at some point.

Substantial amendment of Figure 3

Council staff have received a positive feedback from users of Chapter G13 who appreciate the additional guidance provided by Figure 3. Further, Figure 3 is a very effective tool for Council staff during the assessment process and also when assisting the community with enquiries.

The effective Figure 3 clearly demonstrates the different configurations of dual occupancy development and which setbacks should be applied. This is directly relevant to both the effective Table 2 and the proposed Table 2. For example, it is helpful to show visually the difference between side setback on the secondary road frontage, and the primary setback on the secondary road frontage. Council staff are often asked this question and the figure assists in this regard.

Proposed Figure 3 does not clearly show how the average setback should be calculated.

No differentiation for battle-axe lots

The reason for the removal of a front setback provision for a dual occupancy on a battle-axe lot is not clear.

It is generally acknowledged that a battle-axe lot is surrounded by multiple lots and has different amenity considerations than that of a standard lot with a direct road frontage. The effective 3m setback seeks to maintain amenity for these blocks which do not benefit from the public open space (such as the nature strip) that houses fronting onto a road benefit from. This is particularly important as a development on the front lot could be built quite close to the rear boundary.

Without specifying a front setback, there is no insight into Council’s intent in this regard. What distance should an applicant apply? Building Code of Australia requirements? The front setback requirements in column 1 of proposed Table 2?

Clarification of these points and setting a new or retaining the existing standard will assist in this regard.

Side setback

The effective side setbacks were established to provide greater consideration of bulk, scale and massing and as per related performance criteria P5.5 and P5.6 as follows:

P5.5 Setbacks are progressively increased to reduce bulk and overshadowing while maintaining adequate daylight and sunlight.

P5.6 Adequate levels of light and ventilation to adjoining buildings, landscaping, services and infrastructure are protected.

The approach has been changed to an approach based on the number of storeys of a structure, which isn’t necessarily a bad approach, however it does represent a decrease in setbacks from 1.2-2m to 0.9-1.2m. It is questioned whether matters such as overshadowing, daylight access, sunlight access, ventilation and landscaping can be satisfactorily addressed.

It is also not clear whether a two-storey dwelling applies a 900mm setback at the ground level and 1.2m setback at the first storey, or if a 1.2m setback should be applied to both storeys.

Clarification is required.

Rear setback

The differentiation for rear setbacks is confusing and unnecessary. It would be more appropriate to state that the rear setback is 3m (as per effective and proposed provisions) with a note stating that “no rear setback applies to a detached dwelling addressing the primary road frontage”.

Removal of notes below table

Whilst some regular users may find the notes unnecessary, feedback received to date indicates that the notes are helpful to a wider range of users.

Notes 3 is a good example. The proposed front setback (secondary road) for an attached dual occupancy dwelling is 3m to the wall of the dwelling. With the proposed removal of the notes associated with the table, there does not appear to be any setback requirement for a verandah, awning or patio which is not desirable.

The notes, as relevant following future changes, should be retained.

Removal of advisory information in row header and terminology generally

The italicised wording in the row header of the effective Table 2 provides assistance to the reader. The omission of this information may lead to issues of interpretation. For example, the side setback not only applies to a side setback without a road frontage, it also applies to a public reserve which may be a point of contention. This clarifying information has been within SDCP and former DCP 57 since 2010, with positive feedback received.

Front Setback

Front Setback Secondary Road

Side Setback

Side Setback Secondary Road

Rear Setback

Rear / Side Setback to Foreshore reserve

Lots under 600m²:

· 5m to walls of dwellings & 4m to verandahs, patios and awnings.

Lots over 600m²:

· 6m to walls of dwellings & 5m to verandahs, patios and awnings.

Lots over 900m²:

· 7.5m to walls of dwellings & 6.5m to verandahs, patios and awnings.

Detached Dual Occupancy:

Average of the setbacks of the front and adjacent dwelling or 5m, whichever is the lesser. Refer to figure 3 below.

Attached Dual Occupancy Dwelling:
3m to the wall of the dwelling & 5.5m to garage.

900mm for single storey structures

1.2m for any two storey component / structures

Attached Dual Occupancies & side by side:

3m (average)

Detached Dual Occupancies (one behind the other):

3m (average) for rear of the rear dwelling.

Note: No rear setback applies for front dwelling (i.e. dwelling closest to the street).

7.5m

Recommendation: Amend A20.1 to read:

In addition to storage in kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, the following storage is ~~to be provided~~ encouraged per dwelling:

· 1 bed: 6m3.

· 2 bed: 8m3.

· 3+ bed: 10m3.

This weakens the provision significantly.

Given a choice, it is unlikely that an applicant will provide appropriate levels of storage.

These provisions were taken from the Low Rise Medium Density Design Guide which supports the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code within the Codes SEPP. The Guide acknowledges that storage enhances amenity and should be an important component of dwelling design.

Recommendation: A20.2 of Chapter G13 of the Shoalhaven DCP 2014 be deleted.

The point of this provision is to ensure that the storage space is not pushed into the garage.

Often garages are filled up with ‘stuff’ and instead of parking resident vehicles in the garage, they are parked in the front of the garages, in the designated visitor spaces or on the street. Resident vehicles should be parked in the spaces approved, so as to avoid congestion and safety concerns within a complex, as well as a reduction in visitor parking spaces, impacts upon the verge or reduction in on street parking.

Recommendation: The General Manager prepare a draft amendment to Chapter G13 of the Shoalhaven DCP 2014 as follows:

a) Table 2 and Figure 3 of Chapter G13 of the Shoalhaven DCP 2014 be amended as follows:

This recommendation is a duplication of point 4 above.

Comments are the same as at point 4.

Replacement Table 2 – Chapter 13

Front Setback

Front Setback Secondary Road

Side Setback

Side Setback Secondary Road

Rear Setback

Rear / Side Setback to Foreshore reserve

Lots under 600m²:

· 5m to walls of dwellings & 4m to verandahs, patios and awnings.

Lots over 600m²:

· 6m to walls of dwellings & 5m to verandahs, patios and awnings.

Lots over 900m²:

· 7.5m to walls of dwellings & 6.5m to verandahs, patios and awnings.

Detached Dual Occupancy:

Average of the setbacks of the front and adjacent dwelling or 5m, whichever is the lesser. Refer to figure 3 below.

Attached Dual Occupancy Dwelling:
3m to the wall of the dwelling & 5.5m to garage.

900mm for single storey structures

1.2m for any two storey component / structures

Attached Dual Occupancies & side by side:

3m (average)

Detached Dual Occupancies (one behind the other):

3m (average) for rear of the rear dwelling.

Note: No rear setback applies for front dwelling (i.e. dwelling closest to the street).

7.5m

Replacement Figure 3 – Chapter 13

Recommendation: The draft DCP amendment be place on public exhibition.

As this amendment is considered to be housekeeping in nature, it would be ‘best practice’ to consider any other amendments relevant to the Chapter G13 as they arise and report back to Council with a copy of the wholistic draft chapter, prior to proceeding to public exhibition.

This is important as part 2 of the resolution (MIN18.945) was amended to potentially include input from other stakeholders (e.g. Inclusion and Access Advisory Committee, other users), not just the industry comment included in this Notice of Motion.

Further, this recommendation seems to imply the amendment is urgent and should be considered independently. It is envisaged that the resolved amendment to Chapter G13 would form part of the next relevant housekeeping amendment to enable staff, industry and other users to spend time working with the document so meaningful feedback can be obtained as to effectiveness of the provisions within.

As mentioned earlier, the new Chapter G13 has only been in place for less than 2 months and at the time of writing, only six (6) development applications have been lodged under the new provisions.

The intention should be specifically identified for the purpose of the Strategic Planning Works Program and its priority identified.

Recommendation: Following public exhibition, a further report be prepared for Council’s consideration detailing the results of any submissions and for finalisation.

Supported - this is standard practice.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 18 December 2018

Page 0

CL18.353 Report of the Strategy & Assets Committee - 11 December 2018

HPERM Ref: D18/434754

SA18.261 Notice of Motion - Indoor Sporting Stadium / Old Basketball Courts

HPERM Ref: D18/413072

Recommendation

That

1. Council confirm its earlier considerations to have a 6 court basketball complex at Bomaderry by refurbishing the existing 2 courts.

2. An urgent application be made to the State Government for a grant to facilitate the refurbishment works, with Council’s contribution being made up from Government subsidised loans or revenue.

Note by the General Manager:

Staff will need to expend some funds to urgently carry out proper investigations and QS assessments to determine what works are required and an estimate of costs to enable applications to be lodged.

SA18.269 Council Committee Structure & Purpose

HPERM Ref: D18/412074

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Adopt the new scheduled (Purpose/Delegation) for the Strategy and Assets Committee as follows:

Strategy and Assets Committee

Delegation:

Pursuant to s377 (1) of the Local Government Act 1993 the Committee is delegated the functions conferred on Council by the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act) or any other Act or delegated to Council, as are specified in the Schedule, subject to the following limitations:

i. The Committee cannot exercise any function delegated to the Council which by the terms of that delegation cannot be sub-delegated;

ii. The Committee cannot exercise any function which s377(1) of the LG Act provides cannot be delegated by Council;

iii. The Committee cannot exercise a function which is expressly required by the LG Act or any other Act to be exercised by resolution of the Council; and

iv. The Committee cannot exercise any function which is a function of the General Manager under s335 of the LG Act.

Schedule

a. Make recommendations to Council and consider, formulate, review and adopt policies in relation to Councils corporate & community planning under Part 2 of Chapter 13 of the LG Act, asset management and in connection with the other functions listed in this Schedule and in particular to make recommendations to Council in respect of the content of Councils community strategic plan, delivery program, resourcing strategy and operational plan within the meaning of Part 2 of Chapter 13 of the LG Act;

b. Make recommendations to Council and consider, formulate, review and adopt Council policies, plans and strategies other than those in respect of town planning and environmental, natural resources / assets, floodplain, estuary and coastal management and sustainability matters that are dealt with by the Development and Environment Committee.

c. Make recommendations in respect of the introduction of new fees or charges or the alteration of existing fees and charges for inclusion in the Councils next operational plan within the meaning of s405 of the LG Act;

d. Monitor, review and consider matters relating to the operations and strategic direction of Councils Holiday Haven Tourist Parks Group;

e. All functions in respect of the management of, and facilities provided on Crown Land in respect of which Council is the ‘Crown Land Manager’ under Division 3.4 of the Crown Lands Management Act, 2016 and the making of recommendations to Council regarding such matters where the function is not dealt with under the delegations to the General Manager or cannot be delegated by Council;

f. Provision of corporate direction to the Shoalhaven Water Group in respect of powers delegated to it by Council regarding the construction, alteration or maintenance of water and sewerage works, effluent works and pump out removal;

g. Authorise the expenditure of funds raised under s64 of the LG Act within the limits outlined in, and in accordance with Councils adopted Development Servicing Plan and other relevant adopted Council policies;

h. Make recommendations to Council in respect of fees and charges for water and wastewater services provided by Council;

I. Develop, implement, review and adopt strategic policies for water, sewerage and effluent operations of Council;

j. Undertake preliminary investigations (feasibility, cost benefit, risk analysis, etc.) into development opportunities for Councils strategic land holdings and make recommendations to Council.

k. Review and make recommendations to Council in relation to:

l. The sale prices of land in connection with residential and industrial Council subdivisions;

m. The sale of Council property or the purchase or resumption of land;

n. The compensation to be offered in respect of land resumed by Council; and

o. Properties leased or rented by Council, other than those delegated to the General Manager for approval and execution in accordance with MIN14.912 and MIN15.237 of the Council.

p. To determine and accept all tenders with a value of $1 Million or more, except those tenders required by law to be determined by full Council (MIN17.334).

2. Rename the Development Committee to Development and Environment Committee.

3. Adopt the new schedule (Purpose/Delegation) for the Development and Environment Committee as follows:

Development and Environment Committee

Delegation:

Pursuant to s377 (1) of the Local Government Act 1993 the Committee is delegated the functions conferred on Council by the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act), Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act) or any other Act or delegated to Council, as are specified in the attached Schedule, subject to the following limitations:

i. The Committee cannot make a decision to make a local environmental plan to classify or reclassify public land under Division 1 of Part 2 of Chapter 6 of the LG Act;

ii. The Committee cannot review a section 8.11 or section 8.9 EPA Act determination made by the Council or by the Committee itself;

iii. The Committee cannot exercise any function delegated to the Council which by the terms of that delegation cannot be sub-delegated;

iv. The Committee cannot exercise any function which s377(1) of the LG Act provides cannot be delegated by Council; and

v. The Committee cannot exercise a function which is expressly required by the LG Act or any other Act to be exercised by resolution of the Council.

Schedule

a. All functions relating to the preparation, making, and review of local environmental plans (LEPs) and development control plans (DCPs) under Part 3 of the EPA Act.

b. All functions relating to the preparation, making, and review of contributions plans and the preparation, entry into, and review of voluntary planning agreements under Part 7 of the EPA Act.

c. The preparation, adoption, and review of policies and strategies of the Council in respect of town planning and environmental matters and the variation of such policies.

d. Determination of variations to development standards related to development applications under the EPA Act where the development application involves a development which seeks to vary a development standard by more than 10% and the application is accompanied by a request to vary the development standard under clause 4.6 of Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 or an objection to the application of the development standard under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards.

e. Determination of variations from the acceptable solutions and/or other numerical standards contained within the DCP or a Council Policy that the General Manager requires to be determined by the Committee

f. Determination of development applications that Council requires to be determined by the Committee on a case by case basis.

g. Review of determinations of development applications under sections 8.11 and 8.9 of the EP&A Act that the General Manager requires to be determined by the Committee.

h. Preparation, review, and adoption of policies and guidelines in respect of the determination of development applications by other delegates of the Council.

i. The preparation, adoption, and review of policies and strategies of the Council in respect to sustainability matters related to climate change, biodiversity, waste, water, energy, transport, and sustainable purchasing.

j. The preparation, adoption and review of policies and strategies of the Council in respect to management of natural resources / assets, floodplain, estuary and coastal management.

SA18.271 Milton Library - Budget Reallocation - Ongoing Funding

HPERM Ref: D18/205789

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Reinstate the budget for Milton Library operations through the allocation of recurrent funding of $31,000 for financial year 2019/20 onwards to be indexed linked with an annual CPI increase

2. Note that the reinstatement of the budget will ensure that there is a level of library service in Milton that is commensurate to the community’s request.

SA18.279 Licence to Desert Developments Pty Ltd - 83 South Street Ulladulla

HPERM Ref: D18/379537

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Grant a licence to Desert Developments Pty Ltd giving rights for vehicles using the Licensee’s car wash business on Lot A DP157079 to exit the property over Council’s adjoining land being Lot 11 DP791198 on the same terms as that granted to D & D Dale, R Hitchcock at a rental of $1 per annum for a term expiring when the traffic corridor on Lot 11 DP791198 ceases to be available or when Lot 11 DP791198 is required by Council for redevelopment.

2. Authorise the Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven be affixed to any documentation requiring to be sealed and delegate to the General Manager authority to sign any documentation necessary to give effect to this resolution.

SA18.289 Lease of land at Yalwal for new communications tower site

HPERM Ref: D18/417030

Recommendation

That Council

1. Lease an area of approximately 10m x10m over part of Lot 3 DP252335 at Yalwal Road, Yalwal from Edward McPartland for a period of 20 years at an annual rental of $5,000 pa, annual increases to CPI and 20% of rent received by Council from other future users of the site. The final area to be leased to be determined by design of the communications tower.

2. Grant a licence to Edward McPartland at a nominal $1 pa to allow installation of his equipment on the communications tower when constructed.

3. Delegate Authority to the General Manager to approve and execute all future telecommunication leases and licences relating to this site, know as Part Lot 3 DP252335 Yalwal.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 18 December 2018

Page 0

CL18.361 Stage 1 - Artie Smith Oval - Status Update - Stage 2 - Progression of SCaRP Master Plan with Athletics Track, Pavilion Incorporating 50m Indoor Pool

HPERM Ref: D18/335938

Group: Finance Corporate & Community Services Group

Section: Recreation Community & Culture

Purpose / Summary

The report seeks to:

· Update Council on Stage 1 detail design Artie Smith Oval

· Reactivate and recommence Stage 2 of Shoalhaven Community and Recreation Precinct (SCaRP)

· Modify the master plan including the location of the athletics track and revise the pavilion to include a 50-metre indoor pool

· Develop a cost benefit analysis and business case for the whole of the SCaRP project, and the existing Bomaderry Basketball Stadium

· Undertake further investigation of the exiting Bomaderry Basketball Stadium regarding potential uses and works required to undertake those uses

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Receive the status update report on Stage 1 – detailed design for Artie Smith Oval for information.

2. Reactivate Stage 2 of Shoalhaven Community and Recreation Precinct, noting the inclusion of the athletics track and an amended concept plan for the pavilion to include a 50-metre indoor pool.

3. Allocate a budget of $30,000 to undertake further investigation and consultation regarding possible uses and works required of the existing Bomaderry Basketball Stadium.

4. Allocate a budget of $150,000 from the forward design budget to amend the master plan and develop a preliminary Quantity Survey, cost benefit analysis and business case for the whole of Shoalhaven Community and Recreation Precinct prior to proceeding with detail design.

5. Report back to Council with the findings of the Quantity Survey, Cost Benefit, Business Case, and investigations regarding the existing Basketball Stadium prior to proceeding to detail design for stage 2 of Shoalhaven Community and Recreation Precinct.

6. Identify the $180,000 funding requirements for Recommendations 3 & 4 above in future quarterly reviews of the 2018/19 budget.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation.

Implications: This is the preferred option as it will allow Council staff to proceed with the project and meet the expectations of the user groups and broader community and support the continuation of the detailed design process for Artie Smith Oval.

Revising the SCaRP master plan to increase the size of the indoor pool will enable the future development of the pavilion to accommodate an indoor 50m swimming pool facility capable of higher level competitions within the Illawarra-Shoalhaven region. This is consistent with community expectations and previous Council commitments.

Proceeding to cost benefit analysis and business case development will assist Council and associated partners in moving the SCaRP project forward and seeking monies for the development of the site and facilities.

Undertaking further investigation and consultation regarding the Bomaderry Basketball Stadium to identify potential uses into the future will assist with the overall SCaRP plan development and costings providing a holistic and strategic approach to planning and providing facilities.

A budget will need to be identified in order to undertake the detail design for Stage 2 of SCaRP. Whilst a budget of $150,000 has been requested this amount is not anticipated to cover the cost of detail design, however it will enable a revised master plan to be developed, updated business plan and new cost benefit analysis and preliminary QS to be completed.

An additional $30,000 will allow investigation works and consultation regarding the future uses and potential works required for the existing Bomaderry Basketball Stadium.

A further report will need to be considered by Council next financial year following the completion of the master planning process, QS, business case development and possible uses for the existing Bomaderry Basketball Stadium ahead of seeking support and funding to progress to detailed design.

2. Adopt an alternative recommendation with regard to detailed design of Artie Smith Oval and the recommencement of Stage 2 of SCaRP and proceed to detail design without amending the master plan to include a 50-metre indoor pool within the pavilion.

Implications: If Council were to support this option it would potentially delay the detailed design of Artie Smith Oval, impacting on Council’s ability to secure grant funding to support its delivery and would see Council proceed with Stage two of SCaRP without revising the master plan to increase the size of the indoor pool to 50-metres. This option would not reflect community expectations and previous Council commitments. The Bomaderry Basketball Stadium would not be investigated to determine future uses.

3. Do not proceed with Stage 2 of SCaRP.

Implications: This is not recommended. The ultimate development of Stage 2 of SCaRP would see the precinct evolve into a multi-user indoor and outdoor sporting precinct for the northern Shoalhaven. Should Council resolve to support this option, it is likely that Council would need to undertake a separate design process in the near future for the existing aquatic centre and rugby league fields to ensure they are meeting current industry standards and the active recreation infrastructure needs of the growing community. This is particularly relevant noting the growth associated with the Nowra-Bomaderry Urban Release Areas (URAs).

Background

A Councillor site visit – to Artie Smith Oval and the Shoalhaven Indoor Sports Complex was undertaken on the 6 December and followed by a Councillor Briefing:

· To update Councillors on the progress of the Artie Smith Oval detail design – and progression through to the 60% finalisation stage – this was provided by Ayling Drury Architects.

· To advise Council of the advocacy, consultation and liaison role being undertaken by Acclimate with Federal and State Governments, sporting groups and other stakeholders.

· The feedback to date has shown a high level of interest and community support for the Artie Smith re-development and reactivation of the SCaRP Stage 2 project, which has affirmed the need and requirement for this holistic approach to developing the community precinct etc.

Artie Smith Detail Design update

Council resolved in May 2018 MIN 18.296:

“That Council authorise and fund up to $200,000 for the development of detailed designs for Artie Smith Oval, that is, sports infrastructure on lands on the southern side of Cambewarra Road, Bomaderry”.

In response, and following a competitive quotation process, Council engaged Ayling & Drury to undertake the detail design of the Artie Smith Site to develop a Regional Cricket / AFL facility, and croquet facility.

The design is currently at 30% detail. Council recently facilitated a workshop with the project consultants, user groups and relevant stakeholders in October. Having considered the stakeholder feedback, the consultants are now proceeding to the 60% design phase and costings so that Acclimate can approach potential government and other funding bodies to advocate and assist with the delivery of the project.

SCaRP Master Plan

Council will recall that in developing the original SCaRP master plan, the vision that was established for the precinct sought to deliver:

“an integrated community and recreational precinct to meet the needs of the region, operating on a commercially viable and sustainable basis seven days a week”

The master plan for SCaRP provides an integrated precinct of passive and active recreation, and community facilities in one central location.

The master plan developed by Acclimate is intended to be a long-term plan for the next 40 years and is expected to meet the needs of the growing community now and into the future. The demand for increased passive and active recreation and community facilities within the Northern Shoalhaven, will become more prominent as a result of the development of the Nowra-Bomaderry URAs, particularly the Moss Vale Road North and South URAs.

The master plan includes two (2) stages. Stage 1 is located on the southern side of Cambewarra Road and encompasses Artie Smith Oval, Shoalhaven Indoor Sports Stadium and the previous Bomaderry Basketball Stadium.

Stage 2 is located on the northern side of Cambewarra Road and encompasses the Pavilion, the Synthetic Athletics Track and the Rugby League Fields.

The Pavilion would include a range of community services, health and wellbeing including a gymnasium, community meeting spaces and cafe along with an enhanced aquatic facility which will increase the overall water space; the pool will have an additional two lanes moving from six to eight lanes. It is proposed that the indoor pool is amended to be 50 metres, to allow use in all-weather and increase capacity for higher level events. Additional facilities include a hydrotherapy pool with inclusive access that is currently not available in the Northern part of the Shoalhaven, a dedicated learn to swim pool which will remove congestion from the main pool, a beach entry/play pool and a leisure water facility to accommodate the needs of more users, similar to Bay and Basin Leisure Centre and Nowra Aquatic Park Pools.

The synthetic athletic track will be the only athletics facility in the Shoalhaven and will offer facilities commensurate with regional needs and capacity to hold Country Athletics Championships.

Athletics Track Investigation

In February 2018 Council resolved MIN18.111:

1. Council support the Rescission Motion and put the SCaRP master plan on hold

2. With respect to the Athletics Facility, Council:

a. Immediately engage with the Athletics Club to investigate an alternative site for a new facility with a commitment to fund works and seek grant funds in the short term

b. Provide funding of up to $300,000 in the 2018/19 budget for project scoping, consultation and design work with a view to delivering a plan that will be construction ready by 2020

c. Immediately apply as is practical, for sporting grants for the construction of the facility

3. Council commit to maintaining the Bomaderry Aquatic Centre in its present form

4. With respect to the Croquet Club:

a. Council advise the Croquet Club it may remain in its current location and to proceed with its expansion plan; and

b. A report be submitted back to Council on funding options for the croquet facility

5. Council advise all other Sports Associations and Stakeholders of this decision

6. A review of the Master Plan Design commence to provide for a new 50m outdoor pool and swimming complex as part of the current works plan for SCaRP and priorities which now include an athletics facility.

The outcome of the investigation determined that there were no other suitable locations that were considered capable of accommodating an athletics track or were superior to the area identified as part of the master plan.

Subsequently, at the August 2018 Strategy and Assets meeting MIN18.625, Council resolved to:

1. Note the investigations undertaken in consultation with the Athletics Club in attempting to identify an alternate site for a new facility

2. Include provision for croquet facilities as part of the detailed design of the Artie Smith Oval site

3. Note the engagement of Acclimate to liaise with peak sporting and grants bodies to progress

As part of this report, it is recommended that Council endorse the master plan for Stage 2 of SCaRP including the location of the athletics track. Endorsing the location of the athletics track within Stage 2 of SCaRP is in line with the user group (Athletics Club) and broader community expectations.

Bomaderry Basketball Stadium

Bomaderry Basketball Stadium is part of the proposed SCaRP project which includes Bomaderry Sporting Complex, Bomaderry Aquatic Centre, Artie Smith Oval, Bomaderry Basketball Stadium and the new Shoalhaven Indoor Sports Centre are located.

As part of this project it is timely to strategically plan and identify options for future use of Bomaderry Basketball Stadium as part of the broader planning and investigations for Artie Smith Oval and revision of the SCaRP master plan. This approach will ensure that its future use best meets and reflects the broader needs of the community. The consultants, in preparing the SCaRP Master Plan Stage 1 document, which was adopted by Council in December 2016, undertook preliminary community consultation. This consultation included State Sporting Associations and there was interest in development of a regional sporting academy. This will be further explored as the investigation progress.

In considering the future development opportunities for the Artie Smith Reserve site, it is proposed that the new master planning process should consult with all potential stakeholder / partners to understand their needs and requirements and what funding and other value propositions they can bring to the project. This strategic and holistic approach will ensure that any future investment in upgrading the Bomaderry Basketball Stadium is not made in isolation, or without regard to, Artie Smith Oval, the Shoalhaven Indoor Sports Centre and / or SCaRP project. Hence, it would be premature to commit to any form of long term operation of the Stadium, or to a commitment to investing in the building without further detailed and reliable information upon which to base these decisions.

In this regard, the existing stadium has a portal frame and roof sheeting which are in good condition, however all other aspects of the building would require upgrading and dependant on the extent of this, costs could be in the region of $2m - $6m. A business plan is required before an asset management plan can go to the next asset maturity level, currently an Asset Plan is being developed for the existing Basketball Stadium. Hence, to prematurely commit to any financial undertaking could potentially place Council in an exposed position with uncertainty on security of, and return on, investment. Given the significant strategic issues presented at this facility, related to:

· Lack of current Asset Management Plan

· No identified Master Plan on the future use and refurbishment requirements associated with the building

· No funding allocation, and any future works would trigger the:

o National Construction Code

o Building Code of Australia

o Australian Standards

o Premises Standards and any relevant legislation

o Especially Part D of the BCA and section 11 of Australian Standard 1428 Access for mobility

· Fire Regulations

· Asbestos Management

Therefore, it is proposed that Council needs to investigate this further with a clear strategic master plan and business plan on what is needed, using an evidence-based approach. This approach will enable senior Council management and Councillors to continue to have a close involvement with the project, to have input into the final mix of facilities, service delivery options and the potential management models for the Basketball Stadium, along with a detailed implementation to bring the project to ‘shovel ready’ stage.

To progress this aspect of the project it is proposed that an independent consultant is appointed through a request for quotation process, to undertake an investigation and feasibility study, producing a strategic master plan and business plan for the existing Bomaderry Basketball Stadium, its potential future uses, associated costs based on extensive stakeholder consultation and review of industry sporting trends and future needs.

A further report would be prepared for Council at the completion of this process. Based on past experience a budget allocation of $30,000 would be required to undertake this.

It is important to note however, that following the opening of the new Indoor Sports Centre in mid-2019, the existing Basketball Stadium will be available for any major basketball events that might require overflow facilities.

Next Steps

Stage 2 of SCaRP has been put on hold since February 2018. This report seeks to reactivate Stage 2 with the inclusion of the athletics track and amendments to the proposed Pavilion to include a 50-metre indoor pool.

Revising the master plan to construct a 50-metre indoor pool will enable the future development of the facility to accommodate all-weather usage and higher-level competitions within the Illawarra-Shoalhaven region. It will also undertake and complete further investigations including consultation regarding the existing Bomaderry Basketball Stadium and its future uses/purpose. This is particularly important when considering the status of SCaRP holistically and ensuring that its use meets facility standards for relevant peak sporting organisations to allow for the hosting of Regional, State and National level competitions.

Finally, it is recommended that Council support progressing this project with the master plan and its identified changes and developing a business case and cost benefit analysis prior to proceeding to detail design for SCaRP Stage 2. This will ensure the project can progress to DA ready and ultimately shovel ready status which will enable Council staff to apply for grant funding for the project as they become available. Council will also need to identify a suitable budget to enable the project to proceed to detail design.

Community Engagement

As part of the development of the SCaRP master plan Council staff undertook extensive consultation with user groups, relevant stakeholders and the broader community to inform and develop the master plan.

Further consultation with user groups (Athletics Club and Nowra Croquet Club) has occurred in investigating alternative sites for the athletics track and in resolving the location of the croquet courts.

Council have most recently consulted with the user groups of the Artie Smith Oval site as part of the Artie Smith 30% detail design preparation.

Council have separately engaged Acclimate in an advocacy role to liaise with various levels of government, state, regional and local sporting organisations, along with a broad range of community user and stakeholder groups. This has reaffirmed the need and requirement for this project and a high level of support for it to progress.

Financial Implications

Council will need to consider allocating a budget for the revision of the master plan to include the 50-metre indoor pool, and a further funding allocation to undertake the detail design for Stage 2.

A budget of $180,000 is recommended initially, however this amount is not anticipated to cover the cost of detail design works but will allow for the changes to the master plan and the development of a cost benefit analysis, business case and the investigation and consultation works for the existing Bomaderry Basketball Stadium. A further report will be considered by Council next financial year once these aspects have been completed and to seek funding to proceed to detail design.

By undertaking the detail design for Stage 2 of the project, this will allow the project to progress to DA ready and ultimately shovel ready status which will enable Council staff to apply for grant programs for the project within the fullness of time.

Council have separately engaged Acclimate in an advocacy role to liaise with various levels of government to advocate for projects and seek assistance with funding and delivery of the project.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 18 December 2018

Page 0

CL18.362 Boongaree - Update and Next Steps

HPERM Ref: D18/379707

Group: Finance Corporate & Community Services Group

Section: Recreation Community & Culture

Attachments: 1. Boongaree Options Report (under separate cover) ⇨

Purpose / Summary

To seek endorsement of the revised master plan for Boongaree, provide an update on the detail design and costings, and to seek Council commitment for future funding sources.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Support the amendments to the revised Master Plan and adopt the detail design for Boongaree.

2. Council receive a further report in relation to the skate park extension following further investigations.

3. Identify at a future quarterly budget review an initial budget allocation of $200,000 to utilise for matching funding for upcoming grant applications, including NSW Government Everyone Can Play Grant Initiative.

4. Develop a Business Case and Funding Plan for the staged delivery of Boongaree that identifies funding sources, including grant funding and community fundraising opportunities, over several budget cycles commencing 2018/19 for inclusion in Council’s long-term financial plan.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation.

Implications: This is the preferred option as the revised masterplan reflects changes that are consistent with community feedback and have been generally supported by the Berry Forum and Berry community.

The recommendation also seeks to prepare a funding plan for the project which will see it be implemented in stages. This project is seen as a significant investment and recreation need within the Berry community following the construction of the Berry Bypass and the loss of a district park within the immediate area.

The project offers significant benefits including providing passive and active recreation infrastructure for the existing and growing Berry community, as well as providing a valuable tourist attraction for those travelling through the region and providing positive flow-on economic benefits to Berry Town Centre.

2. Adopt an alternative recommendation.

Implications: Depending on the proposed amendments to the recommendation, this may result in further delays in progressing the project to the next stage of delivery, which may hinder upon eligibility of future grant funding applications. In addition, if Council resolve to make further amendments to the masterplan, this may require further community consultation.

Background

Boongaree, previously named Berry Sporting Complex and Berry District Park, is located on North Street in Berry. The site is currently used for various passive and active recreation activities including rugby league, cricket, tennis, netball, skate park, walking, cycling, picnics and timed off-leash dog area.

Council initially commenced the process of preparing a masterplan for Boongaree in 2014, in preparation of the construction of the Berry Bypass by NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS). The initial Berry District Park Master Plan was reported to Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 25 October 2016, where Council resolved (MIN16.791) in part:

1. That Council form a Working Group, which is Co – Chaired by a Councillor and Community member with the following membership:

a. all Councillors

b. Three (3) representatives of the Berry Community Forum (Including one (1) representative from the Berry Sporting Complex Management Committee

c. Two (2) representatives of the Berry Rotary Club

d. One (1) representative of the Berry Chamber of Commerce.

e. If possible, a young person be included as one of the community representatives.

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

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

In response to the above resolution, Council staff established a working group, continued to consult with the community project reference group, and proceeded to the preparation of a detailed design for the park. The money allocated towards the project was utilised for the preparation of the detail design of the park. It is recommended as part of this project that a Business Case, Funding and Procurement Plan be undertaken as a next stage. This is subject to adoption of the revised Master Plan and detailed design. It is also recommended that Council consider including the project over several budget funding cycles commencing 2018/19.

Working Group

A Working Group was formed in accordance with MIN16.791 on 28 February 2017, as a sub-committee of The Berry Forum. The Working Group was co-chaired by a member of Berry Forum, community member and Councillor Wells. On average, six (6) other people attended Working Group meetings which represented the Berry Forum, Berry Sporting Complex Management Committee, Rotary Club of Berry, Berry Chamber of Commerce, Landcare and broader community.

Preliminary discussions with the working group suggested that there were varying ideas within the community in relation to the components of the park. Subsequently, the Working Group members decided that it would be worthwhile to undertake additional stakeholder workshops to re-consult key stakeholders, review the Master Plan and prepare a revised plan.

Community Stakeholder Workshop

A community stakeholder workshop was held on 4 April 2017 and as a result, three (3) Master Plan options were developed. Project consultants were engaged to review the options and generate two (2) options for final consideration by the Working Group. The project consultants prepared a comprehensive report outlining the process and final options for consideration, as provided at Attachment 1.

The Report was presented to the Working Group on 2 May 2017 at which time they identified Option A (as shown in Figure 1 below) as the preferred option. The Working Group then presented their recommendation to The Berry Forum on 8 June 2017 for endorsement, where it received unanimous support.

Figure 1 – Adopted Masterplan, Options Workshop April 2017

Berry District Park - Renaming

Since the October 2016 resolution, Council staff initiated a naming campaign which saw the community vote in majority for the renaming of Berry District Park to Boongaree Park. On 25 July 2018, Council’s Strategy & Assets resolved to adopt the name Boongaree. Council will seek to formally rename the park with the Geographical Names Board of NSW.

Boongaree Master Plan

Since the options workshop (Figure 1), various amendments were made to the adopted master plan to address a number of community concerns. Specifically, the changes include:

- Reduction in length of on-street parking on North Street to address concerns from community in relation to traffic and acoustic impact. The amendment ensured on-street parking provisions on North Street ceased west of Alexandra Street. To compensate for the reduction in the number of parking spaces on North Street, additional parking is provided on site that connects the parking on the southern side of the Senior fields, through to the bus parking on Woodhill Mountain Road. This connection also provides an added function of draining water that is known to pool in this location and should ensure the fields are more useable.

- Return location of netball courts from the west of the junior fields to north of the tennis courts as per the current site location, to address concerns from community in relation to lighting and acoustic impact. It was acknowledged that the junior fields would generate acoustic impact to nearby residents, therefore retaining the netball courts at the existing location was seen to reduce the potential maximum acoustic and lighting impact. Retaining the netball courts in their current site location was seen to be advantageous due to the existing lighting provisions and given the courts are used for practice only.

- Relocation of amenities block from west of the junior fields to the south-western corner of the Play Zone adjacent to the early childhood adventure play area. The amenities block was relocated to a more central and accessible area within the park that is close to the hub of passive activity associated with the nature play area.

The revised masterplan with the above modifications is illustrated at Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 – Revised Masterplan, October 2018

Revised Masterplan and Detailed Design

Detail design of the various components within the revised master plan have now been completed, with the exception of the skate park extension. Further information is provided later in this report that summarises the skate park design process.

The facilities incorporated within Boongaree will provide for various passive and active recreation infrastructure for the existing and growing Berry community, and for tourists, in accordance with the objectives of the Berry Community Strategic Plan and Council’s Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan. The facilities include, but are not limited to the following:

- Pump track

- Junior and Senior Cricket pitch, Rugby League and Soccer fields

- Exercise zone

- Extension to the existing skate park

- Additional on-street and off-street parking, including parking for buses and RV vehicles

- Replacement netball courts and practice cricket pitches

- Nature play – Childhood Adventure Zone

- Youth Zone

- Shared path that circulates the park and connects with surrounding path networks

- Fenced dog off-leash area

- Learn to ride facility

- Additional amenities inclusive of lift and change facilities

- Sensory garden and native flora area (Reconciliation garden)

Skate Park Design and Geotechnical Findings

Council engaged Convic (project consultant) to prepare the detail design of the skate park extension, in accordance with the design developed by the community and skate park user group.

As part of the design process, the consultants undertook a review of the geotechnical report prepared on behalf of Council. The review found that the location of the skate park extension is subject to soils that are highly reactive coupled with the presence of uncontrolled fill. The geotechnical findings indicate that there is a risk of severe cracking and slab displacement of any extension to the skate park.

The project consultants have prepared two options for staff and community to consider in moving forward with a design for the skate park extension.

· Option 1: Demolish existing skate park and undertake extensive ground remediation works to stabilise the ground conditions and consolidate with geotechnical information. This will provide a new engineered bench to build the skate park on and will address majority of the soil movement issues. This option offers lower maintenance and longevity of the facility.

· Option 2: Reskin sections of the existing park and construct an extension. This will need to incorporate a significant number of articulated joints 2m apart into the slab connections. These will accommodate any differential settlement between the existing park and extension, relieve stresses and reduce the risks of cracks occurring. Articulation joints will reduce overall skate park area and would not be suitable for skating / skateboarding. This option is a lesser cost, however increased maintenance will be required of the articulation joints including additional monitoring and liability to Council.

Council staff recently met with community representatives in November to discuss the above options, it was resolved that further investigation will take place prior to making any determination on the above options. Further investigations will consider whether there were any previous sedimentation basins within proximity to the site, as constructed by RMS during the construction of the Berry Bypass. It is recommended that Council receive a further report in respect to the skate park on the findings of the investigation and seeking endorsement on how to proceed forward.

Community Engagement

The project has involved extensive community engagement since its inception in 2014 as part of the development of a masterplan for the then Berry District Park. The overarching community engagement process included a Working Group, stakeholder workshops, presentations to Berry Forum meetings, on site meetings, Get Involved page updates and written correspondence.

The Working Group provided advice to Council staff on the broader community engagement process.

Stakeholder Options Workshop was held on 4 April 2017 which saw engagement of over 28 community members from a range of interested groups. The work and facilitated a process for review and design of a new master plan.

Subsequent consultations and workshops included Children’s Consultation, a Naming Consultation for the park, multiple Forum presentation and meetings with Berry Rotary, the Berry Chamber of Commerce, North Street residents and information through the Get Involved Page.

Council staff presented regularly to the Berry Forum monthly meetings, with the most recent presentation undertaken at their AGM Meeting on 11 October 2018 where the revised masterplan was presented along with the detail design developed for the learn to ride facility and options for equipment within the park. The presentation was well received, and the members present highlighted their eagerness to see the plan be put into action.

On 28 November 2018, Council staff met with members of community (Berry Forum, Berry Rotary and Berry Chamber of Commerce) in relation to the outcomes of detail design, initial cost estimates and the next steps.

Financial Implications

Construction / Delivery Cost Estimates

Estimates of probable construction / delivery costs have been prepared by Council’s City Design and Services Unit and Works and Services Unit and are demonstrated in Table 1 below.

The construction / delivery cost estimates have not been prepared by a Quantity Surveyor nor have they been market tested. Therefore, the estimates have large contingencies of up to 20% inclusive within the estimates cost.

In addition, the construction / delivery cost estimates do not include the estimated cost of amenities. As stated above the geotechnical findings have resulted in additional works not initially considered as part of the design process for the skate park. The estimated construction/delivery cost provided below for the skate park extension may increase once further investigation has been completed and the most efficient and effective option has been ascertained. Within the estimated construction / delivery costs, there is potential for additional savings.

Component	Estimated Construction / Delivery Cost
Learn to Ride facility	$249,340
Childhood Adventure Zone	$1,911,909
Amphitheatre	$830,235
Youth Zone and Skate Park Extension	$3,941,717
Pump track	$26,670
Exercise Zone	$535,845
Netball Courts and Practice Cricket Pitches	$635,000
Overall Concrete Paths	$546,806
Tree Costings	$142,640
Fields, Footpaths and Parking	$3,614,675
Electrical (Both Solar and Conduit)	$2,397,600
	*$14,832,437*

Table 1 – Estimates of Probable Construction / Delivery Costs

Indicative Staging Plan

To address the significant cost of the delivery of the project, staged delivery / construction is needed. Initial staging plans have been investigated and the following has been identified based on need, provision of services, cost and access but will require further stakeholder consultation to manage community expectations. The following indicative staging plan is suggested:

- Stage: Car parking area (on and off-street, bus/coach parking area) and swale drains.

- Stage: Pump Track Zone (this will be facilitated by the community group).

- Stage: Senior Sport Fields Zone and surrounding electrical, plumbing and drainage.

- Stage: Childhood Adventure Zone, Learn to Ride Facility, amenities, entry pathway, landscaping and drainage.

- Stage: Junior Sport Fields Zone, amenities / BBQ, adjoining pathways, power, irrigation and drainage.

- Stage: Youth zone, skate park extension, amenities, pathways, power, landscaping and drainage.

- Stage: Netball courts, cricket nets and drainage.

- Stage: Amphitheatre, exercise zone, pathways, landscaping and drainage.

- Stage: Native flora area, Kids Play zone.

- Stage: Parking area (long vehicle parking), remaining pathways, lighting and tree planting.

- Stage: Dog Agility zone and fencing.

The staging plan can be interchangeable and subject to funding availability, stages could potentially progress simultaneously. Council staff will consult with the working group to determine an appropriate staging plan for the delivery of the Boongaree Masterplan over time.

The development of a Business Case and Funding Plan will enable Council to identify funding sources for the park over numerous financial years, commencing in 2018/19, within Council’s long term financial plan. It is proposed to develop and business Case and Funding Plan subject to the adoption of the revised Master Plan and detailed design.

In addition, Council and community members have received indications from Members of Parliament about potential funding sources which may be able to be utilised to commence the construction / delivery of the longer-term masterplan.

Development priority entails the delivery of services, parking, the Childhood Adventure Zone and the Youth Zone. This priority of staging is due to the necessity of services, footpaths, drainage and parking as well as a commitment to community through previous monies raised and community support.

Ultimately, the staging plan needs to be finalised according to priority of needs and in conjunction with the community members.

Figure 3 – Indicative Staging Plan

Grant Initiatives

Council have recently submitted a grant application to the Commonwealth Government under the Building Better Regions Round 3. The application is seeking dollar for dollar funding to match $500,000 from Council and Rotary Club of Berry for the provision of Boongaree Nature Play area. Given the costs associated with the project, the grant application seeks to fund works up to the value of $1,000,000.

The NSW Government’s Department of Planning and Environment has released the Everyone Can Play grant for new and upgraded inclusive play spaces. New play spaces are eligible for funding of up to $200,000 with dollar to dollar matching from councils. At present no matching funds are available for this or other future grants, however an application is being prepared for Boongaree under this grant initiative. Therefore, it will be recommended that Council identify at a future quarterly budget review an initial budget allocation of $200,000 to be utilised for ‘matching funding’.

The ability to commit matching funding in most circumstances for grant initiatives is a requirement of eligibility. However, where it is not, grant guidelines often suggest that projects with funding commitments will be considered favourably. Should Council not be successful in the grant application, the funding committed could be utilised for other grant applications as matching funding, or for construction / delivery of components of initial stages of Boongaree.

Council staff will continue to monitor for upcoming grant initiatives which the project may be eligible for in order to reduce total long-term cost to Council for the construction and delivery of Boongaree.

Risk Implications

Community perception

Due to the significant cost of the construction and delivery of the project, concerns have been raised by the community representatives in relation to community perception. Specifically, it was suggested that the community may perceive the delivery of Boongaree would be to the detriment of any other infrastructure being delivered or upgraded in Berry. Council and the Berry Forum will work together to communicate the process, expenditures, budgets and grant funding opportunities to the broader community to ensure this community perception is appropriately managed.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 18 December 2018

Page 0

CL18.366 Intersection of Jervis Bay Road & Princes Highway - Falls Creek - Update

HPERM Ref: D18/407960

Group: Assets & Works Group

Section: Asset Management

Attachments: 1. Intersection Options - Jervis Bay Rd / Princes Hwy Falls Creek ⇩

2. Final Report - Public Meeting - Jervis Bay Road & Princes Highway Intersection Falls Creek - Vincentia Matters (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Road Safety/ Intersection Improvements Jervis Bay Road & Princes Highway Falls Creek ⇩

4. Hon Melinda Pavey MP Road Safety Intersection Improvements Jervis Bay Road & Princes Highway Falls Creek ⇩

5. RMS & Shoalhaven Council - 30 May meeting regarding Jervis Bay Road and Princes Highway intersection at Falls Creek ⇩

6. Report on the Public meeting to discuss the Jervis Bay Road and Princes Highway intersection to Hon Shelley Hancock and Hon Gareth Ward ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To update Council representations in relation to the upgrade of the intersection of Jervis Bay Road and Princes Highway Falls Creek.

Recommendation

That Council notes the representations that have been made in relation to the upgrade of the intersection of Jervis Bay Road and Princes Highway Falls Creek and that the RMS has

a. allocated funding and commenced the detailed investigation phase, and

b. are developing short term measures to assist in alleviating congestion in the coming summer holiday period.

Options

1. Nil

Background

At Council’s Ordinary meeting on 27 February 2018, Council resolved (MIN18.124) that

Council make vigorous representations to the Minister for Roads and Maritime and Freight The Hon Melinda Pavey, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Illawarra and South Coast Gareth Ward and the Member for South Coast the Hon Shelley Hancock to give high priority to a safer intersection at Jervis Bay Road and the Princes Highway, with a long term view to construct grade separation.

Following this resolution, letters were sent to the State members on 22 March 2018. Council’s engineers offered to meet with the RMS engineers to discuss options (see Attachment 3 & 4)

On 16 May 2018 the Director of Asset & Works wrote directly to the RMS following up on Council letter to the minister and seeking a meeting with the Acting Southern Regional Director Mitchell Judd.

On 30 May 2018 the Director of Asset & Works Paul Keech, Section Manager Asset Tom Dimec and Economic Develop Manager Greg Pullen met with the Acting Southern Regional Director, Mitchell Judd at the RMS where three concepts were discussed (Attachment 5).

Concept 1 (Long Term): shows a separated interchange over Princes Highway with on / off ramps to access the highway from Jervis Bay Road. Separate exit lane from Highway onto Jervis Bay Road from the north and exit lane from Jervis Bay Road onto Highway heading south.

Concept 2 (Preferred as soon as possible): shows a separated interchange to exit Jervis Bay Road onto the Highway heading north. No change to the exit lane from Highway into Jervis Bay Road from the north or left hand turn from Jervis Bay Road heading south.

Concept 3 (Possible Short-Term Measure): shows a No Right Turn from Highway into Jervis Bay Road from the south with the construction of a turnaround facility at Falls Road approximately 1.5 km north of the intersection, for vehicles that wish to access Jervis Bay Road. No other changes to access and exit for Jervis Bay Road.

At the meeting, RMS advised that the section of the Princes Highway between Jervis Bay Road and Milton is a high priority for Roads and Maritime as outlined in the Princes Highway Corridor Strategy.

RMS followed up the meeting with an email dated 14 June 2018, see Attachment 4. the main thrust of the email was to advise that

“…. the State Government has invested (17/18) in the development of a Strategic Business Case that details a number of strategic options to respond to the needs of the Highway. Preliminary investigations have identified a range of projects that include intersection improvements, the straightening of curves, safety barrier installation, overtaking lanes and road shoulder widening. This includes some investigations at the Jervis Bay Road intersection.”

RMS also advised a follow up meeting would be held with the Director Assets and Works in July 2018, however due to the length of time involved in recruitment of a new Regional Director, the meeting did not occur. Tom Dimec contacted RMS again on 3 October 2018 and was informed that a new Southern Regional Director, Sam Knight was able to meet with Council’s engineers. A meeting date was set for 5 December 2018.

On 6 November 2018 Paul Keech and Tom Dimec met with the Vincentia Matters Group and explained the representations that Council staff had made to the RMS to date, i.e. concepts 1, 2 and 3.

The Vincentia Matters Group held a public meeting on 7 November 2018, to harness public support to push for a permanent solution to be fast-tracked and lobby Federal and State Governments to take action as a matter of urgency to improve this intersection. The Honourable Shelley Hancock and Gareth Ward attended this meeting. A summary of the meeting was distributed see Attachment 1.

Follow up letters were sent to both The Honourable Shelley Hancock MP and Gareth Ward MP reinforcing the concerns for the coming Christmas / New Year period (see Attachment 6).

On 4 October 2018 Councillors were provided 5-year crash data for the Princes Highway, (Transport for NSW website, Centre for Road Safety) and advised that the RMS had a permanent counter on Jervis Bay Road.

On the 19 November 2018 the RMS website contained the following media realise;

Changed traffic conditions and investigations on Princes Highway at Falls Creek

19 November 2018

Member for South Coast Shelley Hancock advised motorists and pedestrians Roads and Maritime Services will be assessing traffic volumes and queue lengths at the intersection of Jervis Bay Road and the Princes Highway at Falls Creek.

Mrs Hancock said the investigation works at the intersection were a continuation of preliminary planning undertaken this year thanks to $60,000 in NSW Government funding.

“Traffic counters and cameras will be installed from tomorrow, Tuesday 20 November, to collect traffic data at the intersection as well as approximately 3km north and 1km east of the intersection,” Mrs Hancock said.

“The cameras are expected to remain in place for several days while the other counters will be in place for approximately two weeks.

“We said we would put this intersection under the microscope and we are doing just that!

“The NSW Government has provided the necessary funding and in only two weeks since the public meeting with residents further planning works are already underway.

“Feedback from that meeting was clear, it is essential improvements are made to the notorious intersection and it’s something we need to get right.

“The investigations will inform planning for future improvements at this location.

“Improving the Jervis Bay Road intersection remains a top priority and I have asked that RMS keep the community informed about any proposed improvements,” Mrs Hancock said.

More than $4.5 million of safety improvements have been carried out on the Princes Highway between Jervis Bay Road and Milton during 2016 and 2017. A further $1.5 million in improvements are planned and anticipated to be complete by June 2019.

On the 5 December 2018 the Director of Asset & Works, Asset Manager and Senior staff met with the Director, Southern Region, Ms Sam Knight in Wollongong and the RMS advised the following;

· $60,000 of funding has recently been secured to continue analysis at the intersection of Jervis Bay Road and the Princes Highway.

· Roads and Maritime will utilise the identified $60,000 in 2018/19 to collect data and commence early development. This work will include:

· Reviewing historical traffic data

· Collection of new traffic data, including traffic volumes, turning movements and queue lengths (during November and the Dec/Jan Holiday period)

· The traffic data will be used to develop and refine a traffic model of the intersection

· The model will be used to test various upgrade options to determine how best to manage traffic flows and improve safety at the intersection.

· The model and options will allow RMS to then investigate a range of factors including but not limited to future demand, property and environmental impacts as well as the cost and benefits associated with each option.

· Future funding will be required to progress the development of this intersection beyond the strategic development describe above.

· Further details of traffic conditions and investigations on the Princes Highway at Falls Creek can be seen on the RMS web page at the following link website

At the time of preparing this report the minor safety works at the junction of Princes Highway and Jervis Bay Road were recently completed, however the strategic business case for the Jervis Bay Road to Milton project has yet to be completed.

Council was further advised on 13^th December 2018:

Community Engagement

Council is actively engaging with Liz Tooley from Vincentia Matters. There have been various articles in the South Coast Register.

Financial Implications

All funding and costs associated with an upgrade come under the responsibility of Roads and Maritime Services.

Risk Implications

The risk to driver safety with increased tourists visiting Jervis Bay is a major concern to the community. With queues on Jervis Bay Road stretching more than two kilometres at peak times during holiday periods the risk of accidents increases exponentially with frustrated and impatient motorists trying to turn right onto the highway.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 18 December 2018

Page 0

CL18.367 Traffic Calming - River Road, Shoalhaven Heads

HPERM Ref: D18/332921

Group: Assets & Works Group

Section: Asset Management

Attachments: 1. Concept Plan of rubber speed humps - River Rd, Shoalhaven Heads ⇩

2. Report Attachment - Email - Speed & Crossing Treatments - River Rd Shoalhaven Heads ⇩

3. Landscape Masterplan - Shoalhaven Heads (under separate cover) ⇨

4. Streetscape & Foreshore Concept Plan - River Rd Shoalhaven Heads ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To allow the Council to consider the possible installation of traffic calming measures in River Road (between Mathews Street and Renown Avenue), Shoalhaven Heads (vicinity of Shoalhaven Heads Hotel) following ongoing community representations.

Recommendation

That

1. Council receives the report on the possible installation of traffic calming measures in River Road (between Mathews Street and Renown Avenue), Shoalhaven Heads (vicinity of Shoalhaven Heads Hotel), for information; and

2. The General Manager (Director Assets & Works) continues to monitor traffic and pedestrian movement along River Road (between Mathews Street and Renown Avenue), Shoalhaven Heads on an annual basis to ensure that the area is managed effectively with respect to traffic and pedestrian facilities.

Options

1. As Recommended

Implications: No action will be undertaken in the short term to provide traffic calming devices. Recorded traffic, speed, and pedestrian data currently do not support the need for intervention.

2. Council consults with the local residents in regard to the possibility of constructing a ‘low cost’ rubber speed hump in River Road (between Mathews St and Renown Ave adjacent to the Heads Hotel), Shoalhaven Heads, in response to the request from the Shoalhaven Heads Community Consultative Body.

Implications: A preliminary estimate, suggests $5,000 is likely to be required for the supply and installation of a rubber speed hump alone (for an arrangement as per attachment 1), however installation of these devices normally accelerates pavement wear/tear and accordingly pavement works may be required to be undertaken as part of the installation of any device, adding a further $15,000 to the cost ($20,000 in total). There are currently no funds budgeted, and this approach will also not address the pedestrian safety concern. If Council resolves to proceed with a short-term solution, a community consultation process and pavement analysis will be required, and the matter would need to be reported back to Council after referral through the Shoalhaven Traffic Committee process.

Background

River Road, Shoalhaven Heads is a local road within Shoalhaven Heads with residential properties and the Heads Hotel on the northern side, and the Shoalhaven River on the southern side.

The area in question is adjacent to the Heads Hotel located between Mathew Street and Renown Avenue.

Council has received ongoing community requests from the Heads Hotel for pedestrian and traffic calming facilities, and more recently the Shoalhaven Heads Community Forum (CCB) is now also requesting urgent consideration of traffic calming facilities in River Road, adjacent to the Heads Hotel.

The CCB has advised that the section of River Road adjacent to the Hotel is an area where people congregate and walk across the road to view the River. The CCB has also advised that there is a high volume of traffic which tends to slow to view the closed entrance, which causes conflict with other road users. They have advised that traffic calming is needed and that the speed limit in this area should be slowed to lower than 40kph.

The traffic calming and pedestrian safety measures requested now by the community for River Road are not included in Shoalhaven Heads Landscape Master Plan (Attachment 3).

Traffic tube counters were installed in River Road, 50m west of Renown Avenue (in the vicinity of the areas of concern to the community) in 2011 and 2017. The results of the tube counts are:

2 December 2011 – 8 December 2011

Average Daily Traffic 576 vehicles/day

Busiest Day 820 vehicles/day (Sat 3/12)

V85th speed 47.9 km/h

8 May 2017 – 15 May 2017

Average Daily Traffic 511 vehicles/day

Busiest Day 621 vehicles/day (Sat 15/5)

V85th speed 50.8 km/h

The above tube count results are typical for local 50kph roads, and the results alone do not suggest a traffic or speeding problem in River Road that needs to be addressed with engineering measures at this point in time.

In addition to the traffic and speed data collected in River Road, Council had also arranged a pedestrian and traffic count along River Road from Mathews Street to Renown Avenue on Sunday 18 December 2016 (the day and time was suggested by the Heads Hotel to capture a typical busy period) to gauge the current traffic and pedestrian crossing demand in the location.

VEHICLES
	E/T			W/T
*TIME*	L	H	B	L	H	B	*TOTAL*
1030 - 1045	16	0	0	9	0	0	25
1045 - 1100	8	0	0	8	0	0	16
1100 - 1115	15	0	0	11	0	0	26
1115 - 1130	8	1	0	8	0	0	17
1130 - 1145	6	0	0	3	0	0	9
1145 - 1200	10	0	0	11	0	0	21
1200 - 1215	16	0	0	8	0	0	24
1215 - 1230	12	0	0	11	0	0	23
1230 - 1245	13	1	0	11	0	0	25
1245 - 1300	9	2	0	11	0	0	22
1300 - 1315	14	0	0	11	0	0	25
1315 - 1330	7	0	0	7	0	0	14
1330 - 1345	5	0	0	12	1	0	18
1345 - 1400	7	0	0	4	0	0	11
1400 - 1415	12	0	0	9	0	0	21
1415 - 1430	7	0	0	9	0	0	16
1430 - 1445	6	0	0	7	0	0	13
1445 - 1500	13	0	0	11	0	0	24
1500 - 1515	5	0	0	7	0	0	12
1515 - 1530	6	0	0	7	0	0	13
TOTAL	195	4	0	175	1	0	375

PEDESTRIANS
	ZONE 1 (east)					ZONE 2 (hotel)			ZONE 3 (west)
*TIME*	A	C	E	*TOTAL*	A	C	E	*TOTAL*	A	C	E	*TOTAL*
1030 - 1045	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	0
1045 - 1100	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	1
1100 - 1115	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	1
1115 - 1130	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
1130 - 1145	0	0	0	0	3	0	0	3	1	0	0	1
1145 - 1200	1	0	0	1	5	6	0	11	1	0	0	1
1200 - 1215	2	1	0	3	9	0	0	9	0	0	0	0
1215 - 1230	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
1230 - 1245	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
1245 - 1300	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	0
1300 - 1315	0	0	0	0	7	2	0	9	0	0	0	0
1315 - 1330	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	0
1330 - 1345	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	3	0	0	3
1345 - 1400	6	0	0	6	0	0	0	0	6	0	0	6
1400 - 1415	0	0	0	0	6	2	0	8	0	0	0	0
1415 - 1430	0	0	0	0	3	0	0	3	0	0	0	0
1430 - 1445	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
1445 - 1500	1	0	0	1	4	0	0	4	0	0	0	0
1500 - 1515	2	2	0	4	4	0	0	4	0	0	0	0
1515 - 1530	0	0	0	0	4	0	0	4	0	0	0	0
TOTAL	13	3	0	16	54	10	0	64	14	0	0	14

Legend:

L = Light Vehicles

H = Heavy Vehicles

B = Buses

A = Adult Pedestrians

C = Children Pedestrians

E = Elderly & Mobility Impaired Pedestrians

Warrants for pedestrian facilities (i.e. pedestrian crossing or pedestrian threshold) are included within the AUSTROADS guidelines, specifically:

· Traffic volumes (V) need to be greater than 500 vehicles per hour

· Pedestrian volumes (P) need to be greater than 30 per hour

· The “Normal warrant” (P x V) needs to be greater than 60,000

· The “Special warrant” (a lower warrant for consideration of vulnerable users) P x V needs to be greater than 45,000

· These conditions need to be prevalent for 4 separate hours of any one day

From the recorded data on River Road Shoalhaven Heads, and taken from the busiest pedestrian location (outside the Heads Hotel), the following can be summarised:

· The busiest pedestrian hour was 23 (76% of the required warrant) but other hours were much less

· The corresponding traffic hour was 71 vehicles (only 14% of the required warrant)

· The value of PV is 1633 (only 2.7% of the normal warrant, or only 3.6% of the special warrant) i.e. significantly lower than the recommended warrant.

These calculations indicate the low priority of the location, and it is noted that there are numerous other locations city wide that have much greater values of PV, including around town centres, schools, and retirement/aged care facilities.

The Shoalhaven Heads Landscape Master Plan facilitated by Council identifies pedestrian movements and includes pathways, tree planting, kerb blisters and access mobility areas as per Plan No 5267. The pathways are identified in Councils PAMP (Pedestrian and Mobility Plan) and will eventually assist in connecting the foreshore areas together.

The Shoalhaven Heads CCB had previously prepared its own masterplan, with assistance from Council entitled “Shoalhaven Heads Community Strategic Plan”, and Council subsequently resolved at its Ordinary meeting held on Tuesday 23 April 2013 (MIN13.347);

That:

a) Council endorse Shoalhaven Heads - Our Future - A Strategy as a guidance document for Council to pursue projects in Shoalhaven Heads and surrounds;

b) The General Manager nominate Council contacts for each of the seven “Strategy” areas to enable an ongoing constructive dialogue between Council and the Shoalhaven Heads CCB;

c) Council consider funding of “Immediate Priority Projects” identified in the document within the 2013/2014 budget;

d) Staff report back at the conclusion of the budget public exhibition period with cost estimates of the “Immediate Priority Projects” to be considered; and

e) Council explore opportunities for ongoing funding to be designated to Shoalhaven Heads for implementation of projects from the document.

The following table is a list of priority footpath and shared path projects submitted as part of the masterplan and the current status of these projects.

Priority Rating	Location	From	To	Length (m)	Status
1	River Reserve	River Road	McIntosh St	95	Complete
2	Mathews St	Shoalhaven Heads Rd	Ravenscliffe Rd	509	Complete
3	McIntosh St	River Reserve	Shoalhaven Heads Rd	215	Complete
4	Explorer Blvd.	Scott St	Shoalhaven Heads Rd	260	Complete
5	McIntosh St	Shoalhaven Heads Rd	Beach Access Road	195	Unallocated - proposed in accordance with Master Plan
6	River Road	Mathews St	Jerry Bailey Road	576	Unallocated - proposed in accordance with Master Plan
7	River Road	Mathews St	Near Lloyd St	235	Complete
8	Golden Hill Ave	Davenport St	Renown Ave	294	Unallocated - proposed in accordance with Master Plan
9	Staples St	Beach Access Road	Wagin St	148	Part complete
10	Staples St	Wagin St	Scott St	227	Unallocated - proposed in accordance with Master Plan
11	Jerry Bailey Road	River Road	Shoalhaven Heads Rd	1076	Unallocated - proposed in accordance with Master Plan
12	Scott St	Staples Road	Ablett Ct	918	Unallocated - proposed in accordance with Master Plan
12	Scott St	Ablett Ct	Towers Rd	372	Unallocated - proposed in accordance with Master Plan
13	Wagin St	Staples Road	Woolstencraft St	196	Unallocated - proposed in accordance with Master Plan
14	Bolong Road	Alexander Berry Dr	Shoalhaven Heads Rd	1248	Unallocated - proposed in accordance with Master Plan

In addition to the path priorities, Council has also constructed the following pedestrian facilities in the last 5 years:

· Pedestrian refuge – Shoalhaven Heads Rd west of Explorer Blvd

· Pedestrian refuge – Shoalhaven Heads Rd east of Golden Hill Ave

· Pedestrian refuge – McIntosh St at the intersection of Mathews St

· Children’s Crossing – Mathews St south of McIntosh St

In September 2017 this matter was discussed in an email from the Assets and Works Director (attachment 2). Permanent and temporary options were conceptualised. Given the analysis above permanent options are not being pursued at this time and no substantial design work has been undertaken.

Community Engagement

Council staff have not consulted with adjacent property owners and residents. If Council was to pursue the installation of any traffic calming facility a consultation process would be conducted before any work actually commenced.

Financial Implications

There is currently no annual budget identified for the installation of LATM at this location or across the city. Council typically seeks available grant funding for any proposed installation for this type of infrastructure/facility, however criteria would need to be met (not currently met for the subject location), and there are numerous other locations citywide that experience greater traffic and pedestrian volumes.

Policy Implications

Council has an adopted asset management plan for Traffic Facilities (POL08/431). The plan identifies that there are ongoing resident requests to provide traffic calming across the network. The strategy includes an adopted ranking method to determine whether to include a Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) request within the strategy. The ranking method includes assessment of: traffic speed (V85th), portion of non-local traffic, traffic volume, heavy vehicles, crash data, topographic factors, and activity generators.

Based on the ranking method, a speed hump in River Road is considered a low priority.

There is a long list of LATM locations that were originally identified and included in the adopted asset management plan, however Council has not funded all of those locations, and has generally waited until grant funding has been available for those locations.

Grant funding is only available for speed control facilities when pedestrian treatments are also incorporated, however criteria needs to be met, and the recorded data outside the Hotel at Shoalhaven Heads returned very low readings (even on the day in December when Heads Hotel representatives suggested was a typical busy day).

Outside of the adopted asset management plan, Council has infrequently installed other LATM devices or schemes using its own funds, in response to community requests. If supported by Council, River Road would be in that category.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 18 December 2018

Page 0

CL18.371 Solar Garden - Final Report

HPERM Ref: D18/418845

Group: Assets & Works Group

Attachments: 1. Shoalhaven Solar Farm - Preliminary Business Plan (under separate cover) ⇨

Purpose / Summary

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the progress of the Social Access Solar Garden Project, at this stage proposed for the Old North Nowra Tip Site.

Recommendation

That with respect to the proposed Solar Garden Project Council continue to:

1. Take the lead in resolving land issues relating to the Old North Nowra Tip site; and

2. Work with Repower Shoalhaven in an in-kind capacity to get this project to a “shovel Ready” status.

Options

1. As recommended.

2. Council advise Repower Shoalhaven that it no longer wishes to support the Solar Garden Project.

Implications: If Council remove support from this project it will place the Social Access Solar Garden project in jeopardy.

Background

A Community Solar Garden works by installing a central solar array, generally near a populated centre. Energy customers can purchase or lease panels in the solar array. The electricity generated is then credited on the customers electricity bill. The solar garden allows any customer to participate in the benefit of solar with similar outcomes to having solar installed on their own roof.

Council was made aware of the Community Solar Garden at the Community Energy Conference held in Melbourne in late 2017 which has resulted in ARENA and the Community Power Agency extending an invitation to the Council to be involved in a feasibility study for a “Social Access Solar Garden”. The feasibility study is jointly funded by ARENA and the NSW Government as well as a number of project partner organisations. A team has been formed to support four main prototype teams in five separate locations (Swan Hill Victoria, Blacktown, Shoalhaven and Byron Councils). Repower Shoalhaven has accepted an invitation to fill the role of technical expert for Shoalhaven Solar garden prototype for the feasibility study.

The two main objectives of the feasibility team are research and to develop prototypes for solar gardens business models.

In December 2017 Council was approached (independent of ARENA) by a consortium of local experts from Repower Shoalhaven, to discuss whether Council had a suitable site for the establishment of a Community Solar Garden Scheme. Interest centred around the old North Nowra Tip Site.

Other sites that may suit the needs of Repower Shoalhaven were discussed and include:

· The West Nowra waste facility

· Various Shoal Water sites

· The new Animal Shelter Facility (Shoalwater Depot) at South Nowra

On 21 February 2018 Council wrote to the Repower Shoalhaven consortium to informed them that other Shoalhaven clubs had previously shown interest in the North Nowra site and advised them to send an official letter of request to Council (refer to attachment 2) for use of the land.

“Council’s preliminary enquiries ascertain that the use of the land in question for a solar farm is potentially feasible…”

The following is a summary of Council’s findings in relation to the North Nowra Site:

The former North Nowra landfill site is located at Lot 7313 DP1153421 North Nowra with a Permissive Occupancy (PO) through the Crown ref #9626 1966/24.

The PO for the site was granted for the specific purpose as a “garbage depot” or waste landfill, and utilised between 1963 and 1982, when it was closed. It was capped and used to stockpile road building materials while maintaining the leachate management system, with 2 dams, until 2012. Final capping was applied in 2012 and the leachate management system dismantled in accordance with the Environmental Protection Licence (refer to attachment 3). It has undergone ongoing and regular maintenance to stabilise the surface and encourage the growth of grasses.

The EPA licence was active to ensure that long term potential pollution problems did not manifest. The EPA is now satisfied that ground and surface water contamination is minimised, but issued an additional requirement for monitoring for landfill gas, which has been continuing for about 4 years. In 2017 a gas vent was installed on the South East corner of the site, with the vent construction and monitoring results submitted to EPA in November 2017 for final release of any further requirements at the former site. No response has been received from EPA.

The land is zoned RE1 – Public Recreation. State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 in 34(7) provides that “Except as provided by subclause 8, development for the purpose of a solar energy system may be carried out by any person with consent on any land.” This means that a solar farm can be developed on the land with consent. Subclause 8 relates to limiting electricity generating capacity in a residential zone to less than 100 kW.

On 20 March 2018 the Council’s Strategy and Assets Committee Meeting resolved as follows (vide minute no MIN18.190C);

“Council accepts the invitation from UTS- ISF to join their Commonwealth and state funded research project, and will provide in-kind assistance”.

On 1 May 2018 the Repower Shoalhaven consortium formalised their request for Council to provide exclusive use of the old North Nowra tip site for the Solar Garden (D18/000146719):

“To provide more confidence that the site can be the basis for our concept scheme we are seeking to formalise an arrangement with Council for exclusivity on the site for a period of 5 years and, should the scheme proceed to implementation, establish the primary terms which would apply for a long-term lease – 25 to 30 years.

On 17 May, ARENA provided a media release for the Solar Garden facility study where the Shoalhaven Council is noted as one of the project partners;

On 24 July, the Strategy and Assets Committee Meeting resolved as follows (vide minute no MIN18.529):

“Council advise Repower Shoalhaven (as a fellow partner of the Social Access Solar Garden Scheme) that Council supports the location of a Solar Access Farm on the Old Tip Site at North Nowra (Crown Land) and will work with Repower Shoalhaven to gain necessary approvals to use the site for this purpose as the preferred use for this site.”

On 1 August Council initiated discussions with Crown Lands seeking “support in Principal” for the Social Access Solar Garden to located on the Old North Nowra Tip site. Council requested advice on the most streamlined approach to navigate the following items:

· Council requires Ministers Consent for the Reserve to be classified as Operational.

· Council requires consent for the Reserve Purpose to be amended.

· Council to be appointed as Crown Land Manager

The following is also required to be addressed by Council:

· Council submitted final documents to EPA on 1 December 2017 seeking a clearance certificate however no further correspondence has been forthcoming.

· Council will liaise with NSWALC and the Local ALC regarding claims over the land.

· Land to be rezoned.

On 5 August Council issued survey plans of the North Nowra Tip to Repower Shoalhaven indicating the existing capping depth, enabling the consortium to commence conceptual layouts for the site.

On 16 October Shoalhaven City Council hosted the final Social Access Solar Garden Workshop at the Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre. The workshop was chaired by UTS and Community Power Agency where Repower Shoalhaven, Byron Bay Prototype teams met to discuss the viability of their pilot studies. Final reporting requirements and a statement of intent which outlined the future intentions of each pilot program were reviewed.

On 23 October the Aboriginal Land Claims Investigation Unit (department of Crown Lands) advised that the NSWALC had removed land claim on the site (D18/370218):

· “Aboriginal Land Claims 42454 and 42497 to the extent that the Lot 7313 DP 153421 has been excised from the claims. The balance of the claims are to remain ‘on foot’.”

This information was forwarded to the Aboriginal Land Claims Manager for “…review and appropriate action”.

On 9 November a final wrap up meeting was held for ARENA at the UTS in Sydney with all pilot prototype teams presenting their knowledge, learnings and statement of intent for their respective prototypes. A final report is now being prepared by the UTS for ARENA.

On 19 November the Repower Shoalhaven consortium formalised their intention to proceed with the project and wrote a letter to council (D18/404045), informing Council that their prototype solar access garden has the potential to be financially viable. Repower are;

· “…pursuing avenues for funding the initial stage of the project which can be progress pending the resolution of the land access arrangements”

“These avenues include:

· Direct approaches to Endeavour Energy to reassess the fees required to consider the connection.

· On 12 December we will hold a briefing session for the RePower community and seek pledges of funding for when we are able to proceed. Using social media this fund-raising initiative will run through to the end of January at the earliest.

· Resulting from the Wrap-up session for the Social Access Study at UTS we will be approaching the product development arm of ARENA as a potential funding source.

· We will be submitting a grant application to the NSW Government’s $30million Community Clean Energy fund. Currently we understand that applications will open in January 2019.

· We have initiated discussions with a potential funder for the entire project. These discussions are preliminary.

· Lobbying of State and Federal politicians of all colours in the context of the upcoming elections.

Consideration of each of these avenues brings us back to the need for certainty of the site access before any financial commitments can be finalised. Hence our appreciation of Council’s focus on this critical task. “

The Shoalhaven City Council Property Department continue to seek clarity on the Native Land Title existence from the DPI- Crown Lands.

Repower- Preliminary Business Plan (D18/421292) - Dot point Summary

· “Repower seek to establish a community funded entity planning to build a 4 Megawatts (MW, DC) solar farm to supply electricity to the Shoalhaven community on a not for profit basis.”

· “A 3MW (AC) solar farm could supply energy to some 2,060 households and businesses depending on the amount of energy purchased by each customer up to the estimated maximum of 5,468 MW hrs per annum.”

· “At this point Repower are presuming that they can match the aggregate generated to the total energy demand of the participants. The benefits accruing are largely by way of offsets to the participants’ energy bills. The bill offsetting will be realised through the arrangement with the retailer.”

· “The intended customer base includes a range of ‘locked out’ groups such as households unable to install solar power on their properties, those interested in investing directly in the project, lower income households, small businesses, and a larger scale local energy user.”

· Prospective Customer Base-

o Lower income households- “Some 500 lower income customers could reasonably be expected depending on the final retail price on offer. A leasing fee of $213 per annum for 2Kw is envisaged with annual savings of $108 per household. At this stage, the intention is to provide targeted assistance to socially disadvantaged households once the level of debt is sufficiently reduced to enable a social assistance program to be rolled out in partnership with local social housing organisations and governments.”

o Other locked out households- “Shaded dwellings and small users- The orientation and design of dwellings can also be a difficulty for rooftop solar. Dwellings with poorly oriented roofs or particularly restricted designs can make rooftop solar difficult or expensive to install. Therefore seeking to achieve up to 1,250 customers investing $3,000 each for 2 Kw in this category could be a reasonable assumption given that this investment would equate roughly with the current cost of an equivalent rooftop solar installation. Household savings would be of the order of $321 per annum.”

o Single person households- “A further consideration is the number of single person households in the Shoalhaven. Including an additional 300 small users investing $1,850 for 1 Kw may also be worth considering with household savings estimated at $163 per annum.”

o Local Businesses- “There is a considerable scope for a low cost renewable energy producer in the Shoalhaven with some 200 small business. For the purposes of our estimates, this is assumed to include 10 larger sites investing at $44,000/Kw (DC) each with annual savings estimated at $4,079. In addition, a further 190 smaller sites investing at $3,000 each for 2 kw (DC) would achieve annual savings of $321.”

o Other prospectus Customers- “Other opportunities include community organisations and government bodies and facilities.”

· Business Model- “A Co-operative structure has been chosen to provide the greatest possible opportunity for households of the Shoalhaven to participate through subscription in the ownership and direction of the project. The Co-operative will be the sole shareholder in an SPV as the owner of the Solar Garden. All contractual relationships will be through the SPV to the limit liability and risk exposure of the Co-operative. The SPV will be registered as a private company and will comply with ASIC’s reporting obligations.”

· Electricity Retailer- “With a chosen Electricity Retailer agreements will be required for the long term offtake of the power generated by the Solar Garden and a power purchase agreement specifying the price to be paid to the SPV. Critically the Electricity Retailer will need to amenable to providing rebates to the low income and community customers who are participants and investors in the project. It is anticipated up to 1.5 MW of power may be available to the Retailer to supply through a Power Purchase Agreement to single large customer – government, local government or private sector if achievable.”

· Finance- “Additional financing required over and above Co-operative membership subscriptions will be through a direct loan agreement. The capital borrowed together with interest payments will be retired over the life of the project.”

· Site Lease- “It is envisaged the project will have a 25 year life and the key agreements will be a long term lease agreement with Shoalhaven City Council and/or Crown Lands for exclusive use of the North Nowra site. It is expected the lease agreement will be on the basis of a ‘peppercorn’ rental.”

· Financial Viability- “The prospective financial viability of the project is positive largely because of low construction costs that take advantage of new technology coming in at around $1.20 per watt. There may be further opportunities to reduce these costs to improve the overall financial viability of the project.”

Community Engagement

Nil to date.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil. $20,000 in kind contribution has been funded from existing allocations. This was originally estimated at $10,000

Risk Implications

· The site Native Title cannot be settled (extinguished) or compensation is required to settle is too large.

· The Land Zoning prohibits the site to be used as a solar garden.

· EPA requirements for the site creep due to the intended use

· The time to settle the above risks extends beyond the Solar Garden timeframe.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 18 December 2018

Page 0

CL18.374 Development Application – 8 Admiralty Crescent Huskisson – Lot 4 DP 16055

DA. No: DS18/1343

HPERM Ref: D18/424902

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Building & Compliance Services

Attachments: 1. Reasons for refusal ⇩

2. Approved plans for DA14/2580 ⇩

3. Revised plans dated 29 October 2018 (under separate cover) ⇨

4. Section 4.15 and 4.55 assessment report (under separate cover) ⇨

5. Report - assessment of submissions (under separate cover) ⇨

6. Submission by Cowman Stoddart on behalf of JH and JM Lawrence dated 11 September 2018 (under separate cover) ⇨

7. Response to submissions by SET Consultants dated 5 October 2018 (under separate cover) ⇨

8. As built survey ⇩

9. Supporting letter by SET Consultants dated 18 October 2018 (under separate cover) ⇨

10. Revised shadow diagrams dated 17 October 2018 (under separate cover) ⇨

11. Further submission by Cowman Stoddart on behalf of JH and JM Lawrence dated 8 November 2018 (under separate cover) ⇨

12. Variation statement by SET Consultants dated 29 October 2018 (under separate cover) ⇨

13. Independent shadow review - shadow elevations (under separate cover) ⇨

14. Independent shadow review - solar access - 'bird's eye view' (under separate cover) ⇨

15. Deputation by Frazer and Joanne Roberts to December Development Committee meeting (under separate cover) ⇨

16. Deputation by John and Jenny Lawrence to December 2018 Development Committee meeting (under separate cover) ⇨

17. Letter withdrawing amended plans lodged on 28 November 2018 (under separate cover) ⇨

Description of Development: Modification to approved dual occupancy – internal and external modifications

Owner: PR and V Latimer

Applicant: Hotondo Homes South Coast

Notification Dates: 22 August to 6 September 2018 and 29 October to 13 November 2018

No. of Submissions: Eight (8) in objection

Two (2) in support

Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council

This application was called in by Council due to the significant public interest in the development (MIN 18.722).

The application was considered at the 4 December 2018 meeting of Council’s Development Committee and was deferred to this meeting of Council (MIN 18.942).

Recommendation

That Development Application DS 18/1343 for the modification of an approved attached dual occupancy development be refused as per the Reasons for Refusal at Attachment 1 to this report.

Options

1. Refuse the application in accordance as recommended.

Implications: There are a number of different scenarios that could arise from a decision of this nature, including:

(a) The applicant may appeal the decision to refuse the current application in the Land and Environment Court. This would seek approval of the current proposal.

(b) If the applicant does not appeal, then the development would need to comply with the modified proposal approved under DS17/1265. This would necessitate substantial deconstruction and construction to comply with the approved setbacks.

Whilst there would be a tendency to issue demolition orders for this to occur, there is currently an appeal to the Land and Environment Court from the owner of 10 Admiralty Crescent to have this modification struck down. This matter is set down for further directions on 1 February 2019 and Council should await the outcome of that appeal. There is currently a stop work order on the development, so any construction work cannot proceed. The potential outcomes in this regard are:

(i) If the appeal is successful, then the application will need to be constructed in accordance with the original consent. This would necessitate orders to that effect and these would most likely be issued by the Court.

(ii) If the appeal is unsuccessful, then the Court will confirm that DS17/1265 is valid. Council could then order that the building be constructed in accordance with this consent.

2. Approve the application

Implications: Council will need to provide justification for an alternative recommendation consistent with Section 4.15 and Section 4.55 considerations. It may also influence the decision of the Land and Environment Court in the matter related to the first modification application, DS17/1265.

Location Map

The subject site is shown outlined in blue in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – Location map

Background

Proposed Development

A Section 4.55 application was lodged seeking to modify development approval DA14/2580 for an attached dual occupancy. The proposed modifications are described in the Statement of Environmental Effects as follows:

· Lengthening of the overall building by 2 metres;

· Partially reinstating the tapering of the rear portion of the building; and

· Other minor alterations (these include internal changes, changes to window types, slight relocation of the posts supporting the seaward patios and roof, addition of skylights, and other minor changes).

The plans approved under the original approval (DA14/2580) are provided as Attachment 2. The revised plans submitted on 29 October 2018 in respect of the current application that is the subject of this report are provided at Attachment 3.

The revised plans submitted on 28 November 2018 were formally withdrawn by the applicant on 3 December 2018.

Subject Land

The subject land is Lot 4 DP16055, No.8 Admiralty Crescent, Huskisson. It is an irregular shaped block with an area of 961 m². The site falls from about 9 metres AHD at its boundary with Admiralty Crescent to Mean High Water Mark at its frontage with Currambene Creek.

Site & Context

The site has frontage to Admiralty Crescent which is a sealed road of relatively narrow width. Its eastern boundary is essentially Currambene Creek. There are existing one and two storey dwellings to the north and south of the subject site. The nature of the surrounding development is primarily residential.

History

The original application (DA14/2580) was approved on 16 March 2015. An application to modify the original application (DS17/1265) was approved on 21 February 2018. That application was described as constituting ‘internal and window changes’. Construction of the building commenced in March 2018.

Following the commencement of construction, it became apparent that the building had several departures from the approved plans. The most notable was the lengthening of the overall building by 2 metres. This was raised by SET Consultants during a meeting with Council Officers on 13 July 2018. Council’s Officers directed that a further modification application be submitted for assessment to address this issue.

Before the modification application was submitted, the owner of the adjoining property at 10 Admiralty Crescent (to the south) alerted Council to an issue they had with the extended length of the building and its apparent closeness to their side boundary. They were concerned with the potential impacts this may have on their views north up Currambene Creek and solar access to the northern windows of their upstairs living area.

On 20 July 2018 a meeting was held with the applicant (Hotondo Homes) and the owners of 10 Admiralty Crescent along with their consultants to discuss the concerns. At this meeting it was identified that the first modification application was somewhat more than had been expressed in the application. It was identified that the plans had not been fully annotated to highlight the extent of the changes and Council did not notify this application based on the assumption it only related to “internal and window changes”.

At the end of the meeting on 20 July 2018, it was agreed the applicant should submit a further modification application to address all issues including the lengthening of the building by 2.0 metres. It was stressed that all amendments needed to be clearly identified in the plans by “clouding” or other means.

Because the first modification application had not been notified to the owners of 10 Admiralty Crescent, they commenced action in the NSW Land and Environment Court (LEC) seeking that the consent for DS17/1265 be declared invalid. There have been preliminary directions hearings in the LEC. At the most recent of these hearings a deferral was granted until 1 February 2019 to allow Council to determine the modification application that is the subject of this report.

The current modification application (DS18/1343) was lodged on 10 August 2018. This application identifies the full extent of the modifications. After the matter was lodged with the LEC, the application was called in for determination by Council.

During the assessment it was identified that the application did not provide the required minimum solar access to the northern living room windows of the adjoining dwelling at 10 Admiralty Crescent. Amended plans were submitted on 17 October 2018 that achieve this requirement, supported by detailed shadow diagrams.

Council received further representations from the owner of 10 Admiralty Crescent on 23 October 2018 in relation to the accuracy of the plans and shadow diagrams. Council staff then requested the applicant to provide an ‘as built’ survey plan depicting the height of the building, its setback from boundaries and its relationship to adjoining buildings. A copy of the survey plan is provided at Attachment 8.

The survey plan shows that the building is compliant with the 7.5 metre height limit and the 10% “view corridor” side setback. The survey plan also highlighted an encroachment of 0.56 metres into the 15.24 metre foreshore building line. The late discovery of this encroachment has arisen because of the inaccurate depiction of the building on the site plan originally submitted with this modification application.

On 26 October 2018 the applicant submitted revised plans and a Variation Statement in respect of the 15.24 metre foreshore building line (see Attachment 12). Shadow diagrams were revised based on the more accurate survey plan information.

Due to the identification of the building line variation, the revised plans and additional information was notified for a further 14 days in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy (i.e. from 29 October to 13 November 2018).

Further submissions were received from the owners of 6 and 10 Admiralty Crescent during the second notification period. The submission made on behalf of the owner of 10 Admiralty Crescent acknowledged that the solar access to that property now complied with the requirements of Council’s DCP and advised that the objection to the plans in respect of that issue had fallen away. However, both submissions confirmed their ongoing objection to the loss of views.

On detailed assessment of the objections and a view analysis conducted in accordance with the NSW Land and Environment Court’s Planning Principle on View Loss, it was determined that the loss of views encountered by 10 Admiralty Crescent was significant and unreasonable and could not be supported.

When advised of this finding, the applicant considered their position and made further amendments to the plans that addressed the additional view loss caused to 10 Admiralty Crescent by the encroachment beyond the foreshore building line. These amended plans were lodged on 28 November 2018 and were considered by Council staff to provide an acceptable sharing of views between the subject site and its neighbour at 10 Admiralty Crescent.

The assessment and recommendations of the report presented Council’s Development Committee at its meeting on 4 December 2018 was based on these amended plans lodged on 28 November 2018. The applicant however withdrew these plans on 3 December 2018, the day before the Development Committee. A copy of the letter withdrawing the plans is provided as Attachment 17.

At that Development Committee meeting on 4 December 2018, it was resolved that the matter be deferred and that a further report be presented to Council’s Ordinary meeting on 18 December 2018.

Deputations were made to the Development Committee meeting by or on behalf of the following:

· Frazer and Joanne Roberts (owners of 6 Admiralty Crescent)

· John and Jenny Lawrence (owners of 10 Admiralty Crescent)

· P & V Latimer and Hotondo Homes (respectively, the owners of 8 Admiralty Crescent and applicant for DS18/1343)

Copies of the presentations for the first two deputations have been provided to Council and are provided as Attachments 15 and 16.

This report now provides an assessment of the application based on the plans that were current immediately prior to the withdrawal of the amended plans that were lodged on 28 November 2018.

Issues

The following section covers the issues associated with the application.

Encroachment beyond building envelope (Shoalhaven DCP Chapter G6)

The plans slightly encroach beyond the building envelope prescribed by DCP Acceptable Solution A5.1. The non-compliance arises from an encroachment of about 200mm by the south eastern tip and of about 500mm by the north eastern tip of the awning roof over the first-floor deck, as shown at Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 – Eastern elevation showing encroachment beyond Chapter G6 building envelope

Applicant’s Submission

The applicant acknowledges this non-compliance and identified it in the Statement of Environmental Effects. The Response to Submissions prepared by SET Consultants further submits as follows:

“Whilst the proposed modification involves a variation to the building height plane, this non-compliant portion does not result in a loss of views from No. 10 Admiralty Crescent. The non-compliant portion is located on the roof of the structure and has no impact on view loss.

As demonstrated in the comparison of view from the northern window of No.10, the major influence of impact is the orientation of the dwelling and the northern window itself allowing for a sliver of view. The difference between the approved and proposed view corridor and the subsequent loss resulting from the widening and lengthening of the building is minimal.”

Discussion

Despite the non-compliance with Acceptable Solution A5.1 contained in Shoalhaven DCP2014 Chapter 6, the proposal has been assessed against Performance Criteria P4.1 to P5.3 and is found to be satisfactory (refer to DCP Chapter 6 checklist in the Assessment Report - Attachment 4). The revised shadow diagrams demonstrate that satisfactory solar access is provided to the adjoining dwelling and the relevant encroachment has no impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or of the adjoining foreshore area, including in terms of loss of views to No.6 Admiralty Crescent.

It is recommended that the remaining variation be supported.

Encroachment beyond 15.24m foreshore building line (Shoalhaven DCP Chapter V2)

The survey plan identifies an encroachment of 0.56 metre into the 15.24 metre foreshore building line established in Shoalhaven DCP Chapter V2. The encroachment is by the south eastern corner of the seaward deck and awning structure.

Applicant’s Submission

The applicant submitted a supporting letter on 29 October 2018 containing a Variation Statement in respect of this building line variation (refer pages 14 to 17 of Attachment 12). It is stated that the encroachment is relatively minor and will go unnoticed from the foreshore area, the waterway and other areas of the public domain. It further contends that the encroachment will have a minimal impact on views available to 10 Admiralty Crescent.

In terms of precedent, the statement notes that an encroachment of 3 metres into the foreshore building line was approved for 10 Admiralty Crescent under DA16/2302.

The variation statement at Attachment 12 shows a plan, provided by the applicant comparing the original approval and the modified plans. This is reproduced at Figure 3 below.

Figure 3 – Plan showing a comparison in view loss between the original approved plans and the modified plans

Discussion

The parts of the building that encroach beyond the building line are the edge of the verandah roof, the post supporting the verandah roof and the edge of the first-floor deck and privacy screen, on the south eastern corner of the building, as shown on the elevation in Figure 4 below. This is a 0.56 metre encroachment.

Figure 4 – Plan showing those parts of the building that encroach beyond the foreshore building line

As some of these parts are already constructed, a judgement can be made about the extent of view loss that will arise from the encroachment. This can be done by reference to the photograph at Figure 5 below that is included in the second submission by Cowman Stoddart Pty Ltd (Attachment 11).

Figure 5 – Photograph from the living room of 10 Admiralty Crescent. The area to the right of the red vertical line shows the approximate extent of view loss attributable to the encroachment beyond the foreshore building line.

This view loss arising from the foreshore building line variation also affects views from the more easterly parts of 10 Admiralty Crescent, as shown in the photograph at Figure 6 below, taken from the first-floor deck.

Figure 6 – Photograph from the first-floor deck of 10 Admiralty Crescent. The area blocked out in red shows the approximate extent of view loss attributable to the encroachment beyond the foreshore building line.

While the variation is numerically small (0.56 metre or 3.7%), the overall view assessment from No.10 Admiralty Crescent found that the encroachment beyond the foreshore building line resulted in an unreasonable outcome in terms of view sharing. This outcome was drawn to the attention of the applicant who on 28 November 2018 submitted amended plans that appeared to achieve an acceptable view sharing result. The plans provided the first-floor deck of Dwelling No. 2 with a splayed corner and reduced length.

On 3 December 2018 the applicant withdrew these plans. Without those changes, the impact on the views enjoyed by 10 Admiralty Crescent due to the encroachment beyond the foreshore building line is considered unreasonable.

Accordingly, the variation to the 15.24m foreshore building line is not supported.

Prevailing building line (Performance criteria P5.5, Shoalhaven DCP 2014 Chapter G13)

The building does not comply with the prevailing foreshore building line as shown on the recent aerial photograph at Figure 7 below. This lack of compliance was highlighted in the deputation made to the Development Committee meeting on 4 December 2018 on behalf of the owners of 6 Admiralty Crescent (see copy of Deputation at Attachment 15).

Figure 7 – Recent aerial photograph showing building under construction, demonstrating non-compliance with prevailing foreshore building line

The photograph (Figure 8) below further demonstrates how the building at 8 Admiralty Crescent extends forwards of the prevailing foreshore building line. The three angled posts indicate the extent of the awning roof and verandah deck. Privacy screens 1.8 metres in height will occupy the space between the walls of the building (framing timbers visible on the right) and the vertical extension of the top of the posts.

Figure 8 – View from the waterfront first floor verandah deck of 6 Admiralty Crescent across the partly constructed building at 8 Admiralty Crescent, with the waterfront roofed verandah of 10 Admiralty Crescent visible beyond.

Applicant’s submission

The applicant has not made a specific submission in respect of the prevailing building line on the foreshore frontage. The applicant has addressed the general issue of view loss in the submissions made on their behalf by SET Consultants (Attachments 7, 9 and 12).

Discussion

As discussed in the section 4.15 / 4.55 Assessment at Attachment 4, the location of the building forward of the prevailing building line on the shore frontage does not “complement the existing setbacks near the foreshore” as required by Performance Criteria P5.5 of Chapter G13 of Shoalhaven DCP 2014. This encroachment does impact on the views from 6 Admiralty Crescent and the view impact is considered in the next section of this report.

Loss of views

There are five properties where concern has been expressed about loss of views.

For three of the properties (5 and 7 Admiralty Crescent and 15 Wood Crescent), the major concern appears to arise from the already-constructed westerly two storey section of roof. This part of the building is not affected by changes proposed in the current application.

A survey plan was sought from the applicant to confirm the height of the building. The survey plan confirms that the building complies with the 7.5 metre height limit.

The properties at 6 and 10 Admiralty Crescent directly adjoin the subject property. The proposed changes do affect their views, and each is addressed separately in this report.

Assessment of loss of views is aided in this case by the fact that the framework of the verandah, including the steel portal frame that supports the awning roof and the floor structure, is already in place in its proposed location. Scaffolding is also in place and this lies between the line of the building and the waterfront. The scaffolding appears in the Figures through this section of the report but has been disregarded for view assessment purposes as it will be removed once construction has been completed.

Privacy screens will have an impact on views and these have been highlighted in the Figures to assist with clarity.

The NSW Land & Environment has published a planning principle to determine the impact on views. This principle is based on the ruling in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council NSW Land and Environment Court 140 dated 7 April 2004. Any application that has potential to impact views must address this planning principle and the controls as outlined below.

6 Admiralty Crescent

Views to be affected

The views to be affected are across the side boundary between 6 and 8 Admiralty Crescent and are those of the northern tip of the Myola peninsula and beyond into Jervis Bay. An indication of the available views is shown in Figure 9 below.

Figure 9 – View from the centre of the first-floor deck at 6 Admiralty Crescent

Figure 9 shows the view from the first-floor deck towards the east/southeast. The waters of Currambene Creek are in the foreground; the tip of the Myola spit is in the middle ground; the southern headland of Currambene Creek, Voyager Memorial Park and the Huskisson Hotel are in the right middle ground and Point Perpendicular and the waters of Jervis Bay are in the distant background.

From what part of the property the views are obtained

The views are obtained from the front (seaward) rooms of the dwelling and from the front ground level patio and first floor deck. The views that are affected are across a side boundary and there is no difference between standing and sitting views. Figure 10 is a view of 6 Admiralty Crescent taken from the waterfront boundary.

Figure 10 – View of the waterfront elevation of 6 Admiralty Crescent (the development site is to the left of view)

At the southern end of the first-floor verandah is a small alcove used as an outdoor sitting area where the wall of the building is relieved by approximately 1.5 metres. A balustrade of brick construction delimits this area and is shown in Figure 11 below.

Figure 11 - Alcove at the southern end of the first-floor deck at 6 Admiralty Crescent

This part of the building is the most vulnerable to loss of views caused by the building on the adjoining site.

The ground floor is similarly vulnerable, but this is already compromised by existing vegetation that is located on 6 Admiralty Crescent, which screens the view to the east/southeast as shown in Figure 12 below.

Figure 12 – View from southern end of ground floor patio at 6 Admiralty Crescent

Extent of the impact

Due to the building at 8 Admiralty Crescent extending further toward the waterfront boundary than under the original approval (DA14/2580), there will be some additional loss of views when compared with that original approval.

The existing dwelling at 6 Admiralty Crescent will retain all views across its own waterfront boundary but will lose views of parts of the village of Huskisson to the south of the vegetated parkland of Voyager Memorial Park. This view loss will include the loss of views of the Huskisson Hotel and Club Jervis Bay. Figure 13 highlights the approximate location of the building extremities and privacy screening and it also demonstrates the extent of view loss from the most vulnerable part of 6 Admiralty Crescent (i.e. the first-floor alcove).

Figure 13 – View from the southern end of the first-floor deck at 6 Admiralty Crescent, showing the likely extent of view loss caused by the building at 8 Admiralty Crescent

The following Figures 14, 15 and 16 highlight the extensive and high-quality views enjoyed from most other parts of the waterfront of this property.

Figure 14- View to the northeast, Currambene Creek upstream, from the first-floor deck at 6 Admiralty Crescent

Figure 15 - View to the east across Currambene Creek and the tip of the Myola Spit, from the first-floor deck at 6 Admiralty Crescent

Figure 16 - View to the south east, across Currambene Creek, with the tip of the Myola Spit to the left and the northern extent of the village of Huskisson to the right, with the waters of Jervis Bay beyond (photograph taken from the ground floor deck at 6 Admiralty Crescent)

Reasonableness of the proposal

The overall view loss from 6 Admiralty Crescent is assessed as minor. While the plans approved with the original application may have resulted in less view loss, the revised proposal nonetheless maintains substantial views. The encroachment beyond the prevailing building line is not a ground for refusal on its own. It is however a contributing factor towards the reasonableness of the view loss.

10 Admiralty Crescent

Views to be affected

The views to be affected are across the side boundary between 8 and 10 Admiralty Crescent and are upstream views of Currambene Creek and Myola. The views include moorings of several sail and motor boats, which provides an appealing composition against the back drop of the unspoilt natural character of the opposite (Myola) shore. The views available from an unaffected part of the first-floor deck are shown in Figure 17 below.

Figure 17 – View of Currambene Creek upstream from the first-floor deck of 10 Admiralty Crescent

From what part of the property the views are obtained

The views are obtained from the front (waterfront) rooms of the dwelling and from the front ground level patio and first floor deck. The views that may be affected are across a side boundary and there is no difference between standing and sitting views. Figure 18 is a view of 10 Admiralty Crescent taken from the waterfront boundary.

Figure 18 – View of the waterfront elevation of 10 Admiralty Crescent (the development site is to the right of view)

A submission on behalf of the owner of 10 Admiralty Crescent has identified the owner’s main concern about view loss being from the northern first floor windows which adjoin an informal living area. Figure 19 highlights the area concerned.

Figure 19 – View from the first floor living room at 10 Admiralty Crescent to the north (Currambene Creek is in the background)

Extent of the impact

Due to the building at 8 Admiralty Crescent extending further toward the waterfront boundary, there will be some additional loss of views when compared against the original approval. The existing dwelling at 10 Admiralty Crescent will retain all views across its own waterfront boundary but will lose some oblique views of Currambene Creek. The lost views from the northern window of the first floor living room are shown at Figure 20.

Figure 20 – View from the first floor living area at 10 Admiralty Crescent looking north, showing the likely extent of view loss

The red hatched area depicts the total view loss resulting from the modified proposal. The plans approved under the original development approval would still have resulted in view loss however, the extended deck has made this worse (refer Figure 21).

Figure 21 – View from the north eastern corner of the first-floor deck at 10 Admiralty Crescent looking north, showing the likely extent of view loss

Figures 22, 23, 24 and 25 highlight the extensive and high-quality views enjoyed from most other parts of this property.

Figure 22 - View from the east-facing window of the first floor living area, directly across Currambene Creek to the shore of the Myola Spit.

Figure 23 - View from the first-floor deck at 10 Admiralty Crescent looking upstream along Currambene Creek

Figure 24 - View to the south east from the first-floor verandah deck at 10 Admiralty Crescent, across the mouth of Currambene Creek, with the Voyager Memorial Park in the right middle ground and Point Perpendicular visible across the waters of Jervis Bay.

Figure 25 - View from the ground floor patio at 10 Admiralty Crescent, with Currambene Creek in the foreground, the tip of Myola Spit in the centre middle distance, the Voyager Memorial Park to the right and Point Perpendicular visible across the waters of Jervis Bay.

Reasonableness of the proposal

The encroachment of the building 2.0 metres further eastward from the originally approved plan has a significant impact on the northern views for 10 Admiralty Crescent up Currambene Creek. The owner of 10 Admiralty Crescent had an expectation that these views would be maintained, and they are now aggrieved by the new proposal.

The view loss is exacerbated by the encroachment beyond the foreshore building line and this considered to be unreasonable.

Solar access to 10 Admiralty Crescent

The original plans submitted with this modification application did not achieve the required 3 hours of midwinter sunlight being received by 50% of the area of north facing windows to living areas. The relevant first floor living area windows are shown in Figure 26.

Figure 26 – Northern elevation of 10 Admiralty Crescent

The applicant submitted revised plans and shadow diagrams on 17 October 2018. These revised plans changed the south eastern edge of the roof over the living area in the southern dwelling unit. The roof in this portion of the building was lowered resulting in compliant solar access (i.e. 3 hours of direct solar access to at least 50% of the north facing windows of 10 Admiralty Crescent). This access is achieved between the hours of 10:30 am and 1:30 pm.

The relevant shadow diagrams are reproduced below at Figures 27a to 27e. A copy of the full shadow diagrams are provided in Attachment 10. These depict the amount of shade and sun falling on the northern first floor windows of 10 Admiralty Crescent.

Figure 27a – Revised shadow elevations for 10 Admiralty Crescent at 10:30 am

Figure 27b – Revised shadow elevations for 10 Admiralty Crescent at 11 am

Figure 27c – Revised shadow elevations for 10 Admiralty Crescent at 12:00 noon

Figure 27d – Revised shadow elevations for 10 Admiralty Crescent at 1:00 pm

Figure 27e – Revised shadow elevations for 10 Admiralty Crescent at 1:30 pm

Due to the complexity of the shadow assessment and submissions received, a specialist consultant was engaged to undertake an independent shadow review.

This review confirmed that the proposal complied with the solar access requirements. A copy of the independent shadow review is provided as Attachments 13 and 14.

Planning Assessment

The development application has been assessed under sections 4.15 and 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (refer Attachment 4).

Policy Implications

The proposed variation to the 15.24 metre foreshore building line is not supported by the assessment undertaken for this application and is not consistent with the objectives for Chapter V2 (Building Lines) of Shoalhaven DCP 2014. Approving the application with the foreshore building variation may contribute to the undermining of the foreshore building line as a development control contained in Shoalhaven DCP 2014.

Consultation and Community Engagement:

The application was notified on two separate occasions. The first notification period was from 22 August until 6 September 2018. This was extended following a request from a neighbour until 13 September 2018.

The second notification period was from 29 October until 13 November 2018. This notification was undertaken as the application was amended to include a variation to the 15.24 metre foreshore building line.

First notification period

During the first notification period, submissions were received from seven (7) individuals or organisations, as detailed below:

1. Huskisson Woollamia Community Voice Inc.

2. Strata Committee for SP65581 (15 Wood Crescent)

3. Julie Englert (7 Admiralty Crescent Huskisson)

4. Joanne and Frazer Roberts (6 Admiralty Crescent)

5. Alan Dickenson (5 Admiralty Crescent)

6. Cowman Stoddart Pty Ltd for JH and JM Lawrence (10 Admiralty Crescent)

7. V Latimer (joint owner of 8 Admiralty Crescent).

The applicant was invited to respond to the issues raised in submissions. A response prepared by SET Consultants was submitted on 5 October 2018. The following Attachments relate to these submissions:

· Attachment 5 – Assessment of submissions;

· Attachment 6 – Submission by Cowman Stoddart

· Attachment 7 – Response to Submissions by SET Consultants.

The main issues raised in submissions were:

· Loss of solar access to 10 Admiralty Crescent;

· Loss of views from 6 and 10 Admiralty Crescent and from the units at 15 Wood Crescent;

· Actual height of the building is believed to exceed the 7.5m height limit;

· Concern about possible reduction in view corridor width;

· Application is seeking to regularise unauthorised works that will adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining dwelling at 10 Admiralty Crescent;

· Application does not meet the test for minimal environmental impact under s.4.55(1A).

Second notification period

During the second notification period, further submissions were received from:

1. Cowman Stoddart Pty Ltd for JH and JM Lawrence (10 Admiralty Crescent)

2. Joanne and Frazer Roberts (6 Admiralty Crescent)

Deputations made to the Development Committee meeting held on 4 December 2018

As noted earlier in the report, the following deputations were received at the Development Committee meeting held on 4 December 2018:

· Frazer and Joanne Roberts (owners of 6 Admiralty Crescent)

· John and Jenny Lawrence (owners of 10 Admiralty Crescent)

· P & V Latimer and Hotondo Homes (respectively, the owners of 8 Admiralty Crescent and applicant for DS18/1343)

Copies of the presentations for the first two deputations have been provided to Council and are attached at Attachments 15 and 16.

The substance of the deputation submission made on behalf of the owners and applicant were to:

· confirm the withdrawal of the amended plans lodged on 28 November 2018; and

· support the proposed deferral of the application to allow consideration of the earlier plans.

The key issues raised as a result of the notifications are discussed below.

Height of existing building and width of view corridor

Several submissions expressed concern about the height of the existing building and the width of the view corridor and the impact on loss of views for nearby properties.

Comment

The plans submitted with the application show the building height and view corridor width are compliant with the LEP and DCP provisions respectively. Due to matters raised in submissions and to the average quality of the plans, the applicant was requested to provide an additional survey plan to verify compliance with these requirements. The survey plan confirmed compliance. A copy of the survey plan together with the supporting letter are provided at Attachments 8 and 9 respectively.

Application does not meet the test for minimal environmental impact

One submission asserted that the application did not meet the test for minimal environmental impact and that Council should therefore not assess it under section 4.55(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Comment

The assessment of the application has found that the major possible impacts of the modified proposal are loss of solar access to 10 Admiralty Crescent and loss of views to 6 and 10 Admiralty Crescent. These impacts are not unusually significant for a modification application and it is considered the application can and should be dealt with as a modification of minimal environmental impact.

Application is seeking to regularise unauthorised works

Several submissions have expressed concern that the current application is seeking approval for works that have been conducted otherwise than in accordance with the original approval (DA14/2580) as modified by the first modification application (DS17/1265).

Comment

The application does seek approval for unauthorised works that have been partly constructed. Notwithstanding this, the application needs to be properly assessed in accordance with applicable planning controls. If it is sufficiently compliant and the impact on adjoining properties is acceptable, there is no reason why the application should not be approved.

The offence for not complying with the original approval has been forwarded to Council’s Compliance Officers for investigation and action. The compliance action will travel separately to this development assessment.

Loss of views from units at 15 Wood Crescent and from 5 and 7 Admiralty Crescent

The submissions raising this issue identified the loss of views as arising from the parts of the building that have already been completed.

Comment

The approved plans for the original consent (DA14/2580) identified the maximum building height as compliant with the LEP height limit of 7.5 metres. As some submissions have challenged the building height being compliant, a survey plan was sought from the applicant. The survey plan confirms the height of the existing building is compliant (refer to Attachment 8 and supporting letter at Attachment 9.)

Loss of views from 6 and 10 Admiralty Crescent

Submissions have been received from or on behalf of the owners of these two properties which directly adjoin the subject property. The submissions purport that the modified development will reduce views available from those properties.

Comment

This issue has already been addressed in detail in the ‘Issues’ section of this report. It has found that:

· the impact on 6 Admiralty Crescent is minor, but is influenced by a non-conformity with the prevailing foreshore building line; and

· the impact on 10 Admiralty Crescent is moderate, but is made unreasonable by the encroachment beyond the 15.24 metre building line established in Shoalhaven DCP 2014 Chapter V2 – Building Lines.

Loss of solar access to 10 Admiralty Crescent

The submission from Cowman Stoddart on behalf of the owners of 10 Admiralty Crescent (Attachment 6) sets out detailed concerns about the loss of solar access to the first floor living area of 10 Admiralty Crescent. These concerns are supported by their own shadow diagrams.

The second submission by Cowman Stoddart (Attachment 11) advises that it now accepts that the shadow impact falls within acceptable guidelines and the objection to this aspect of the plans is withdrawn.

Comment

This issue has already been addressed in detail in the ‘Issues’ section of this report. It has found that the submission from Cowman Stoddart was accurate and design amendments needed to occur to rectify the situation. These amendments have been made to the roof and the solar access now complies.

Public interest - compliance with approvals, planning controls and the perception of fairness

Submissions by the two adjoining owners and from Council’s designated Community Consultative Body, Huskisson-Woollamia Community Voice Inc, have all raised concerns about the way in which the development of the site has proceeded. Components of this concern are:

· the first modification application was described as comprising ‘internal changes and window changes’ whereas it is now clear that it also included an expansion of the footprint of the building;

· the lodgement of the current modification application is an acknowledgment that development on the site has proceeded otherwise than in accordance with the approvals that are in place;

· the inaccuracy of the initial site plan submitted with this modification application did not disclose the encroachment beyond the 15.24 metre foreshore building line;

· the development has been constructed other than in accordance with the approvals and does not comply with a number of planning controls and it would be unfair to support those variations which disadvantage adjoining owners.

Comment

The primary issues with this application have been solar access to 10 Admiralty Crescent and view loss to both 6 and 10 Admiralty Crescent. Council’s staff have worked with the applicant to resolve both issues. In the case of solar access, this approach has been successful, leading the owners of 10 Admiralty Crescent withdrawing their objection to the development on those grounds.

In the case of the encroachment beyond the 15.24 metre foreshore building line and the associated view loss to 10 Admiralty Crescent, a late concession by the applicant (submission of the amended plans dated 28 November 2018) was reversed on 3 December 2018. Consultation with the owners of 10 Admiralty Crescent indicated an in-principle support for the changes in those amended plans that would have reduced the view loss from that property.

With the withdrawal of those amended plans, the owners of 10 Admiralty Crescent have confirmed their objection to the application on the grounds of loss of views.

The owners of 6 Admiralty Crescent have never accepted the loss of views entailed in the application and have maintained their objection to this aspect of the development.

The net effect of the view loss assessment is that the proposal is not in the public interest and should therefore be refused.

Financial Implications:

If the application is appealed, it will result in costs to Council in defending the appeal. This is not a matter Council should consider in determining a development application. Accordingly, it should not be given any weight in Council’s decision.

Legal Implications

If the application is refused, or if the applicant is dissatisfied with Council’s determination, the applicant can appeal to the Land and Environment Court.

Under some circumstances, third parties may also have a right to appeal Council’s decision to the Land and Environment Court.

An appeal has already been lodged with the Land and Environment Court against the approval of an earlier modification application (DS17/1265). The approval or otherwise of the current application may influence the decision of the Court in respect of that appeal.

Summary and Conclusion

This application is for the modification of an approved dual occupancy that is in an advanced stage of construction. When the modification application was submitted it did not meet the requirements for solar access to the adjoining property. The applicant lodged amended plans that provide satisfactory compliance with DCP requirements for solar access and this has now been resolved.

The other major issue was the question of view loss or view sharing. This was complicated by the discovery that the building is located such that it has a slight encroachment (0.56m) beyond the 15.24m foreshore building line to Currambene Creek.

The assessment of the submitted plans identified that the loss of views to 10 Admiralty Crescent was unreasonable. The applicant lodged amended plans then on 28 November 2018 which improved the view sharing with 10 Admiralty Crescent, however this situation was reversed on 3 December 2018 when the applicant withdrew the amended plans that achieved a reasonable sharing of views.

This now means that Council needs to determine the application based on the plans that were current immediately prior to the amended plans lodged on 28 November which were later withdrawn on 3 December 2018.

As the preceding assessment has established, the view loss to 10 Admiralty Crescent is considered unreasonable due to the encroachment beyond the 15.24 metre foreshore building line. Also, there is a question about the reasonableness of the view loss to 6 Admiralty Crescent, given the proposal’s nonconformity with the prevailing foreshore building line.

It is recommended that Council refuse the application.

Proposed Lot	Area - Stage 5	Area - Stage 5A
A	3,944m²
B	4,316 m²
C	2,905 m²
D		4,498 m²
E		3,264 m²
F		4,998 m²
G		5,162 m²
H		2,155 m²
I		3,051 m²
J	5,551 m²
K	5,491 m²
L	3,789 m²
M	5,033 m²
N	3,697 m²
O	2,916 m²
P	1,819 m²
Q	1,545 m²

Total Cash and Investments	$9,423,439
Financial Assistance Grant	-$1,554,367	One quarter transferred to general fund in line with Financial Assistance Grant instalment month
Waste Disposal	$1,749,383	November was a Rates instalment month
Sewer Fund	$2,983,591	Lower payments to suppliers in relation to income received for sewer charges
Unrestricted General Fund	$7,755,396	November was a Rates instalment month

Premises	Shop 43/43 Kinghorne Street, Nowra
Commencing Date	2 January 2019 (subject to confirmation and execution of the lease)
Term	Three (3) years
Option Period	Three (3) years
Rent	$25,000.00 plus GST per annum
Rent Free period	4 weeks
Rent Review Mechanism	Fixed 3% annually
Outgoings	100% for all separately metered utilities such as, but not limited to, Electricity, Internet, Telephone; 100% - Trade Waste; 100% - Waste; 16.75% - Council Rates; 16.75% - Water Rates; 16.75% - Building Insurance Premiums.

Premises	Shop 39a/43 Kinghorne Street, Nowra
Commencing Date	January 2019 (subject to confirmation and execution of the lease)
Term	Three (3) years
Option Period	2 x Three (3) years
Gross Rent	$25,187.16 plus GST, per annum
Rent Free period	Nil
Rent Review Mechanism	Fixed 3% annually
Outgoings	100% for all separately metered utilities such as, but not limited to, Electricity, Internet, Telephone; 100% - Trade Waste; 100% - Waste; 16.75% - Council Rates; 16.75% - Water Rates; 16.75% - Building Insurance Premiums.

Tenderer	Location
Bulk Materials Australia – Recycled Pavement Materials	Kemblawarra
SCCCR – Recycled Pavement Materials	South Nowra
Schmidt Quarries – Drainage Materials	Queanbeyan
Stefanutti – Drainage and Recycled Pavement Materials	Unanderra