Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 29 January 2019

Ordinary Meeting

Meeting Date: Tuesday, 29 January, 2019

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 - 18 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

CL19.1......... Notice of Motion - Collaboration with Corrective Services NSW Community Corrections Agency........................................................................................ 1

CL19.2......... Rescission Motion - CL18.351 Notice of Motion - DE18.76 - Amendment - Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 - Medium Density 'Housekeeping' Amendments................................................................................................... 2

CL19.3......... Notice of Motion - CL18.351 (DE18.76) - Amendment - Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 - Medium Density 'Housekeeping' Amendments........... 16

CL19.4......... Notice of Motion - Truck Stop - Lions Park - Burrill Lake............................. 17

CL19.5......... Notice of Motion - Shell Service Station - Wandandian - Road repairs....... 18

CL19.6......... Notice of Motion - Various Issues - Sanctuary Point & St Georges Basin.. 19

CL19.7......... Notice of Motion - Support to Callala Beach CCB - Toilet Block................. 21

CL19.8......... Notice of Motion - Parking at Holiday Haven Culburra Beach..................... 22

CL19.9......... Notice of Motion - Vegetation Damage (Mia Way) Culburra Beach............ 23

CL19.10....... Question on Notice - SA17.296 Collingwood Beach Dune Vegetation Management Plan............................................................................................................... 24

11. Committee Reports

CL19.11....... Report of the Shoalhaven Traffic Committee - 15 January 2019................ 25

TC19.2........ Proposed Signage & Line Marking - 300B & 310 Millbank Road, Worrigee (PN 3524)

TC19.3........ Installation of No Stopping Zone - Prince Edward Avenue Culburra Beach (PN 3526)

TC19.4........ No Right Turn Removed - Queen St & Prince Alfred St Berry (PN 3529)

TC19.5........ No Stopping Zone - Bayview Ave, Hyams Beach (PN 3530)

CL19.12....... Report of the Strategy & Assets Committee - 22 January 2019.................. 34

SA19.2........ Ratepayer Advance Kerb & Gutter Construction

SA19.3........ Classification of Land - Lot 1 DP 1245988 - 4 Kardella Ave Nowra

SA19.4........ Land Classification Lots 1452 & 1452 DP1231370 Vincentia

SA19.5........ Acquisition of Water & Sewer Easement at Lot 76 DP 755907 - 66 Wrights Beach Road, Bream Beach

12. Reports

Finance Corporate & Community Services

CL19.13....... Kangaroo Valley Netball Court - Relocation and Upgrade of Infrastructure 36

CL19.14....... Acceptance of Grant Funding - Gordon Darling Foundation - Domestic Travel Grant...................................................................................................................... 43

CL19.15....... Regional Growth Environment and Tourism Fund - Shoalhaven Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure Package................................................................................. 45

CL19.16....... Investment Report - December 2018........................................................... 49

CL19.17....... Amendment to the election provisions of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.............................................................................................................. 54

CL19.18....... Commencement of the new Model Code of Meeting Practice for Local Councils...................................................................................................................... 58

CL19.19....... Commencement of the New Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW and Procedures................................................................................................... 68

Assets & Works

CL19.20....... New Shoalhaven River Bridge at Nowra...................................................... 82

Planning Environment & Development

CL19.21....... Development Application No.18/1284 – 39 Schofields Lane, Berry – Lot 6 DP 1188080........................................................................................................ 99

CL19.22....... Variations to Development Standards - Fourth Quarter Report 2018....... 117

Shoalhaven Water

CL19.23....... Milestone 6 Final Offer - REMS 1B - WP2.1 Transfer Main from Bomaderry to Nowra.................................................................................................................... 120

13. Confidential Reports

Reports

CCL19.1...... Milestone 6 Final Offer - REMS 1B - WP2.1: Transfer Main from Bomaderry to Nowra

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

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.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 29 January 2019

Page 0

CL19.2 Rescission Motion - CL18.351 Notice of Motion - DE18.76 - Amendment - Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 - Medium Density 'Housekeeping' Amendments

HPERM Ref: D18/444172

Submitted by: Clr Kaye Gartner

Clr Nina Digiglio

Clr John Levett

Purpose / Summary

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

Recommendation

That Council rescind the Motion relating to Item CL18.351 of the Council Meeting held on Tuesday 18 December 2018.

Background

The following resolution (MIN18.993) was adopted at the Council Meeting held Tuesday 18 December 2018.

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

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

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 Acting General Manager

The following is a replication of the information provided in the Note by the General Manager provided in response to the Notice of Motion submitted to the Ordinary Meeting on 18 December 2018.

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 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:

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.

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 hardstand 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:

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.

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 29 January 2019

Page 0

CL19.13 Kangaroo Valley Netball Court - Relocation and Upgrade of Infrastructure

HPERM Ref: D18/396060

Group: Finance Corporate & Community Services Group

Section: Recreation Community & Culture

Attachments: 1. Lighting Design Notes ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To seek funding of $37,411 for the replacement and installation of infrastructure at Kangaroo Valley Netball Court, including provision of an allowance for removal of existing infrastructure if required.

Recommendation

That Council

1. Allocate $37,411 for the rectification works to Kangaroo Valley Netball Court;

2. Staff arrange for the erection of fencing on boundaries shared with private landowner;

3. Staff continue to seek contribution towards the fencing costs from neighbouring landowner;

4. Staff lodge Application to Modify Development Consent for the floodlight infrastructure, and install new floodlighting upon consent;

5. Staff arrange for removal of existing floodlight infrastructure if requested and approved by neighbouring landowner.

Options

1. Council accept the recommendation as written and allocate the funding to progress.

Implications: This will ensure that Council is providing lighting and fencing infrastructure on its land to the appropriate standard and allow for the netball courts to be used at night.

2. Installation of fencing be delayed pending legislated contribution of funds from neighbouring landowner.

Implications: There is a high risk that netballs will leave the public land and roll onto the private land adjacent to the netball court, particularly on southern boundary. Members of the public may be unaware that the land adjacent to the netball court is private land and inadvertently trespass in order to recover netballs. Liability for members of the public in this circumstance falls to the landowner, placing a high level of responsibility on that entity.

3. Relocate existing floodlights at the fence-line.

Implications: This is a less safe-option. No Application to Modify Development Consent is required as the existing Development Consent approves placement of the poles mid-way along the sideline at the boundary. However, only a very small clearance buffers the court from the boundary at the north and south sidelines. This places the poles within 1.5m of play at the sidelines.

Australian standards recommend a 3.05m buffer between the court and other infrastructure. Although the fence will also fall close to the court sidelines, this is constructed of lighter and thinner materials than the floodlight poles, which minimises effects of impact by players.

A safer option is the new, recommended lighting design, that situates the floodlights at the ends of the court so that more clearance protects players from impact with the floodlight poles.

4. Staff arrange for removal of existing floodlight infrastructure, if requested and approved by neighbouring landowner.

Implications: This is not a legal requirement and the option may add time to the delivery of the project. Funding to undertake the works is estimated to be $5,000 and has been identified in this funding request. However this option does not address the requirement for floodlighting and fencing at the netball court.

5. Staff do not arrange for removal of existing floodlight infrastructure from private land, and this be left to the landowner who owns the infrastructure as it is a fixture located on his land.

Implications: This will not have an impact on Council's works program or funding, as this will not require any input from Council. However this option does not address the requirement for floodlighting and fencing at the netball court.

Background

Council has been made aware of an encroachment issue with Council infrastructure on private land. Land ownership of the private land adjoining Kangaroo Valley Netball Court has recently changed hands. The new owner has brought to Council’s attention that the floodlighting infrastructure at the courts is located on their adjoining private property.

Council netball court identified in blue

Floodlights

Council obtained a Development Consent (DA) in 2004 for the construction of the netball courts and floodlighting. The DA identified that the floodlights should be constructed at the boundary of Council land, however installation occurred on the private land adjoining Council’s facility.

Staff have requested access to remove the existing infrastructure and relocate it onto the public land. This request was denied by the landowner. The power supply was disconnected at the request of the landowner in August 2018. The lights are currently not operational. The Kangaroo Valley Netball Club has temporarily moved their summer competition games from 6, 7 and 8pm to 5, 6 and 7pm pending reconnection of floodlighting at the court.

When the construction error was initially identified, staff obtained quotations to move the floodlights onto the public land. This intention was deferred when the private landowner declined to provide access to enable this to occur.

Staff commissioned a new floodlighting lighting design and quotation to Australian Standards, with very tight spill control requirements on the boundaries to ensure minimal spill onto private land. The quotes received for installation of same lux lighting levels on the court are affected by the spill constraints but remain compliant with Australian Standards. The following quote includes installation and requires a lead-time of approximately 10 weeks from receipt of the order for delivery of new lighting poles.

New Poles $16,750 + GST

IWE-PL16F-1000 – Shielded x 2 $ 4,920 + GST

Freight $ 113 + GST

Total $21,783 + GST

Council has also obtained a quotation for the relocation of the existing poles, installation of new LED globes and remove old footings is $12,500 + GST This was obtained prior to the land owner’s decision to not allow Council access to their land.

As the boundary of the land aligns almost exactly with the bitumen area of the court, it is possible that further excavation works will be required to trench cabling for the new electrical infrastructure. A 10% contingency amount of $2,946 + GST is therefore added to the total funding request in this report to cover this.

If the landowner requests Council to remove the existing infrastructure and if Council resolves to do so, the cost is estimated to be $5,000 for the removal of the existing poles and lights. These funds have been incorporated into the requested funding.

Fencing

In discussion with the landowner it was further identified that it is preferable that fencing be constructed to demarcate the boundary between public and private lands and prevent access to the private land. As there is a very small buffer zone between the netball facility and private land this fence should ideally be constructed to a height to contain balls within the public space. Staff have obtained quotes to remove the existing northern fence and install a 2.1 metre high chainmesh fence along the northern, eastern and southern boundaries. The lowest quote received was $7,682 + GST.

Under the dividing fences Act it is a requirement that neighbouring landowners meet 50% of the costs of fencing to adjoining boundaries. The neighbouring property is a rural allotment, and the 50% contribution amount would apply to fencing appropriate to the rural context. Staff have obtained a quotation to install 5 strand barbed wire fence (rural fencing), including strainer assemblies and tractor floats, for $3,720 + GST. 50% of this cost = $1,860 + GST. This amount can be requested from the adjacent landowner as a contribution to the works.

Total Funding Required for relocation and upgrade works without input from adjoining land owner.

$21,783 + GST floodlights

$ 7,682 + GST fencing

$29,465 + GST total

$ 2,946 + GST contingency

$ 5,000 + GST Removal of existing infrastructure on neighbouring property

$37,411 + GST FUNDING REQUEST

This amount could be reduced by $1,860.00 if the adjoining land owner contributes 50% of rural fencing costs.

Community Engagement

The netball court is used twice-weekly for a local netball competition, with 3 games running up to 9pm over the summer season. The club has requested to keep floodlighting available for these games.

In the past the community has used the private land to the south of the court for spectating. The general perception was that this was public land. Council has informed the club of the boundary, and the club has been requested to use the public land and not to trespass upon the adjacent private land.

Council have informed the parks maintenance crews of the error in land ownership and, on the owner’s request, they have been advised to cease mowing and maintenance activities on the adjoining land owner’s property.

Financial Implications

A new budget allocation of $37,411 + GST is sought to undertake this works which will address and resolve this situation. The Community and Recreation Unit budget has no available funding as monies are being used to co-fund a number of successful grant funding applications, meeting grant funding criteria obligations. As this work is urgent and allocation of funding by Council will expedite these works.

Ongoing maintenance of the infrastructure will be met utilising the existing active recreation operational budget.

The new floodlighting infrastructure will reduce operational and maintenance expenses, as the new LED technology has lower maintenance and power consumption costs.

Maintenance costs for the fencing are expected to be minimal and will be addressed through the existing active recreation operational budget.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 29 January 2019

Page 0

CL19.14 Acceptance of Grant Funding - Gordon Darling Foundation - Domestic Travel Grant

HPERM Ref: D19/7417

Group: Finance Corporate & Community Services Group

Section: Recreation Community & Culture

Purpose / Summary

To seek Council’s approval to accept $3,300 (incl GST) from the Gordon Darling Foundation as part of their Domestic Travel Grant program

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Accept the grant funding of $3,300 (incl GST) for the Domestic Travel Grant, with the monies being used for staff related expenses in the development and promotion of Shoalhaven Regional Gallery

2. Write to Gordon Darling Foundation to thank them for the grant.

Options

1. Council accept the grant of $3,300 awarded to Shoalhaven Regional Gallery for the Domestic Travel Grant

Implications: The grant will pay for a staff member to travel to Alice Springs and present a paper at the Museums Galleries Australia National Conference and for a staff member to undertake travel related to the curation and development of Shoalhaven Regional Gallery’s summer exhibition.

2. Council do not accept the funding and provide an alternate direction to staff.

Implications: The travel costs for staff will have to be found in our operating budget and will limit opportunities for staff to continue to work with galleries interstate and promote the work of Shoalhaven Regional Gallery.

Background

The Gordon Darling Domestic Travel Grants have been operating since 2001 to support public art institutions with staff travel. The grants are awarded through recommendations by the Board and the Director of State and National Art Galleries. In 2019 Shoalhaven Regional Gallery was one of three public art institutions in NSW to be recommended for the grant. Provision of the grant is subject to approval by the Foundation of the proposed travel program, with travel having a specific focus and a clear benefit to both the institution on the staff member.

Shoalhaven Regional Gallery intends to use the money to support two different staff projects.

1) $1,500 (ex GST) will go towards the cost of travel and associated conference fees for Fiona McFadyen (Public Programs Officer) to present a paper at the Museums Galleries Australia national conference held in Alice Springs in May 2019. Fiona will be presenting on the Moonmilk exhibition held at Shoalhaven Regional Gallery in 2018 and the community engagement process delivered by the artist and the gallery in developing this interactive sound artwork. The paper will focus on the challenges of engaging a community with a project that was a modern art form not previously exhibited at the gallery.

The costs for this are as follows:

· Conference registration - $790

· Flights to Alice Springs (return) – up to $900

· Conference Accommodation (5 nights) – up to $700

2) $1,500 (ex GST) will be spent on travel and accommodation related to the development of the 2019/2020 summer exhibition. This exhibition will be curated by Bridget Macleod and will feature the work of two Australian photographers with international practices. In developing this exhibition interstate travel will be required to negotiate with commercial galleries representing the artists; this will include sourcing records and contacting collectors who hold specific works of art, viewing artworks held in gallery stock rooms and speaking with other regional galleries to borrow works from their collections.

By using the grant funds for these projects Shoalhaven Regional Gallery will be able to extend its reach and partnerships with other cultural institutions across Australia and continue to grow our programming and community engagement locally.

Community Engagement

The opportunities provided by this grant will have several flow-on benefits for the Shoalhaven community. The presentation of a paper at the national conference will continue to raise awareness of Shoalhaven Regional Gallery and the work we do with cultural institutions across Australia, as well as providing an opportunity for staff to learn from presentations by Australian and international leaders in the field. The conference provides significant networking opportunities with both regional and state institutions and presents ideas and events that can be adapted for the Shoalhaven community.

The exhibition program at Shoalhaven Regional Gallery has made major gains over the past few years, particularly with the summer exhibition where a travelling show or self-curated exhibition highlights significant Australian artists. The development of the 2019/2020 summer show continues this trend by working with two major Australian photographers and juxtaposing their works as part of a new curatorial proposition. The exhibition will not only bring the works to Shoalhaven audiences but will also encourage visitors from outside the region to visit the gallery. The summer exhibition will have a range of associated community programs, including our Summer Sessions, School Holiday workshops and other events, all of which will provide opportunities for different ages to engage with the exhibition and the artists.

Financial Implications

The grant funding will be used to offset the costs associated with the activities, ensuring that Shoalhaven Regional Gallery is able to undertake these programs with minimal impact on our operating budget. The costs not covered by the grant will be covered by our annual operating expenses.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 29 January 2019

Page 0

CL19.15 Regional Growth Environment and Tourism Fund - Shoalhaven Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure Package

HPERM Ref: D19/19610

Group: Finance Corporate & Community Services Group

Section: Tourism

Purpose / Summary

To advise Council on the details and progress of an Expression of Interest submitted under the State Government’s Regional Growth Environment and Tourism Fund Round 2.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Note the Expression of Interest submitted for the Shoalhaven Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure Package under the State Government’s Regional Growth Environment and Tourism Fund Round 2 for information.

2. Endorse the action taken by staff in preparing a Detailed Application for submission by 1 February 2019 for the Shoalhaven Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure Package at a project cost of $6.88M.

3. Commit $1.5M over the period 2018/19 to 2020/21 as its co-contribution towards the Shoalhaven Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure Package should the application be successful to be funded in future years Capital Works Programs.

4. Receive a further report on the progress of Council’s Detailed Application as information is received.

Options

1. As recommended

Implications: Nil

2. Adopt an alternative recommendation

Implications: Due to the application due date of 1 February 2019 an alternative recommendation may impact on the successful submission.

Background

In September 2018 Council staff submitted an Expression of Interest (EOI) to Round Two, Stream One of the State Government’s Regional Growth – Environment and Tourism Fund (RGETF) for a suite of projects collectively titled the “Shoalhaven Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure Package”.

Submission under the Fund allowed for large scale projects with a minimum grant request of $5 million for regionally iconic tourism activation projects with an applicant co-contribution greater than 25%.

The decision to submit the EOI at short notice arose after significant and ongoing feedback regarding the need for improved tourism infrastructure in several locations throughout the region and this grant program being a great opportunity to fast track a suite of projects that would enhance the visitor experience and local amenity at various locations in the Shoalhaven.

The total estimated cost of the package of proposed works in the submission was $6.88M – and in order to give Council’s EOI a better chance to progress, a 30% co-contribution of $1.58M was nominated – noting that this includes an $80,000 contribution from the Ulladulla Local Aboriginal Land Council.

We were informed on 16 November 2018 that Council’s EOI had been shortlisted to proceed to Detailed Application and staff are now working on the detailed submission which is due on 1 February 2019.

The Shoalhaven Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure Package is a showcase of the iconic coastline of the Shoalhaven. It promotes sustainable nature-based, cultural and accessible tourism through a series of foreshore walks and other projects across the local government area. These projects highlight a range of natural areas, enabling the sustained growth of tourism in the area through a diversified offering that actively manages existing tourism hot-spots, while encouraging visitors to explore new opportunities.

The project focuses on three key areas – nature-based attractions, Indigenous heritage and equal access opportunities – all of which are recognised as being foundations for attracting and integrating tourism to the area in a way that is both respectful and engaging to a wide audience.

In undertaking the project there are a number of key projects that will be delivered including (from north to south):

· Deliverable 1 (D1) – Vincentia / Plantation Point Inclusive Beach Access Project – The Plantation Point area is a popular beach access location on the shores of Jervis Bay. The project is located on the Barfleur Beach side of the Point, which is home to the Vincentia Sailing Club and a beach which is known for its gentle and protected access point. The facilities will enable equitable access for all and be a key inclusive tourism drawcard for the area. Funding has been received for part of these works, though the remaining elements as set out in the project costs at Appendix C are identified for implementation of the entire project. The works include:

o Beach access ramps down to the beach (funding already available)

o General amenities including disability access facilities (partial funding available)

o Adult lift and change amenities facility

o New accessible pathways between change facilities, parking and beach access ramps

o New accessibility compliant car parking spaces

· Deliverable 2 (D2) – Sanctuary Point / Palm Beach – A waterfront public open space in one of the most popular fishing and boating destinations on the NSW South Coast – St Georges Basin. The project will provide upgraded equal access from the amenities (disabled compliant) to the car parking area, beach and open spaces areas, where a loop pathway and new accessible BBQ and picnic shelter facilities are to be provided. The works will include:

o BBQ and shelters in two locations

o New accessible pathways and loop between carpark, open space, beach and amenities

o New access pathway from Palm Beach up to the adjoining Greville Avenue and through to other shared paths and to Bherwerre Wetlands (see further below)

o Upgrades around the existing compliant amenities building

o Carpark improvements

· Deliverable 3 (D3) – Basin Walking Track – This project will see the upgrade of the existing basic track to a regional level raised boardwalk / waterfront walkway connecting the western end of the existing Basin Walking Track to Palm Beach and beyond to the Bherwerre Wetland walks, and further again to the shared pathways that connect on to the Round the (Jervis) Bay walk further north. The paths would generally be, or be near to, disability compliant standards wherever possible, again focusing on nature-based attractions with high levels of accessibility. Works would include:

o A mixture of gravel and raised boardwalk style trails traversing low-lying areas around St Georges Basin waterbody

o A new shared pathway to link Palm Beach to the Bay and Basin Shared Path network via the Bherwerre Wetland

· Deliverable 4 (D4) – Bherwerre Wetland – The Bherwerre Wetland area connects to the Basin Walking Track and shared path which in turn connects Jervis Bay and Sanctuary Point / St Georges Basin. The grant works would facilitate the construction of the hard infrastructure whilst not jeopardising the site as a future biodiversity stewardship and offset site in the future. The area contains a number of vegetation types and is ideal for nature-based activities including bird watching, bush walking and environmental education. Part of the project will provide disability compliant parking and pathways around the eastern portion of the site. Works will include:

o A mixture of gravel and raised boardwalk style trails, including fully accessible component

o New disabled compliant parking spaces connecting to the accessible pathway on the eastern edge of the wetland

o Viewing and rest areas with seating and interpretative information

· Deliverable 5 (D5) – Hyams Beach – As a high-profile tourism hotspot, the Hyams Beach project will provide a range of infrastructure works to support a more sustainable level of visitation to what has become one of the most iconic destinations on the NSW South Coast – famed for the “whitest sand in the world”. Project works will include a range of accessibility improvements, including all-access amenities, pathways and viewing opportunities. Works will include:

o Carpark redesign and re-surfacing (partly funded)

o Road widening and design to incorporate peak season one-way traffic flow system

o Footpaths and pedestrian access into existing open space / parklands

o Playground improvements and provision of new accessible BBQs and shelters

o Provision of a new amenities block at Chinaman’s Beach

o Additional funding for the Seamans Beach amenities extension (partly funded)

o New beach access stairs and paths

o Additional car and parallel parking areas

· Deliverable 6 (D6) – Ulladulla Headland / Warden Head walking trails – To be undertaken in conjunction with the Ulladulla Local Aboriginal Land Council (ULALC) and incorporating the Coomee Nulunga Cultural Trail, the project will support Indigenous tourism opportunities and incorporate the local Aboriginal community’s guided tours. The project includes provision of comprehensive improvements to both the North Head Walking Trail and to the Warden Head on the southern headland – with existing pathways and recently constructed links being used to provide access between the two. Both projects will seek to improve accessibility through re-surfacing and other improvements, with "One Track for All" being upgraded with a view to increasing accessibility and compliance with disability standards wherever possible. The works will include:

o Replacement of the Bunaan sculpture (current commission by the ULALC as in-kind contribution to the project)

o New boardwalks and track improvements in areas of Coomee Nulunga Cultural Trail

o Viewing area and interpretative signage on both headlands

o Resurfacing and trail improvements to the North Head Walking Trail

· Deliverable 7 (D7) – Murramarang Coastal Walk – Which will see the substantial expansion of the Murramarang Coastal Walk, which has received partial funding via National Parks and Wildlife Service within the existing national park areas, particularly the Murramarang National Park. The project is a significant opportunity for the southern Shoalhaven area, with links provided from the north and to the south to extend the walk from Narrawallee / Mollymook through to Merry Beach / Kioloa – a total distance of approximately 45km. The proposed works include:

o New or upgraded beach access points

o A section of new track construction

o Directional bollards and interpretative signage

There is no doubt that the proposed infrastructure works will have the consequence of growing, diversifying and sustaining growth in the visitor economy of the Shoalhaven and South Coast areas through highlighting areas of nature-based, cultural and accessible tourism opportunity.

Community Engagement

Several of the suggested projects have been subject to community engagement in various forms. All projects are well supported based on letters of support received ahead of application submission. The application also has project management and approval costs included as a component of the application.

Financial Implications

If the application is successful Council’s co-contribution of $1.5M will need to be included in the Capital Works Program budgets over the period 2019/20 to 2021/22. These considerations can form part of the upcoming budget deliberations and the review of Council’s long-term financial plan.

Costs associated with developing the EOI and detailed submission are approximately $34,500, this will be sourced from existing budgets.

Risk Implications

With each project, there are specific risks associated with approvals (shovel readiness), project scheduling, contractor availability but these have been identified and articulated at the application stage. The inability to provide matching funds is a critical risk.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 29 January 2019

Page 0

CL19.18 Commencement of the new Model Code of Meeting Practice for Local Councils

HPERM Ref: D19/18445

Group: Finance Corporate & Community Services Group

Section: Human Resources, Governance & Customer Service

Attachments: 1. OLG Circular 18-45 - Commencement of the new Model Code of Meeting Practice ⇩

2. OLG Circular 18-45 Attachment - Frequently Asked Questions - pdf ⇩

3. Model Code of Meeting Practice for Local Councils in NSW 2018 (under separate cover) ⇨

Purpose / Summary

To inform Councillors of the commencement of the Model Code of Meeting Practice and steps to be taken by the Council in response.

Recommendation

That

1. The Report on the commencement of the new Model Code of Meeting Practice for Local Councils be noted.

2. A workshop of Councillors and Senior Staff be held to discuss the non-mandatory provisions of the Model Code of Meeting Practice prior to consideration of a revised draft Shoalhaven City Council Code of Meeting Practice based on the Model.

Options

1. As recommended

Implications: Councillors are informed of the commencement of the Code and the transitional provisions. Detailed discussion of the non-mandatory provision will take place at a Councillor workshop prior to a Draft Code being provided to the Council.

2. Alternate recommendation

Implications: Not known.

Background

On 14 December 2018, the Office of Local Government released Circular No. 18-45 -Commencement of the new Model Code of Meeting Practice for Local Councils in NSW. The Circular and its attached Frequently Asked Questions document are provided as Attachments 1 and 2 to this report.

The Model Code of Meeting Practice is provided as Attachment 3 to this report.

The Model Meeting Code has two elements:

· It contains mandatory provisions (indicated in black font) that reflect the existing meetings provisions of the Act and update and enhance the meeting provisions previously prescribed under the Regulation to reflect contemporary meeting practice by councils.

· It contains non-mandatory provisions (indicated in red font) that cover areas of meetings practice that are common to most councils but where there may be a need for some variation in practice between councils based on local circumstances. The non-mandatory provisions also operate to set a benchmark based on what OLG sees as being best practice for the relevant area of practice.

The Model Code also applies to meetings of the boards of joint organisations and county councils. The provisions that are specific to meetings of boards of joint organisations are indicated in the document in blue font.

Action required by the Council

The specific requirements of the Code of Meeting Practice are as follows:

· Councils are required to adopt a code of meeting practice that incorporates the mandatory provisions of the Model Meeting Code prescribed by the Regulation. A council’s adopted meeting code must not contain provisions that are inconsistent with the mandatory provisions.

· A council’s adopted meeting code may also incorporate the non-mandatory provisions of the Model Meeting Code and any other supplementary provisions adopted by the council.

· Councils and committees of councils of which all the members are councillors must conduct their meetings in accordance with the code of meeting practice adopted by the council.

· Before adopting a new code of meeting practice, under section 361 of the LGA, councils are still required to exhibit a draft of the Code of Meeting Practice for at least 28 days and provide members of the community at least 42 days in which to comment on the draft code. This requirement does not apply to joint organisations.

To facilitate full consideration and discussion of the Model Code of Meeting Practice and in particular the non-mandatory provisions suggested in the Model, a workshop of Councillors and Senior Staff is recommended. The outcome of this workshop will inform the Council’s Draft Code. It is proposed that this workshop will be held in February 2019 to allow sufficient time for preparation of a new Draft Code for presentation to Council, the requisite public consultation on the draft and then final adoption by the end of May 2019.

Councillors were provided a summary of areas of significant changes brought by the Model Code in report SA18.268 considered at the Strategy and Assets Committee on 11 December 2018.

Transitional Provisions

Until a council adopts a new code of meeting practice, its existing Code of Meeting Practice will remain in force up until six months from the date on which the new Model Meeting Code was prescribed, (14 December 2018 – 14 June 2019). If a council fails to adopt a new Code of Meeting Practice within this period, under transitional provisions contained in the Regulation and the LGA, any provision of the council’s adopted meeting code that is inconsistent with a mandatory provision of the Model Meeting Code prescribed under the Regulation will automatically cease to have any effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with the mandatory provision of the Model Code.

Irrespective of whether councils have adopted a code of meeting practice based on the Model Meeting Code, all councils (but not joint organisations) will be required to webcast meetings of the council and committees of which all members are councillors from 14 December 2019. The webcasting requirement may be met simply by posting an audio or video recording of the meeting on the council’s website.

Community Engagement

Before adopting a new code of meeting practice, under Section 361 of the LGA, councils are still required to exhibit a draft of the code of meeting practice for at least 28 days and provide members of the community at least 42 days in which to comment on the draft code.

Policy Implications

The Council’s current Code of Meeting Practice (POL18.51) remains in force until the Council has adopted a new Code of Meeting Practice with exception of any provisions that are inconsistent with the Model Code.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 29 January 2019

Page 0

CL19.19 Commencement of the New Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW and Procedures

HPERM Ref: D19/20844

Group: Finance Corporate & Community Services Group

Section: Human Resources, Governance & Customer Service

Attachments: 1. OLG Circular 18-44 - Commencement of the new Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW and Procedures ⇩

2. 2018 Model Code of Conduct (under separate cover) ⇨

3. 2018 Procedures - Model Code of Conduct (under separate cover) ⇨

Purpose / Summary

To inform Councillors of the newly prescribed 2018 Code of Conduct and Procedures and outline the steps to be taken by the Council.

Recommendation

That Council

1. Note the commencement of the new Model Code of Conduct and Procedures as outlined in the report.

2. Hold a Councillor Workshop to discuss the Model Code of Conduct and Procedures.

Options

1. As recommended

Implications: Councillors are informed of the commencement of the Code and the transitional provisions. Detailed discussion of the documents will take place at a Councillor workshop to inform Draft Documents to be provided to the Council for adoption.

2. Council adopt the Model Code of Conduct and Procedures provided as Attachments 2 and 3 to the report.

Implications: The Model Code and Procedures will be adopted as the current policies of the Council effective from the resolution. Training will be provided to Councillors, Staff and Committee members. Any suggested amendments or additions can be reported to the Council for consideration at a later time.

Background

On 14 December 2018, the Office of Local Government (OLG) released Circular No. 18-44 –Commencement of the new Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW and Procedures. The Circular and its attached Frequently Asked Questions document are provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

The Model Code of Conduct is provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

The Procedures for the Model Code of Conduct are provided as Attachment 3 to the report.

Councillors were previously provided a briefing of the Consultative Drafts of the Code of Conduct and Procedures and resolved to make a submission with respect to the Draft documents in December 2017 (MIN17.1032)

Councillors were also provided copies of the Version of the Model Code of Conduct released by the Minister for Local Government on 5 September 2018. The commenced Model Code aligns with that released by the Minister with the exception of the previous Clause 8.21 regarding Social Media which was removed.

Summary of Differences between the 2018 Model Code of Conduct and the 2013 Model Code of Conduct

Part	Existing Code	New Code
General Conduct	Contained broad “principles-based” rules governing general conduct (but prescriptive rules governing binding caucus votes which have been retained in the new Code)	Shift from broad principles-based approach to prescription of standards of general conduct to a more prescriptive approach. New, clearer rules governing: · harassment and discrimination · bullying · work health and safety · land use planning, development assessment and other regulatory functions · behavioural standards in meetings
Pecuniary interests	Standards relating to the disclosure of pecuniary interests and the management of pecuniary conflicts of interest were prescribed under the Local Government Act (LGA) and Regulation.	Yet to commence 2016 amendments to the LGA have seen the prescription of these rules moved to the Model Code of Conduct so that all ethical standards are now prescribed from the same source. The provisions now contained in the Model Code are largely the same as those that were previously contained in the LGA and Regulation. Key changes include: · Council officials will now be obliged to update their publicly accessible returns of interests within 3 months of becoming aware of new interests (previously new returns only had to be submitted annually) · Councillors will be required to disclose in their returns of interests whether they are a property developer or a close associate of one
Non-pecuniary conflicts of interest	Contains broad principles-based rules governing disclosure and management of non-pecuniary conflicts of interests	As with the general conduct provisions, these rules have been rewritten to make them more prescriptive. The Model Code still distinguishes between “significant non-pecuniary conflicts of interest” (Council officials must have no involvement in matters in which they have a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest) and “less than significant non-pecuniary conflicts of interest” (Council officials must disclose these but may still participate in decision making). However, the rules governing what constitutes a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest have been made more prescriptive and much clearer.
Gifts and benefits	Contained a mixture of broad principles and strict rules governing when it is not appropriate to accept gifts or personal benefits. Gifts of more than token value must not be accepted but does not place a monetary value on these. There is no requirement to report the acceptance of a gift, unless it is of more than token value.	Rules governing gifts and benefits are now much more prescriptive: · There is a clearer definition of what is a gift or benefit · There is a monetary value of $50 placed on gifts being more than token value · There is a prohibition on the acceptance of multiple gifts of under $50 from the same person over a 12 month period where their aggregated value exceeds $50 · The rules extend to gifts received by persons personally associated with the Council official · All gifts must be reported regardless of value
Relationships between Council officials	Contains prescriptive rules governing relationships and interactions between Councillors and staff	These are largely unchanged but have been updated to reflect the new roles of Mayor, Councillors and General Managers legislated in the 2016 amendments to the LGA
Access to information and Council resources	Contains prescriptive rules governing access to information, use of Council resources and information technology	These are largely unchanged but have been supplemented with new rules: · Councillors are precluded from requesting information about matters they have a conflict of interest in unless the information is otherwise publicly available · There are new rules governing the use of social media – this should not be used for engaging in offensive, humiliating or threatening behaviour, making misleading or deceptive claims, breaching privacy or disclosing confidential information · There are new rules governing Council record keeping which in effect, embed the requirements of the State Records Act into the Mode Code
Maintenance of the integrity of the Code of Conduct	Contains rules relating to the misuse of the Code, taking reprisal action, disclosing confidential information about Code of Conduct investigations etc.	The language in these has been slightly modified to address issues arising from previous OLG investigations and NCAT matters

Action required to be taken by the Council

1. Determination of the form/s of Code of Conduct

Council will need to determine if it will adopt one (1) Code of Conduct that applies to Council Officials or three (3) separate Codes of Conduct for Councillors, Staff and Committee Members. The OLG has provided separate versions of the Model Code to be utilised if this is the preferred approach – they can be found on the OLG Website.

The benefits and detriments of each of these approaches will be discussed in the proposed Councillor Workshop on this matter.

2. Adoption of a Code of Conduct and Procedures

Councils have six (6) months from the date of prescription (14 December 2018 to 14 June 2019) to adopt a Code of Conduct and Procedures based on the prescribed Model Code of Conduct and Procedures.

The transitional arrangements for the new Model Code of Conduct and Procedures are set out below.

If a Council fails to adopt a new Code of Conduct and Procedures based on the new Model Code of Conduct and Procedures within six (6) months of their prescription, the provisions of the new Model Code of Conduct and Procedures will automatically override any provisions of a Council’s adopted Code of Conduct and Procedures that are inconsistent with those contained in the Model Code of Conduct and Procedures through the operation of Sections 440(4) and 440AA(4) of the Local Government Act 1993 (unless the inconsistent provisions of a Council’s adopted Code of Conduct are more onerous than those contained in the Model Code of Conduct).

In adopting a new Code of Conduct and Procedures, Councils may include provisions that are supplementary to those contained in the Model Code of Conduct and Procedures. Council may also impose more onerous requirements under their adopted Codes of Conduct than those prescribed under the Model Code of Conduct. However, Councils must not dilute the standards prescribed under the Model Code of Conduct in their adopted Codes of Conduct.

3. Informing Conduct Reviewers of New Provisions

Council’s Complaints Coordinator is required to bring the circular and the attached FAQ to the attention of their Council’s conduct reviewers. The Complaints Coordinator must also inform conduct reviewers when the Council has adopted a new Code of Conduct and Procedures and provide copies.

Council’s current panel of conduct reviewers will be informed of the changes in writing.

4. Reviewing Conduct Reviewing existing panels of Conduct Reviewers

The Circular advises that councils should review their existing panels of conduct reviewers and determine to appoint a new panel using the expression of interest process prescribed under the Procedures if they have not done so in the past four years. As Council last appointed a Conduct Panel in August 2017 (MIN17.740), there is no requirement to appoint a panel at this time; however in adopting new Procedures, Council may wish to consider arrangements with respect to joint panels or delegation of the tasks assigned to the General Manager as permitted in the new Procedures.

The consideration of these provisions will be outlined in the Councillor Workshop on this matter and in a further report to Council.

Transitional Provisions

Council’s existing adopted Code of Conduct and Procedures will remain in force until such time as Council adopt a new Code of Conduct and Procedures based on the Model Code of Conduct and Procedures prescribed under the Regulation.

Code of Conduct complaints must be assessed against the standards prescribed under the version of the Council’s Code of Conduct that was in force at the time the conduct the subject of the complaint is alleged to have occurred.

Code of Conduct complaints must be dealt with in accordance with the version of the Council’s Procedures that were in force at the time the complaint was made.

Community Engagement

Unlike the Code of Meeting Practice, there is no requirement for exhibition of the Draft Model Code of Conduct or Procedures prior to adoption by the Council.

The Adopted Code of Conduct and Procedures are made publicly available on the Council’s website.

Policy Implications

The provisions of the Code of Conduct impact upon other policies of the Council. Once Council adopts a new Code of Conduct, review of other related policy will be required.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 29 January 2019

Page 0

CL19.20 New Shoalhaven River Bridge at Nowra

HPERM Ref: D19/20580

Group: Assets & Works Group

Section: Business & Property

Attachments: 1. Email advice from RMS dated 19 December 2018 ⇩

2. Submission to RMS dated 27 September 2018 ⇩

Purpose / Summary

This report provides Council with current information in relation to some important aspects of the new Shoalhaven River bridge project.

Recommendation

That:

1. A further report be submitted to Council in relation to the relocation of parking, public toilets and the Rotary monument near the bridge in Illaroo Road and on the relocation, replacement or demolition of the Captain Cook Memorial which is currently located in Moorhouse Park.

2. Council advise RMS that Council does not support any proposal to use Harry Sawkins Park as a car park but otherwise has no objection to the proposed amendments to the areas required for acquisition and leasing as set out in Attachment 1.

3. Council advise RMS that all landscape design work in relation to the Nowra entry, Moorhouse Park and Paringa Park is to be carried out by Council in consultation with RMS at RMS’s cost.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation.

Implications: Council takes the opportunity to consider current advice in relation to the Nowra Bridge project and make further representations to RMS in relation to outstanding issues.

2. Call for a further report on the Nowra Bridge project.

Implications: The preparation of a further report will delay the provision of advice to RMS.

Background

Council has previously received deputations from RMS (Roads and Maritime Services) personnel and considered reports by Council staff on the new Nowra Bridge project, the last of which was a report to Strategy & Assets Committee on 18 September 2018.

Following the September meeting, a comprehensive submission on the bridge project on behalf of Council was forwarded to RMS (see Attachment 2) with copies provided to Gareth Ward and Shelley Hancock in their capacities as Member for Kiama and Member for South Coast respectively.

Most of the issues raised in the submission to RMS are still under consideration and are not dealt with in this report.

The proposed bridge project will require acquisition or leasing by RMS of a number of Council owned properties and it has generally been agreed that valuations can be commissioned so that negotiations can be conducted in order to reach agreement on compensation matters as required by the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991.

However, there are a number of other outstanding issues which are the subject of ongoing discussions and a meeting to discuss these issues was held with RMS on 14 December 2018. It is acknowledged that there may be additional unresolved issues arising out of negotiations on matters of compensation and these matters will be the subject of further reports to Council in due course. In the interim, the issues discussed at the December meeting are detailed hereunder:

Public Toilets at Rotary Park

· RMS was advised that public toilet needs to be removed or relocated in close proximity to current location; and

· RMS advised that if toilet needs to be relocated, it prefers Council completes the works and RMS reimburse Council’s costs due to Council having the expertise in building public toilets to Council’s specifications (emphasis added).

Captain Cook Memorial

· RMS advised that Captain Cook Memorial is directly impacted and needs to be demolished or relocated;

· REF has assessed the impact of demolishing the structure;

· Council to review demolition of the memorial internally and advise any concerns;

· RMS continuing to assess feasibility of relocation, however it was agreed that this is unlikely due to type of structure;

· Report to Council is necessary to consider the future of the memorial. Demolition is not preferred from Council’s perspective due to its heritage significance (emphasis added).

Public Playground at Moorhouse Park

· Relocation of the play equipment would need to be new equipment to meet current standards. RMS to compensate Council for relocation/replacement (emphasis added).

Rotary Park Sign/Structure/Monument

· Rotary Park sign will be impacted by Illaroo Rd realignment; and

· RMS advised that it can discuss relocation directly with Rotary; Council requested to be involved in those discussions (following the December meeting, Council staff commenced discussions with Rotary concerning the need to relocate the monument).

Pedestrian Restraint Fencing at Rotary Park

· Fencing at Rotary Park will be impacted by Illaroo Rd realignment and bridge works; and

· All agreed that fencing can be replaced with standard RMS pedestrian fencing (at RMS’s cost).

Nowra Sign and Landscaping at Bridge Road

· RMS advised that there would be a period where the Nowra Sign would be removed for construction. The new Nowra Sign design would be completed as part of the Design and Construct contractor’s scope;

· RMS advised that Council would be consulted regarding Urban Design and Landscaping through concept and detailed design;

· Council to review current Urban Design/Landscape plan and advise any comments and considerations to be included within the Design and Construct requirements. The Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment (LCVIA) for the REF is available for download (RMS website); and

· Scope needs to address place-making and could include signage on both sides of the highway near the Bridge Road intersection.

Permission to Distribute Council flood model

· RMS requested advice on who can provide approval to distribute flood model to tenderers; and

· Council advised that its Manager Assets will discuss with internal sections for approval.

Ancillary Sites and alternative parking locations

Council land north of Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre

· Council advised that its position has not changed on this site – RMS must submit request formally to Council if site as per REF is to be considered;

· RMS proposes to modify the ancillary site to take less of the carpark and more of the area east of the carpark. RMS to provide proposal for Council to review;

· RMS advised that this proposed ancillary site is the only area that is flood immune during a 1 in 20 rainfall event and critical for storage of materials to reduce traffic and congestion around Bridge Road intersection; and

· RMS nominated an area south of the Council administration building, adjacent to the existing carpark in Harry Sawkins Park, which could potentially be used to offset the impact to parking. It’s estimated this area could provide between 100 and 200 parking spaces during construction.

Other Council land and private blocks south of Aquatic Park

· RMS has begun investigating use of these sites. Flood immunity is problematic for ancillary site use but offset carparking may be an option.

River Hotel

· RMS has advised it has commenced discussion with property owners.

Gasworks block

· Council indicated that the area of the Gasworks carpark has low current patronage and may be a suitable area. RMS to investigate use of this site.

Grey’s Beach

· Council has advised that this area is under a lot of stress during holiday periods and requested that RMS Design and Construct contractor provide a management plan for this precinct for Council approval. RMS to confirm that this can be incorporated.

Gateway Park

· Discussion around proposed new local road and impact on current designs undertaken. No actions arising.

The minutes of the December meeting were circulated internally for comment. The following is a summary of the responses received:

v Captain Cook Bicentennial Memorial

Should be referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for comment;

Interpretation information should form part of an overall interpretation strategy;

Community consultation should be undertaken by RMS and direct consultation with Shoalhaven Historical Society; and

Archival recording should be undertaken in accordance with OEH guidelines.

Summary: Report to Council required.

v Landscape Plan

Limited detail is provided on the existing mature vegetation to be retained. There are a number of Jacaranda trees located in the riverfront precinct which are quite large, and several other Jacaranda trees are located in the main streets of Nowra as well as significant Jacaranda trees located at Meroogal House (State Heritage listed property). The Jacarandas and other mature trees should be retained where possible and/or considered in the plant list for new plantings.

In general terms, there are a number of opportunities for Council staff to have an involvement in the design of landscaping including but not limited to a new “entry to Nowra” landscaping project, e.g. Moorhouse Park, Paringa Park, in addition to the Nowra entry.

Summary: There is a preference for all landscape design work to be carried out by Council at RMS’s cost.

v The draft Nowra Riverfront Leisure and Entertainment Precinct Strategic Direction and Planning Controls.

Exhibited in April 2018 and adopted by Council in September 2018 (with some changes to reflect the Bridge Design stage and flooding);

RMS should align any character assessment or urban design plans with Council’s adopted Riverfront Precinct Report and proposed Planning Controls to encourage revitalisation of the riverfront in accordance with its objectives, actions and design elements and outcomes;

The principles and strategic directions outlined in the report include possible land swaps between Council owned open space that is currently the site of the Captain Cook Memorial with private owned land that is located on the river Lot 1 DP 624434, 1 Scenic Drive so that Council has the ability to expand the size of the open space next to the river. Given that this property appears to be heavily impacted by the Nowra Bridge Project and likely acquired by RMS – RMS should discuss the possibility of additional or residue land adjoining the river being provided to Council for additional public open space.

v Alternative location for temporary car park.

The proposed temporary car park in Harry Sawkins is strongly opposed. This is an unsuitable location as it will have negative impacts on amenity in the Council building precinct. There are limited areas of public open space in and around Nowra CBD. The proposal appears to require the removal of a number of mature trees that provide shade and amenity.

There are contamination issues within Harry Sawkins Park – disturbing the surface should only be considered after further assessment has been undertaken.

Private vacant land on Bridge Road should be considered as an alternate temporary car park location.

Proposed amendments to areas to be acquired or leased by RMS.

RMS has amended plans for acquisition and leasing of Council owned land as a result of Council’s insistence that car parking north of the Entertainment Centre and the Council administration building be not alienated even if only for the duration of the construction period associated with the new bridge project.

It is acknowledged that the current RMS proposals do rely on securing access to Harry Sawkins Park for overflow parking and if that site is not available, RMS may choose to make further changes to the latest plans which have been submitted for consideration by Council.

The amendments which are not opposed are shown on the following plans. The use of Harry Sawkins Park for car parking is not supported.

General

The discussion in this report relates only to the issues discussed at the December meeting. It is acknowledged that there are other outstanding issues which are the subject of ongoing discussion and negotiation with RMS and which will be the subject of further reports to Council in due course. These matters include, but are not restricted to, the payment of compensation for land to be acquired and leased as well as the loss of amenity and infrastructure arising from the alienation of land required for the bridge project including the bridge approaches.

1.		Land shown by pink tint is to be acquired by RMS (no change).
2.		Land shown by pink tint is to be acquired by RMS and the land shown by green tint is to be leased by RMS (no change).
3.		Land shown by pink tint is to be acquired by RMS and the land shown by green tint is to be leased by RMS (no change).
4.		Land shown by pink tint is to be acquired by RMS and the land shown by green tint within the blue edged area is to be leased by RMS.
5.		Land shown by green tint is no longer required.
6.		Land shown by green tint is no longer required.
7.		Proposed use of part of Harry Sawkins Park for car park as requested by RMS

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 29 January 2019

Page 0

CL19.21 Development Application No.18/1284 – 39 Schofields Lane, Berry – Lot 6 DP 1188080

DA. No: DA18/1284/4

HPERM Ref: D19/7539

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Development Services

Attachments: 1. Development Consent - Andersons Lane, BERRY - Lot 6 - DP 1188080 ⇩

2. Planning Report – S4.15 Assessment Andersons Lane, BERRY - Lot 6 DP 1188080 (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Plans - DA18/1284 - Berry Riding Club - Andersons Lane, Berry ⇩

Description of Development: Consent is being sought for a temporary administration office and storage facility ancillary to the Shoalhaven Equestrian Centre of Excellence

Owner: Shoalhaven City Council

Applicant: Judy Sweeney - Berry Riding Club Inc

Notification Dates: Between 20 March 2018 and 04 April 2018

No. of Submissions: 1 in objection

Nil in support

Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council

The development application is being reported to the Council for its consideration and determination in accordance with the requirements of section 47E (Development on Community Land) of the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act). Under section 47E, Council cannot delegate its powers of determination to staff to consent to the carrying out of development on community land.

Recommendation

That Council determine Development Application No.18/1284, being for a temporary administration office and storage facility, by way of approval subject to conditions as contained in Attachment 1.

Options

1. Approve the Development Application (DA) in accordance with the recommendation.

Implications: Approving the DA will provide a temporary administration office and storage area in support of stage 1 of the Shoalhaven Equestrian Centre of Excellence.

2. Refuse the DA.

Implications: The applicant would have the ability to request a review of any refusal by Council and / or pursue an appeal through the NSW Land and Environment Court (L&EC).

3. Alternative recommendation.

Implications: Council will need to specify an alternative recommendation and advise staff accordingly.

Location Map

Zoning Map

Background

Council on 21 July 2015 endorsed the ‘Shoalhaven Equestrian Centre of Excellence Masterplan’ for the site which provides a starting point for the future development of the site.

Stage one works for the Shoalhaven Equestrian Centre of Excellence have been completed which was approved by Council under Development Application No.16/1203. This included the construction of two riding areas, a spectator area, storage shed, onsite car parking and temporary toilet facilities.

As this development application relates to land that has been classified as community land under the LG Act and as the proposed development does not meet the exemptions in subsection 47E(2) of the LG Act, Council has no power to delegate authority to determine the development application.

Shoalhaven Equestrian Centre of Excellence Master Plan

Proposed Development

The applicant described the application as follows in the statement of environmental effects:

The proposed development is to seek approval for a temporary administration office and storage facility on Lot 6 DP 1188080 (Andersons Lane). The temporary facility involves conversion of a previously used tourist cabin for this purpose and it is anticipated that this facility will be used for a period of 5 years and be occupied on average around 12 hrs per week. It is hoped that after 5 years a permanent facility will be provided as identified in the master plan for the site.

As mentioned above, Shoalhaven City Council has recently completed the stage one works of the Shoalhaven Equestrian Centre of Excellence and further future stages are proposed. Through establishing use of the site, the Berry Riding Club is working with the Council to deliver elements of the master plan (shown below and can be viewed in more detail at:

http://doc.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/Displaydoc.aspx?Record=D15/224866 ).

Recognising that development of the site is occurring in a staged approach, as an interim and ancillary use of the site, the Berry Riding Club requires onsite use of a temporary administration office and storage facility to adequately operate. At events, competitors are required to report to the administrative office on arrival in order to collect time sheets, armbands / back numbers, pay fees, view results, etc. Therefore, this proposed development is consistent with the intended approved use of the site.

Refer to Attachment 3 for a copy of the development application plans.

Subject Land

The subject site is known as Lot 6 DP 1188080 and is situated between Andersons and Schofields Lanes at Berry. Stage one works for the Shoalhaven Equestrian Centre of Excellence have been completed comprising the construction of two riding areas, spectator area, storage shed, onsite car parking and temporary toilet facilities.

The site has an area of 35.6 hectares with a pocket of Blue Gum forest vegetation located centrally on its western boundary and extending eastward along the two (2) unnamed watercourses that traverse the centre of the site.

Surrounding development consists primarily of rural and rural-residential land uses, senior’s housing developments and the Berry Community Church. The Princes Highway adjoins the south eastern boundary of the subject site.

Planning Assessment

The Development Application (DA) has been assessed under s4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act). Please refer to Attachment 2.

Policy Implications

Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014

Issue: Chapter G8: Onsite Sewage Management

This chapter applies to the development noting that a sewage management system includes grey water systems. Basic water services will involve connection to mains water supply for limited use only in the small kitchenette area of the facility with waste water to be collected in a 10,000l tank adjacent the building. Waste water collected in the tank will then be pumped out when the onsite temporary toilets are serviced. It is also noted that the development proposes a temporary accessible facility required to service the building.

Part 5.3 of the Chapter outlines that pump out services are made available in towns and villages in Shoalhaven where reticulated sewerage services are not available. The subject site is not currently connected to reticulated sewerage services. Regarding the service being requested and the matters for consideration within the chapter the following is noted:

- The site is zoned RU1 Primary Production under the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (SLEP) 2014. There is an existing approval over a portion of the site for an equestrian centre, being stage 1 of the development. Portable amenities have been provided for this stage of the development and will be the subject of a pump out arrangement.

- The subject site is not part of a new subdivision or new rezoning. Furthermore, the proposal is not a multi dwelling housing development.

- The proposal is for a temporary facility involving the conversion of a previously used tourist cabin for the purpose of a temporary administration office and storage facility. It is envisaged that the structure will be utilised for a period of 5 years at which time a permanent facility will be provided in accordance with the adopted master plan for the site. A condition of consent is to be imposed requiring the removal of the structures at the end of the five (5) year period.

- Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the proposal and has raised no objection to the proposed arrangement. A condition of consent is recommended: ‘The grey water generated by the kitchen and the portable amenities must be managed so as not to cause the pollution of land or waters in accordance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997’.

In this instance, given the temporary nature of the structure and the existing portable amenities that service the first stage of the equestrian centre, it is considered that the proposed pump out arrangement is worthy of Council’s support.

Consultation and Community Engagement:

One (1) public submission was received in relation to Council’s notification of the development, objecting to the development. Nil submissions were received in support of the development. The notification was made in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy with letters being sent within a 100m buffer of the site. The notification was for a two (2) week period.

Key issues raised in the submission largely relate to compliance with conditions of the development consent for DA16/1203, which approved stage 1 of the development. The issues raised are summarised and addressed in the s4.15 of the EPA Act, refer to Attachment 2.

Financial Implications:

Should the application be determined by way of approval, there is the possibility of action in the L&EC by the objector. Accordingly, there would be costs associated with such action.

Summary and Conclusion

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with section 4.15 of the EPA Act. The proposal is consistent with SLEP 2014 with particular regard for the objectives of the zone. It will provide a temporary structure to benefit the operation of the approved Shoalhaven Equestrian Centre of Excellence. The proposal is considered supportable and approval is recommended. Conditions of approval have been prepared and are provided in Attachment 1 to this report.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 29 January 2019

Page 0

CL19.22 Variations to Development Standards - Fourth Quarter Report 2018

HPERM Ref: D19/18405

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Development Services

Purpose / Summary

Council is required to consider variations to development standards (contained in an environmental planning instrument such as the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan) which exceed 10%, with lesser variations able to be dealt with by staff, under delegation.

Council is also required to report the variations to the full Council and thereafter the Department of Planning and Environment.

Recommendation

That Council receive this report for information and forward a copy of this report and attachment table to the Department of Planning and Environment in accordance with the requirements specified in Circular PS18-003 Variations to development standards.

Options

1. Receive the report for information and forward the report to the Department.

Implications: Council will be complying with the reporting provisions as detailed in Circular PS18-003 Variations to development standards.

2. Resolve an alternative and provide details to staff.

Implications: Depending on what is resolved, the Council would need to ensure compliance observing that the Department undertakes periodic audits.

Background

Function of SEPP 1 and clause 4.6 Shoalhaven Local Environment Plan (SLEP)

SEPP 1 and clause 4.6 SLEP allow flexibility in the application of development standards by allowing the consideration of development proposals that meet the objective of a development standard but not its stated value.

SEPP 1 and clause 4.6 permit an applicant to object to development standards on the grounds that they are unreasonable, unnecessary or would result in poor planning outcomes.

When the consent authority is satisfied the objection under SEPP 1 or clause 4.6 is well founded it may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment, grant consent to that Development Application (DA) notwithstanding the subject development standard.

The Secretary of the Department of Planning & Environment has delegated to councils assumed concurrence to use SEPP 1 or clause 4.6 in respect of most types of development.

Monitoring of council use of SEPP 1 and clause 4.6

Councils are required to monitor their use of the Secretary’s assumed concurrence under SEPP 1 and clause 4.6 and report to the Department of Planning and Environment on that usage on a quarterly basis. The Department has been systematically monitoring council quarterly SEPP 1 and clause 4.6 returns since June 2008.

Monitoring and auditing councils’ use of SEPP 1 and clause 4.6 enables the Department to check whether councils are keeping accurate records of the use of SEPP 1 and clause 4.6, to assess whether any particular development standards are being regularly varied by a council and may require review, and to detect anomalies (e.g. exceeding of delegations) if they are occurring.

Planning Circular PS18-003 Variations to development standards, dated 21 February 2018

The Circular states:

· “Applications for variations to development standards cannot be considered without a written application objecting to the applicable development standard and addressing the matters required to be addressed in the relevant instrument.

· A publicly available online register is to be established, and its currency maintained, of all variations to development standards approved by council or its delegates. This register must include the development application number and description, the property address, the standard to be varied and the extent of the variation.

· A report of all variations approved, either by council or its delegates, must be submitted to developmentstandards@planning.nsw.gov.au within 4 weeks of the end of each quarter (i.e. March, June, September and December). Such report must be on the form provided by the Department.

· A report of all variations approved under delegation by staff must be provided to a full council meeting at least once each quarter.”

The Circular concludes:

· “The Department will continue to carry out random audits to ensure the above monitoring and reporting measures are complied with. The Department and the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption will continue to review and refine the audit strategy.

· Should ongoing non-compliance be identified with one or more consent authorities, the Secretary will consider revoking the notice allowing concurrence to be assumed, either generally for a consent authority of for a specific type of development.”

Conclusion

Upon receipt of this report, the report and table will be provided to the Department.

The table has been published on Council’s website. As there was only one variation in the last quarter details are provided below:

Variations – 4^th Quarter, 2018

Total Cash and Investments	-$11,761,672
Grant Reserve	+$744,810	Receipt of grant income in advance of expenditure
Sewer Fund	-$2,312,771	Expenditure on projects and loan repayments
Water Fund	+$1,088,284	Normal operating cycle
Unrestricted General Fund	-$10,047,629	Not a rates instalment month, expenditure on projects and loan repayments were made in December