Agenda of Development & Environment Committee

Minutes of the Development & Environment Committee

Meeting Date: Tuesday, 5 March 2019

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

Time: 5.00pm

The following members were present:

Clr Joanna Gash - Chairperson

Clr Patricia White

Clr John Wells

Clr John Levett

Clr Nina Digiglio

Clr Annette Alldrick – arrived 5.01pm

Clr Kaye Gartner

Clr Andrew Guile – arrived 5.10pm

Clr Mitchell Pakes

Clr Greg Watson

Clr Mark Kitchener – left at 7.44pm

Clr Bob Proudfoot

Clr Russ Pigg - General Manager

Apologies / Leave of Absence

An apology was received from Clr Findley.

Confirmation of the Minutes

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr Levett) MIN19.107

That the Minutes of the Development & Environment Committee held on Tuesday 05 February 2019 be confirmed.

CARRIED

Deputations and Presentations

DE19.9 Draft citywide Shoalhaven Vegetation Vandalism Strategy

Mr Bruce McKenzie, representing Vincentia Matters, addressed the meeting and spoke in favour of the recommendation.

DE19.10 Collingwood Beach Surveillance - Vegetation Vandalism

Mr Bruce McKenzie, representing Vincentia Matters, addressed the meeting to speak in favour of the recommendation.

DE19.11: Proponent Initiated Planning Proposal - Lot 5 DP 1225356, Sealark Road, Callala Bay

Mr Patrick Mahedy, representing PRM Architects + Town Planners, addressed the meeting and spoke against the recommendation.

Mr Duncan Marshall, representing Callala Bay Community Association, addressed the meeting and spoke in favour of the recommendation.

DE19.13 Review - Planning Provisions - Tourist and Visitor Accommodation

Mr Stuart Coughlan, representing The Berry Forum, addressed the meeting and spoke against the recommendation.

Procedural Motion - Bring Item Forward

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr Digiglio) MIN19.108

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

· DE19.9 - Draft citywide Shoalhaven Vegetation Vandalism Strategy

· DE19.10 - Collingwood Beach Surveillance - Vegetation Vandalism

· DE19.11 - Proponent Initiated Planning Proposal - Lot 5 DP 1225356, Sealark Road, Callala Bay

· DE19.13 - Review - Planning Provisions - Tourist and Visitor Accommodation

CARRIED

Reports

DE19.9 Draft citywide Shoalhaven Vegetation Vandalism Strategy

HPERM Ref: D19/29905

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council;

1. Adopt the Draft Vegetation Vandalism Strategy for public exhibition;

2. Place the Draft Vegetation Vandalism Strategy on public exhibition for 28 days; and

3. Receive a report following the public exhibition outlining any submissions received and any proposed to the draft Strategy in response to submissions.

Motion (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Guile)

That Council:

1. Not place the Draft Vegetation Vandalism Strategy on public exhibition;

2. Receive the report for information.

Amendment (Clr Watson / Clr Wells)

That the matter be referred to a Councillor Workshop.

Clr Gartner raised Point of Order against Clr Guile for imputing motivations to others. The Chair ruled against.

Clr Levett raised a Point of Order against Clr Guile for deliberately offending certain residents. The Chair ruled against.

Clr Watson raised a Point of Order against Clr Digiglio for suggesting that politicians claim to be experts on scientific matters. Clr Digiglio withdrew her comment.

PROCEDURAL Motion (Clr Wells / Clr Gartner)

That the AMENDMENT be PUT.

For: Clr Gash, Clr Wells, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener and Mr Pigg

Against: Clr White, Clr Levett, Clr Guile and Clr Proudfoot

CARRIED

AMENDMENT WAS PUT (RESOLVED) (Clr Watson / Clr Wells)

That the matter be referred to a Councillor Workshop.

For: Clr Gash, Clr Wells, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener and Mr Pigg

Against: Clr White, Clr Levett, Clr Guile and Clr Proudfoot

CARRIED

The AMENDMENT became the MOTION and was declared CARRIED
(Clr Watson / Clr Wells) MIN19.109

That the matter be referred to a Councillor Workshop.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Mr Pigg

Against: Clr Levett

CARRIED

DE19.10 Collingwood Beach Surveillance - Vegetation Vandalism

HPERM Ref: D18/396803

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Install a combination of surveillance camera devices (approximately 25 in total being 15 poles with 2 cameras per pole at 50 metre intervals and 10 trail cameras) and warning signs at appropriate locations within the Collingwood Beach Foreshore Reserve subject to budget allocation;

2. Purchase some of the surveillance camera devices from any remaining funds in the Collingwood Beach Dune Vegetation Two-Year Trial Action Plan budget (15857) and consider supporting a 2019/20 budget bid to cover the cost of purchasing all 25 surveillance camera devices; and

3. Continue to allocate Ranger Unit resources to compliance and education activities and monitor vegetation vandalism at Collingwood Beach Foreshore Reserve.

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr Guile) MIN19.110

That Council not install surveillance cameras along Collingwood Beach.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Mr Pigg

Against: Clr Levett and Clr Gartner

CARRIED

DE19.11 Proponent Initiated Planning Proposal - Lot 5 DP 1225356, Sealark Road, Callala Bay

HPERM Ref: D19/32152

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Not proceed with a Planning Proposal to rezone Lot 5 DP 1225356, Sealark Road, Callala Bay to a mix of residential, recreation and environmental zones.

2. Advise the proponent and submitters of this decision.

3. Advise the proponent of the opportunity to make a submission during the upcoming public exhibition of the Shoalhaven Growth Management Strategy.

RESOLVED (Clr Gash / Clr Guile) MIN19.111

That Council:

1. Support the proponent initiated Planning Proposal request to rezone Lot 5 DP 1225356, Sealark Road, Callala Bay to a mix of residential, recreation and environmental protection zones on the basis that it is considered to be ‘minor’ in nature and significance in accordance with Council’s Planning Proposal (rezoning) Guidelines given the scale of the development that could result.

2. Submit the Planning Proposal to the NSW Department of Planning & Environment requesting the initial Gateway determination, noting that additional and updated studies will be undertaken post Gateway to support the Planning Proposal

3. Dependent on the outcome of the Gateway determination receive a further report on the Planning Proposal

4. Advise the proponents and submitters of this decision.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener and Clr Proudfoot

Against: Clr Levett, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner and Mr Pigg

CARRIED

Procedural Motion - Bring Item Forward

RESOLVED (Clr Watson / Clr Gash) MIN19.112

That the matter of item DE19.14 -DA18/1700- 57 - 61 Tahnee Street, SANCTUARY POINT - Lots 38 / 39 / 40 DP 1243551 - 90 Place Centre Based Care Facility with Associated Car Parking be brought forward for consideration after item DE19.13.

CARRIED

DE19.13 Review - Planning Provisions - Tourist and Visitor Accommodation

HPERM Ref: D19/41203

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Further investigate and consider the possibility of an amendment to Shoalhaven Local Environment Plan 2014 once the outcomes of the NSW Department of Planning and Environment’s tourist and visitor accommodation review is released, and any resulting changes to the Standard Instrument LEP are known.

2. Prepare an amendment to Chapter G15: Tourist and Visitor Accommodation of Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014.

3. Receive a further report on the proposed detail of the draft DCP amendment prior to it proceeding to public exhibition.

4. Advise relevant stakeholders, including CCBs and the Development/Tourism Industry, of this decision and engage with them during the development of the amendment.

RESOLVED (Clr Guile / Clr Gartner) MIN19.113

That Council:

1. Report the scope and content of a Planning Proposal to amend the relevant provisions of the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 related to ‘tourist and visitor accommodation’ back to Council and as part of this carry out initial consultation with relevant stakeholders.

2. Prepare an amendment to Chapter G15: Tourist and Visitor Accommodation of the Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014 and receive a further report on the proposed amendment prior to it proceeding to public exhibition.

3. Advise relevant stakeholders, including CCBs and the Development/Tourism Industry, of this decision and engage them during the preparation of the Planning Proposal and DCP amendment.

4. Staff, in further reports, consider the submission from the Berry Forum presented in the deputation to this meeting.

5. Convene a Councillor Briefing at an appropriate time.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Mr Pigg

Against: Nil

CARRIED

DE19.14 DA18/1700- 57 - 61 Tahnee Street, SANCTUARY POINT - Lots 38 / 39 / 40 DP 1243551 - 90 Place Centre Based Care Facility with Associated Car Parking

HPERM Ref: D18/405415

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That the Development Application for construction of a ninety (90) place centre-based child care centre with associated car parking on the land at 157 - 61 Tahnee Street, Sanctuary Point - Lots 38, 39 & 40 DP 1243551 be approved subject to the recommended conditions of consent contained in Attachment 2 of this report.

RESOLVED (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Pakes) MIN19.114

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Mr Pigg

Against: Nil

CARRIED

Note: The meeting adjourned, the time being 7.44pm

Note: The meeting reconvened, the time being 8.06pm

When the following members were present:

Clr Joanna Gash - Chairperson

Clr John Wells

Clr Patricia White

Clr John Levett

Clr Nina Digiglio

Clr Kaye Gartner

Clr Andrew Guile

Clr Mitchell Pakes

Clr Greg Watson

Clr Mark Kitchener

Clr Bob Proudfoot

Note: Clr Kitchener left the meeting at 7.44pm.

DE19.12 Shoalhaven DCP 2014 - Proposed Local Character Statements

HPERM Ref: D19/4280

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Commence the preparation of an amendment to Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014 to include Local Character Statements for all towns and villages to which the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code applies.

2. Receive a further report on the draft DCP amendment prior to it proceeding to public exhibition.

RESOLVED (Clr Levett / Clr Wells) MIN19.115

That Council:

2. Receive a further report on the draft DCP amendment prior to it proceeding to public exhibition.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Proudfoot and Mr Pigg

Against: Clr Watson

CARRIED

DE19.14 DA18/1700- 57 - 61 Tahnee Street, Sanctuary Point - Lots 38 / 39 / 40 DP 1243551 - 90 Place Centre Based Care Facility with Associated Car Parking

HPERM Ref: D18/405415

Item dealt with earlier in the meeting see MIN19.114

DE19.15 Outcome - Industry Consultation - Design Review Panel Establishment

HPERM Ref: D19/11649

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Support the expansion of the Wollongong Design Review Panel for use by other Councils in the Illawarra-Shoalhaven region, including Shoalhaven,

2. Trial the referral of certain development applications to the Wollongong Design Review Panel for advice.

3. Receive a 12 month review report on the operation and use of this approach.

4. Thank those who provided feedback and advise them of Council’s resolution on this matter.

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Guile) MIN19.116

That

1. Council defer consideration of the establishment of a design review panel pending an industry forum / information session, the outcome of which will inform a further report to enable Council to determine this matter.

2. The industry forum / information session and subsequent report be held and prepared in a time frame which enables resolution of this matter no later than the April Ordinary meeting of Council.

For: Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Guile, Clr Pakes and Clr Watson

Against: Clr Gash, Clr Proudfoot and Mr Pigg

CARRIED

DE19.16 Development Application – 132 Forster Drive, Bawley Point – Lot 21 & DP 1217069

HPERM Ref: D19/43497

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Confirm that it supports the proposed variation, under clause 4.6 of Shoalhaven Local Environment Plan 2014, to the 11m maximum building height to allow for the lighting facilities to a maximum 19.0m in height,

2. Refer the application back to staff for determination

RESOLVED (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Wells) MIN19.117

That Council:

2. Refer the application back to staff for determination

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Proudfoot and Mr Pigg

Against: Nil

CARRIED

DE19.17 Draft Sustainable Energy Policy

HPERM Ref: D19/58555

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That the draft Sustainable Energy Policy (attached) be placed on public exhibition for 28 days and a further report be provided to Council on the results of that exhibition.

RESOLVED (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Alldrick) MIN19.118

That the draft Sustainable Energy Policy (attached) be placed on public exhibition for 28 days and a further report be provided to Council on the results of that exhibition.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Guile, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Proudfoot and Mr Pigg

Against: Nil

CARRIED

There being no further business, the meeting concluded, the time being 8.36pm.

Clr Gash

CHAIRPERSON

Development & Environment Committee – Tuesday 02 April 2019

Page 1

DE19.18 Update - Planning Proposal - Lot 4 DP83425, Beach Road, Berry

HPERM Ref: D19/40102

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Strategic Planning

Attachments: 1. Draft DCP N28 - Beach Road, Berry ⇩

Purpose / Summary

Provide an update on this Planning Proposal (PP) and seek direction on obtaining an amended Gateway determination. Given the nature of the site, the report also presents a draft supporting Development Control Plan (DCP) chapter and seeks a resolution to exhibit it concurrently with the PP upon completion of the Gateway requirements.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Amend the Planning Proposal (PP) for Lot 4 DP83425, Beach Road, Berry to:

a. Reflect the revised maps provided with the report; and

b. List the Aboriginal Scarred Tree identified on the site as an item of Aboriginal Heritage

2. Submit the revised PP to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for consideration as required by the Gateway determination.

3. Undertake the necessary Government Agency consultation prior to public exhibition as required by the Gateway determination.

4. Prepare a draft site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) chapter to support the PP.

5. Publicly exhibit the PP and supporting draft DCP chapter, subject to completion of the above matters.

6. Advise the proponent of this resolution.

Options

1. Proceed with the PP and new supporting DCP chapter as recommended.

Implications: This will allow the PP to proceed to exhibition and will also seek to set the subject land for a future subdivision that is responsive to the constraints of the land. This is the recommended option. Note: a specific resolution to prepare the DCP amendment is necessary to ensure it is legally created.

2. Proceed with a PP that is based on provisions in the original request.

Implications: This would see the PP potentially proceeding without provisions to address the constraints of the land. This will create less certainty for the developer and the community and as such is not recommended.

3. Proceed with the PP subject to other amendments.

Implications: Further advice can be provided if other amendments are considered warranted.

4. Defer the consideration of the PP for additional Aboriginal Heritage advice.

Implications: At time of writing this report further advice is pending in relation to Aboriginal heritage. This advice may be received prior to the Committee meeting. If this occurs and the advice alters the recommendation of this report, further information will be provided. If this advice is not received prior to the meeting, the Committee may wish to consider deferring this item.

Background

Subject Land

Council initially received a proponent-initiated PP request for Lot 4 DP 834254 Beach Road, Berry on 3 October 2015.

The request was submitted originally by Michael Brown Planning Strategies on behalf of owner EN Hall. The Proponent is now Allen Price & Scarratts Pty Ltd for Hall.

The subject land is located east of the township of Berry as shown in the figure below:

The request sought to rezone the land from:

· RU1 - Primary Production, and

· E2 - Environmental Conservation

To:

· R5 - Large Lot Residential,

· E1 - National Parks and Nature Reserves,

· E2 – Environmental Conservation, and

· E3 - Environmental Management.

It is proposed that the part of the land within the Coomonderry Swamp would be dedicated to the NSW government and incorporated into the Seven Mile Beach National Park as an outcome of the rezoning. The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) have reached an agreement in principle with the landowner for a planning agreement to facilitate this transfer.

History

Following lodgement of the PP request Council sought initial community feedback. Council’s Development Committee considered a report on this PP on 18 January 2016 and resolved under delegation to:

a) Give in principle support for the proposed rezoning of Lot 4 DP 834254, Beach Road, Berry and submit a revised Planning Proposal to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway determination, subject to:

i) Revision of the proposed minimum lot size to ensure the size of future lots is consistent with adjacent subdivisions and can adequately accommodate on site effluent disposal;

ii) Revision of the proposed zoning to ensure appropriate environmental zoning for the swamp and buffer area and other ecologically significant areas on the subject land including, but not limited to, protection of Coomonderry Swamp/SEPP 14 wetland and ecologically significant areas such as the patch of forest known as “Jim’s Forest” and Berry Wildlife Corridor.

iii) Development to be limited to the north of the ridgeline (i.e. no dwellings south of the ridge) to minimise any potential impact on Coomonderry Swamp, to maintain the integrity of the ridgeline, and to be consistent with the planning outcomes of the adjacent sites

iv) Resolution of the proposed transfer of land to National Parks and Wildlife Service, and the possible need for a Voluntary Planning Agreement.

b) Advise the proponent and those who submitted comments of this resolution, noting the opportunity for formal comment later in the process; and

c) Receive a further report following the Gateway determination, if necessary.

Following this resolution, the proponent opted to pursue a pre-Gateway review of the PP and Council’s decision. This review was undertaken by the then Southern Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP). The JRPP’s advice was provided to the NSW Minister for Planning in November 2016 and it did not contradict the Council resolution.

Work recommenced on the PP in March 2017 and it was submitted for a Gateway determination in April 2017. The Gateway determination was subsequently received in June 2017 and it required a range of information to be updated or prepared prior to public exhibition.

Accordingly, Council staff proceeded to address the conditions of the Gateway determination, working with the proponent, to prepare the PP for public exhibition.

LEP Maps

The PP has been revised in accordance with the Council resolution and the various specialist studies that have now been prepared or updated. For comparison, the current LEP maps and the proposed LEP maps for inclusion in the PP are provided below:

Current and Proposed Zoning

Current and Proposed Minimum Lot Size

The proposed LEP mapping changes are outlined in the table below, along with an explanation for each change.

Change	Explanation
Apply E1 – National Parks and Nature Reserves Zone to part of the subject land.	The proponent and NPWS have reached an agreement on the land to be dedicated as an extension of Seven Mile Beach National Park. This land is proposed to be zoned E1.
Apply E2 – Environmental Conservation Zone to land between the ridge line and the E1 zone.	This land drains to Coomonderry Swamp and warrants a higher level of environmental protection than the land on the northern side of the ridge line. This is consistent with the zoning approach on adjoining land.
Apply E3 – Environmental Management Zone to the constrained land that will be retained in private ownership.	Land affected by one or more of the following constraints is proposed to be zoned E3: - Land with poor soil for wastewater management - Areas close to a watercourse - Areas close to a bore or natural spring - Areas with significant native vegetation including “Jim’s Forest” - Areas of Aboriginal Archaeological Potential The proposed DCP chapter (draft attached) that will support the PP will provide additional guidance to ensure eventual development responds to these values.
Apply R5 – Large Lot Residential Zone to part of the subject land.	The remainder of the land is relatively unconstrained and is suitable for a large lot residential zoning.
Apply no minimum lot size to part of the subject land to be zoned E1.	The part to be zoned E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves does not require a ‘minimum lot size’ in the LEP and so none is proposed.
Apply a 4 ha minimum lot size to part of the subject land known as “Jim’s Forest”.	The NSW Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH) in consultation has requested that the PP prevent the subdivision of “Jim’s Forest” into more than one lot. To achieve this, a 5 ha minimum lot size is proposed for this part of the land.
Apply a 1 ha minimum lot size to land north of the ridge line, excluding “Jim’s Forest”.	This will enable development that is generally consistent with the existing rural residential developments on either side of the site.
Apply a 2 ha minimum lot size to land between the ridge line and the E1 zone.	A larger lot size on the southern side of the ridge is necessary to ensure the subdivision responds to the site constraints and environmental values, and to ensure that the resulting lots that extend onto the southern side of the ridge have an appropriate width and a development area outside of the catchment of the Coomonderry Swamp catchment.

Aboriginal Heritage

The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment of the land made two significant finds.

Firstly, an area of Aboriginal Archaeological Potential was found along the ridge that separates the catchments of Coomonderry Swamp to the south and Foys Swamp to the north. The extent of the Aboriginal Archaeological Potential area that is north of the ridge is proposed to be zoned E3 with appropriate provisions being incorporated into the DCP to ensure that this is properly investigated prior to any actual development being undertaken.

Secondly, an Aboriginal Scarred Tree was found within the part of the subject land identified for development. The assessment report recommended that this tree be listed in the LEP as a heritage item because of its heritage significance. The location of the tree is shown in the figure below:

The tree was however subsequently struck by lightning while this PP was under assessment and the scars were significantly damaged. At the time of writing this report a further report was pending to help determine whether the remains of the tree still warrant heritage listing. If this revised report is received prior to the Committee Meeting, further advice will be provided for consideration at the meeting.

Development Control Plan (DCP) Chapter

As outlined earlier in this report, the site is subject to several important environmental and Aboriginal cultural heritage values that need to be recognised and managed in future development. Thus, in addition to the LEP provisions, it is also proposed to have a supporting DCP Chapter that helps identify and protect these values. This will ensure they are given appropriate consideration at the subsequent development application stage. The draft proposed chapter is attached to this report (see Attachment 1).

To comply with legislative requirements in this regard It is also recommended that the Committee resolve to prepare and exhibit the DCP chapter. The exhibition will occur alongside the PP.

Gateway Determination Conditions

The Gateway determination requires Council to include a range of information in the PP prior to community consultation to address potential impacts of the proposal. The determination also requires the NSW Department of Planning & Environment to consider the revised proposal prior to community consultation. As such, should Council resolve to proceed as recommended, then the required engagement with DP&E will occur prior to the formal community consultation.

Community Engagement

Initial community feedback was sought in November 2015, when the proponent’s original PP request was first submitted to Council. No further community engagement has been undertaken since the first Council resolution on this matter.

It is considered that this PP is sufficiently advanced to be able to be publicly exhibited subject to confirmation from the DP&E that the conditions of the Gateway determination have been met. Assuming this is the case, it is recommended that Council place this PP and the supporting draft DCP chapter on formal exhibition once the required Government agency feedback is received.

Financial Implications

This PP is being funded by the proponent on a 100% cost recovery basis in accordance with Council’s adopted Planning Proposal Guidelines and associated Fees and Charges.

Development & Environment Committee – Tuesday 02 April 2019

Page 1

DE19.19 Draft Planning Proposal - Review of Subdivision Provisions - Shoalhaven LEP 2014

HPERM Ref: D19/59990

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Strategic Planning

Attachments: 1. Review of Subdivision Provisions Planning Proposal (PP027) (under separate cover) ⇨

Purpose / Summary

Obtain endorsement to submit the Review of Subdivision Provisions Planning Proposal (PP027) to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) for a Gateway determination.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Endorse the Review of Subdivision Provisions Planning Proposal (PP027) (Attachment 1) and submit it to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway determination.

2. Following receipt of the Gateway determination, exhibit PP027 as per legislative and Gateway determination requirements.

3. Receive a further report following the conclusion of the public exhibition period.

4. Advise key stakeholders of this decision, including relevant Community Consultative Bodies and Development Industry representatives.

Options

1. As recommended.

Implications: This is the preferred option as it will enable Council to respond to the changing nature of medium density development and subdivision through an amendment to Shoalhaven LEP 2014. The amendment will also involve rezoning 718 lots that are currently zoned R2 Low Density Residential to R5 Large Lot Residential to adequately reflect the prevailing large lot character of the land. Further, medium density development in the localities of Greenwell Point, Kangaroo Valley, Bawley Point, Kioloa, Depot Beach and Durras North which are subject to flooding, bushfire, isolation and servicing constraints, will also be better managed via the development assessment process following their proposed exclusion from Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code (the Code) in State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008.

2. Adopt an alternative recommendation.

Implications: This will depend on the extent of any changes and could postpone the amendments to Shoalhaven LEP 2014. In this regard it is noted that this matter has already been the subject of two (2) Councillor briefing workshops and a forum with Development Industry representatives.

3. Not adopt the recommendation.

Implications: This could stop or postpone the implementation of amendments to Shoalhaven LEP 2014. This option is not preferred as the relevant subdivision provisions in Shoalhaven LEP 2014 may not be amended and 718 large residential lots across Shoalhaven will retain a R2 Low Density Residential zone which does not adequately reflect the prevailing large lot character of the land. Further, medium density development in the localities of Greenwell Point, Kangaroo Valley, Bawley Point, Kioloa, Depot Beach and Durras North may be considered under the complying development process, which raises concerns in relation to flooding, bushfire, isolation and servicing constraints.

Background

Shoalhaven LEP 2014 includes a number of provisions relating to the subdivision of land which address the three main titling systems; Torrens, strata and community.

Following the commencement of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 in April 2014, there has been some concern that the current Torrens minimum lot size provisions are too large for certain approvable medium density development in urban zoned areas. In response, strata and community subdivision has increased in popularity as there are limited lot size restrictions for these titling options. Under Shoalhaven’s current LEP provisions, relevant existing residential development in an R1, R2, B4 or SP3 zone can be strata or community subdivided with resulting lots being less than that prescribed by the relevant minimum lot size map.

Shoalhaven LEP 2014 also enables the Torrens subdivision of medium density development in relevant circumstances via a number of principal development standards in the plan as outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: Medium density Torrens subdivision provisions in Shoalhaven LEP 2014

Shoalhaven LEP 2014 Clause

Minimum lot size for subdivision

4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size

Torrens only. As per the associated lot size maps. Subdivision can occur prior to development.

4.1A Exceptions to minimum lot sizes for dual occupancies and multi dwelling housing

Enables Torrens lots smaller than prescribed by clause 4.1. Subdivision can only occur after development has been carried out.

Dual occupancy:

Area identified on the lot size map

Minimum area

Area 1:

Bomaderry, North Nowra, Nowra, West Nowra, Worrigee, South Nowra, St Georges Basin, Sanctuary Point, Huskisson, Vincentia, Sussex Inlet, Mollymook Beach, Mollymook, Ulladulla.

350m²

Area 2:

Shoalhaven Heads, Greenwell Point, Culburra Beach, Callala Bay, Callala Beach.

400m²

Multi dwelling housing:

· R1 zone – 350m².

4.1C Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot sizes for certain residential development

Enables Torrens lots smaller than prescribed by clause 4.1. Single application in the R1 zone that considers both:

· Subdivision of land into 3 or more lots; and

· Erection of dwelling house, attached dwelling or semi-detached dwelling on each lot resulting from the subdivision where each lot is greater than 350m².

Generally, it is unusual for medium density development to be Torrens subdivided at present under clause 4.1 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014. Torrens subdivision will usually occur under clause 4.1A or 4.1C depending on the land use type. Importantly, a subdivision of this nature occurs either after the development has been carried out, or where the subdivision and actual development is considered in a single application.

In June 2016, Council staff undertook a review to consider, in part, the appropriateness of Torrens, community and strata title subdivision of dual occupancy development. The review essentially concluded that the actual subdivision and its form does not change the appearance of development as it usually occurs later. However, consideration should be given to the timely inclusion of revised design controls in Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014 to improve the standard of the finished development. As such, Council has recently adopted Chapter G13 of Shoalhaven DCP 2014 which provides revised design provisions for medium density development (including dual occupancy development).

Inevitably most medium density development will be subdivided at some point and it would be unreasonable to not allow this, particularly given that the physical development exists in most cases. If there are limited restrictions for strata and community title subdivision, the inequity of not allowing Torrens subdivision is questioned. There appears to be little point in permitting medium density development in urban areas and not allowing its possible subsequent subdivision under the Torrens system, provided the relevant outcomes are met. As such, the draft planning proposal (PP) seeks to lift the restriction on the subdivision of medium density development via the Torrens system.

In response to removing Torrens restrictions for lawful medium density development, it is also considered prudent to set a minimum lot size prior to the erection of a medium density development to assist the outcome in this regard.

Thus, on 17 July 2017, Council’s Development Committee resolved (MIN17.611) to prepare a PP to amend Shoalhaven LEP 2014 to facilitate this.

In setting minimum lot sizes, the appropriateness of an R2 Low Density Residential zoning for certain large lot residential land in Shoalhaven was questioned. The PP therefore proposes to also rezone certain R2 land to R5 Large Lot Residential. The exclusion of certain residential land from the Code was also explored and six villages are proposed for exclusion.

The intent and content of the PP has been refined following two Councillor workshops (15 October 2018 and 10 December 2018) and a Forum with key Development Industry representatives on 5 November 2018.

Planning Proposal (PP027)

The draft PP (Attachment 1) intends to amend Shoalhaven LEP 2014 as outlined in Table 2 below. The table contains a summary of each proposed change and related commentary. The draft PP contains further detail.

Table 2: Explanation of PP027 Provisions – Shoalhaven LEP 2014

Intended outcome

Commentary

Instrument

Include a new sub clause in clause 4.1 to clarify that for the purpose of calculating the area of a battle-axe lot, an access handle is excluded from the calculation.

There is a need to clarify in the LEP that although the Lot Size Map specifies a minimum lot size for subdivision, the calculation of lot size for battle axe lots is to exclude the access handle.

The exclusion of access handles from the calculation of lot size ensures that lots have sufficient area to accommodate future development including requirements for setbacks, private open space, car parking etc. Battle-axe lots also do not benefit from the public open space (such as the nature strip) that lots fronting onto a road benefit from.

Various Standard Instrument LEPs across NSW contain a similar subclause.

Replace existing clause 4.1A with a minimum lot size for the parent lot prior to the erection of a dual occupancy, manor house, multi dwelling housing, multi dwelling housing (terraces) or residential flat building.

New clause 4.1A also seeks to lift the restriction on Torrens subdivision via clause 4.1 following lawful medium density development.

Following the review, the focus has changed from a minimum lot size for the resulting subdivision to a minimum lot size approach for the erection of medium density development.

A minimum lot size for the ‘parent lot’ is proposed, as follows:

Column 1	Column 2	Column 3
Dual occupancy (attached)	Zone R1 General Residential; Zone R2 Low Density Residential; Zone RU5 Village	500 square metres
Dual occupancy (detached)	Zone R1 General Residential; Zone R2 Low Density Residential; Zone RU5 Village	700 square metres
Multi dwelling housing Multi dwelling housing (terraces) Manor house Residential flat building	Zone R1 General Residential; Zone R3 Medium Density Residential; Zone RU5 Village	900 square metres

The proposed clause 4.1A is similar to the NSW Government’s Standard Instrument model provision 4.1B Minimum lot sizes for dual occupancy, multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings.

The clause will also enable Council to respond to the Code, specifically clauses 3B.8, 3B.21 and 3B.33, by setting a minimum lot size which can be applied to medium density complying development.

The proposed clause will also act to lift the restriction on Torrens subdivision via clause 4.1 following lawful medium density development (excluding residential flat buildings).

Note: The table does not include a minimum lot size for a dual occupancy (attached or detached) in the R3 zone to avoid conflict with current clause 4.1B. The purpose of clause 4.1B is to retain larger sites where possible/relevant for higher density development and as such, existing clause 4.1B prescribes a maximum lot size for a dual occupancy development in the R3 zone.

Amend clause 4.1C relating to dwellings, attached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings to reduce the minimum lot size for resulting lots to 300m².

Clause 4.1C of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 enables the Torrens subdivision of dwellings, attached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings to a minimum lot size of 350m², where there is a single application for both construction and subdivision (i.e. integrated development with 3 or more lots) in the R1 General Residential zone. This numerical standard is considered to be overly onerous in the R1 zone as it limits the ability to achieve the clause objective “to encourage housing diversity”.

A reduction in the minimum lot size of resulting lots to 300m² would be more consistent with the Codes SEPP Subdivision Code, as well as a number of other comparable and surrounding council Standard Instrument LEPs (e.g. Eurobodalla, Goulburn-Mulwaree, Maitland).

Include term ‘battle-axe’ in the Dictionary.

The proposed amendment to Clause 4.1 introduces the term “battle-axe lot” into Shoalhaven LEP 2014 for the first time. As such, it is considered important to define this term. A number of other Councils’ Standard Instrument LEP’s contain a similar definition.

Mapping

Amend all relevant Lot Size Maps to remove the clause 4.1A layer.

The deletion of the clause 4.1A layer supports the deletion of existing clause 4.1A.

Rezone certain R2 Low Density Residential land in the following locations to R5 Large Lot Residential: Berry, Bomaderry, Bangalee, Tapitallee, North Nowra, Worrowing Heights, Bewong, St Georges Basin, Conjola Park, Milton, Lake Tabourie.

In setting the minimum lot sizes in this regard, the appropriateness of an R2 Low Density Residential zoning for certain large lot residential land in Shoalhaven was questioned.

The subject land in question was predominantly zoned for rural residential or low density residential under the previous Shoalhaven LEP 1985. These lots were characterised as having a limited range of permissible land uses and relatively large lot sizes. Through the draft Shoalhaven LEP 2009 process, the land was initially proposed to be zoned R5 Large Lot residential.

All the land was however ultimately zoned R2 through the finalisation of SLEP 2014 predominantly due to Council’s concerns regarding the ability for landowners to clear their land. The Native Vegetation Act 2003 (NV Act) placed a number of restrictions on R5 land that were considered onerous. As a result of the recent Biodiversity Reforms, the NV Act has been repealed and there are generally fewer restrictions for clearing trees/vegetation on R5 land, than there are on R2 land. Refer to the “Risk Implications” section of this Report for further commentary.

It is also noted that an R5 zoning would trigger clause 4.2D of SLEP 2014 which requires a lot to have a dwelling entitlement prior to the erection of a dwelling house or dual occupancy (4.2D(3)). This clause also considers replacement dwellings (4.2D(5)). It is intended that all lots would retain a dwelling entitlement in this regard.

As the land continues to depict low density large lot characteristics, it is an appropriate time to reconsider the zoning of this land to maintain this character into the future.

The proposed mapping can be viewed at Section 5 (Part 4) of the draft PP at Attachment 1.

The draft PP (Attachment 1) also intends to amend the Codes SEPP as outlined in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Explanation of PP027 Provisions – The Codes SEPP

Intended outcome

Commentary

Exclude certain land in the following locations from the Code via Schedule 5 (‘Complying Local Exclusion’ mapping):

· Greenwell Point, Kangaroo Valley, Bawley Point, Kioloa, Depot Beach, Durras North.

It is considered that the Code is appropriate for application in the majority of Shoalhaven’s 49 towns and villages; however, there are six locations subject to significant constraints, including flooding, bushfire, isolation and servicing constraints, that would benefit from an exclusion to the Code.

This means that complying development for medium density forms of development could not be considered under the Code; however, medium density development may still be considered via the development applications stream.

Detailed justification in support of the exclusion areas can be viewed at Section 3.2 of the draft PP at Attachment 1; and the proposed mapping can be viewed at Section 5 (Part 4).

Conclusion

The PP will enable the existing provisions in Shoalhaven LEP 2014 to be refined and brought in line with industry expectations, whilst responding to recent amendments to NSW Government medium density policy.

The recommendation will enable the PP to be submitted to DP&E for a Gateway determination.

Community Engagement

Preliminary Consultation

On 5 November 2018, Council staff held a Forum with key Development Industry representatives to gauge industry opinion regarding the scope of this PP. Of the 87 representatives invited, 13 attended (15%); with Councillors Digiglio, Watson and Gash also in attendance.

Following the Forum, a copy of the presentation was sent to all industry attendees providing further opportunity to consider the content and provide feedback. Three submissions were received as a result.

The matters raised in the Forum and subsequent submissions were discussed at the 10 December 2018 Councillor briefing, and have in part informed the intent and content of the PP.

Public Exhibition

Subject to a favourable Gateway determination, the PP would be formally exhibited for comment in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Policy to ‘inform’ and ‘consult’, and the relevant legislative requirements. The documentation would be exhibited at the Nowra Administrative Building for a period of at least 28 days. Documentation would also be available on Council’s website and at the Ulladulla Administrative Building.

The Gateway determination would also potentially specify any government agencies with whom Council must consult.

Community Consultative Bodies (CCBs) and Development Industry representatives would also be advised of the future formal exhibition arrangements. This will give the Development Industry (and others) a further opportunity to provide input in this regard before the matter is finalised.

Policy Implications

The proposed new clause 4.1A represents a change in how medium density development and subdivision is considered in Shoalhaven. It is noted that the approach of setting a minimum lot size prior to medium density development is well documented throughout NSW and was generally supported by the Development Industry representatives who attended the 5 November 2018 Forum.

Financial Implications

Based on the recommended approach, there are no immediate financial implications for Council as this matter is being resourced within the existing Strategic Planning budget.

Risk Implications

Rezoning – Biodiversity

Approximately 45 (6%) of the 718 lots proposed to be rezoned to R5 are constrained by the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage’s (OEH) Biodiversity Values Map. Unlike R2 land, any R5 land identified as having Biodiversity Values may need to apply the Biodiversity Assessment Method (BAM) to assess the associated impacts. This will determine whether a proponent would be required to enter the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (BOS) or not. Application of the BAM must be completed by an “accredited person” under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act” and entry into the BOS may involve a cost and delay in processing for applicants, with any credits generated having to be “retired’ prior to a development commencing. It is noted that a BAM assessment is not required if the development is located beyond the Biodiversity Values area identified on the Biodiversity Values Map. This is an important qualification and for this reason, the majority of the 45 lots should be relatively unaffected. A limited number of lots at Bangalee, Worrowing Heights and St Georges Basin are more heavily constrained by Biodiversity Values; however, it is likely that these lots would be captured by the other threshold levels (e.g. area clearing threshold and ‘test of significance’) which would result in the same outcome (i.e. application of the BAM and offsetting required). Note: A landowner may request that OEH review the Biodiversity Value layer of their land with sufficient justification.

Recently land in stage 1A of the Tallimba Road, Bangalee subdivision has been certified under clause 34A of the Biodiversity Conservation (Savings and Transitional) Regulation 2017. This means that land in this location now has an exemption from the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and future development will be assessed under the former planning provisions (i.e. NV Act and Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995). As such, this land will not be adversely impacted by the proposed rezoning.

Excluding certain land from the Code

There are six locations across Shoalhaven (Greenwell Point, Kangaroo Valley, Bawley Point, Kioloa, Depot Beach, Durras North) that are subject to significant constraints, including flooding, bushfire, isolation and servicing constraints. The PP seeks to exclude these locations from the Code via Schedule 5 (‘Complying Local Exclusion’ mapping) which will enable associated risks to be more closely managed via the development assessment process.

Development & Environment Committee – Tuesday 02 April 2019

Page 1

DE19.20 Sustainability Program Update

HPERM Ref: D19/58433

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Environmental Services

Attachments: 1. Sustainability Advantage - Management Diagnostic - Sustainability Workshop - Action Plan Report SCC Feb 19 - FINAL - 12 March 2019 ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To provide an update to Council regarding the Sustainability Advantage Program and the outcome of the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH) Management Diagnostic (Sustainability Workshop).

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Adopt the recommendations outlined in the report – Attachment 1.

2. Endorse the development of a Sustainability Policy for Council.

3. Endorse the development of a Sustainability Action Plan for Council.

4. Authorise the General Manager (Director Planning, Environment & Development) to establish a reference Group consisting of interested Councillors and appropriate staff to advance 1, 2 and 3 above, and that at least quarterly progress reports are provided to Council.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendations in the report

Implications: Adopting key recommendations made in the report would improve integration, coordination and the effectiveness of sustainability across the organisation. It will allow Council to endorse a reference Group composed of Councillors, senior management and key members of staff to further develop a Sustainability Policy that is consistent with the organisation’s core values and community’s needs. The development and implementation of a Sustainability Action Plan will then follow, with a long-term focus on being economically conservative, improving the local environment and supporting development within the Shoalhaven community.

2. Adopt an alternative recommendation

Implications: This would have varied implication(s) depending on the nature of the alternative recommendation.

Background

The Sustainability Advantage Program is coordinated through the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH) and is assisting Local Governments, non-government organisations (NGOs) and businesses across New South Wales to achieve increased competitiveness and improved bottom lines through resource efficiency, staff engagement and sustainable business planning.

‘Sustainability Advantage’ has been running for over a decade, and now has participation from over 500 organisations (including Councils), providing a broad support network for organisations to strategically plan and work effectively to achieve sustainable resource management and improved environmental outcomes. OEH report that participants are saving a combined $95 million a year through the program:

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/sustainabilityadvantage/

Shoalhaven City Council has been an active member in Sustainability Advantage over the last 12 months, joining the program in March 2018. A Strategic Review of Council’s Sustainability Program was provided to Council in November 2018 – providing broad analysis of Council’s approach to sustainability and subsequent recommendations to improve the focus of sustainability across the organisation.

Council resolved on 18 December 2018 (MIN18.953) to hold a Management Diagnostic (Sustainability Workshop) facilitated by a Senior Project Officer from the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage. The intention of the Workshop was to identify key issues, actions and priorities for the organisation surrounding its understanding and approach to sustainability.

Sustainability not only includes environmental sustainability but includes but is not limited to health, wellbeing, and economic growth, and therefore relates to services and business across the organisation and how we can deliver this in a more efficient, effective, socially, environmentally and economically responsible manner.

Progress on Actions

Management Diagnostic (Sustainability Workshop)

The NSW Office of Environment & Heritage facilitated a Management Diagnostic (Sustainability Workshop) on 4 February 2019 held at the Shoalhaven City Council Administration Building. The Workshop was attended by more than a dozen senior management level staff (attendee list provided in Attachment 1: Sustainability Advantage Management Diagnostic Action Plan Report 2019).

The purpose of the Sustainability Workshop was to share information and gain insight into Council’s understanding of and approach to local and regional sustainability, and to measure the level of focus given to sustainability throughout the organisation.

The Workshop was designed to look at sustainability across six key areas of Council:

· Leadership & Management Systems

· Customer Needs

· Procurement

· Operations

· Human Resources

· Risk & Compliance

The Management Diagnostic was conducted similarly to a SWOT analysis, to identify strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and the positive and negative factors relating to matters of local and regional sustainability across the organisation.

A question and answer session directed at senior management of Council included healthy discussion and provided substantial information and insight into the organisation’s understanding of and approach to sustainability. Examples of some of the questions included in the Management Diagnostic are shown listed below:

BUSINESS SYSTEM	EXAMPLE QUESTION	LEVEL
Leadership and management systems	‘We have a written policy or statement that describes what sustainability means for our business’	2
Operations	‘Data is collected and reported on regularly to measure our performance against our targets.’	3
Customer Needs	‘We have a good understanding of what our customers and community want from us as a sustainable business.’	2
Human Resources	‘Staff have a good understanding of how they can support our sustainability priorities and goals.’	2
Procurement and Logistics	‘We give preference to suppliers that provide environmentally sustainable alternatives.’	3
Risk & Compliance	‘We have a range of policies, procedures and programs in place to ensure we comply with all relevant environmental regulatory requirements.’	2

The diagnostic design allows an organisation to progress through a series of questions and statements in each target area of Council and allows participants (by way of a ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘maybe’ as a response). These responses, and subsequent discussions, reflected the extent to which sustainability is integrated into Council’s key functions and processes. As shown in Attachment 1, Council’s performance in the diagnostic is reflected in the results.

Results & Key Findings

The results of the management diagnostic workshop identified a number of strengths:

· Council has implemented a number of innovative sustainability projects across the organisation such as the REMS scheme and the proposed state-of-the-art resource recovery facility

· Ongoing examples of productivity improvements

· Strong sustainability engagement with the local community

Some of the key findings from the workshop include:

· On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the lowest score and 5 is the highest, Council scored between 1 and 3 across all six key areas (‘low to average’).

· Although Council’s performance in the diagnostic was ‘low to average’ and indicates room for improvement in almost all areas, the overall score was an accurate reflection of Council’s understanding of and approach to sustainability – this allows for areas needing improvement to be highlighted and addressed.

· Compared to other regional Councils in NSW, Shoalhaven City Council’s progress on sustainability is largely reactive. This creates an opportunity for Council to take a strategic and proactive approach by setting meaningful sustainability objectives that are bound by achievable targets resulting in substantial improvements across the organisation.

· Renewed commitment to local and regional sustainability from senior management is required.

· The organisation does not have a definition of sustainability. This prevents effective planning and delivery of coordinated sustainability initiatives.

· Council has demonstrated that it does have the capacity to develop effective local and regional sustainable initiatives through, for example, the Waste Management Service’s Proposed Resource Recovery Facility (using a mechanical heat treatment process), the implementation of Shoalhaven Water’s REMS Scheme and the Disability Inclusion Action Plan.

· Council has demonstrated the ability to develop and implement effective local and regional sustainable procurement policies and procedures. There may also be room for improvement through amending this policy to allow Council to better support local businesses.

· Communication of Council’s sustainability priorities and initiatives ought to be communicated more effectively to new staff and contractors. Sustainability training for key staff could be beneficial in spreading sustainability throughout the organisation. Recognition of staff who actively support and develop sustainability initiatives through a rewards program would increase staff engagement and encourage sustainability through the organisation.

· Ongoing, and perhaps increased support from Council and senior management for community-led sustainability programs would maintain, and potentially increase, the level of community engagement.

· Broad targets were set for energy and water quite some time ago; the need to update these targets is long overdue.

· Energy and water data on specific Council-owned facilities (Pools, Visitor Centre, Shoalhaven Water Assets) is provided to Council on a quarterly basis through Planet Footprint. However, the analysis of data and Council’s overall energy performance has not been conducted – this point was raised (and agreed upon) by senior management at the Workshop who described this as a ‘missed opportunity’ for Shoalhaven Water’s Energy Management team who are currently contracted short-term to analyse and improve Council’s overall water and energy performance off the back of having full access to such data.

· The need to conduct regular audits of water, energy and waste is essential to identify areas for improvement and quantify the cost and material savings of said improvements – this was also described as a missed opportunity by senior management.

· Council staff value the need for additional resources to implement effective local and regional sustainability initiatives through the development of a strong business case quantifying cost and material savings.

· The most effective approach to developing and achieving sustainability goals and targets must be made from a local/regional perspective. This should be done by assessing the needs of the local region, the local environment and the local community. This would ensure goals and targets are directly related to local and regional needs.

· Council could investigate the use of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals as part of a regional project with the Illawarra Shoalhaven Joint Organisation (ISJO), for example, to determine if they are relevant or applicable to our region or our community.

· Effectively, the best approach to creating local/regional sustainable goals and/or targets, would be to use an internal reference group comprised of Councillors, Senior Management and key staff to work together and plan, develop and implement relevant, applicable and achievable targets and goals that best serve the local community, the local environment, and our Council.

These findings provide a summary of areas where Council is doing well, and highlights opportunities. A coordinated approach by a cross-section of key staff, management and Councillors would be required to adequately address sustainability matters for Council and the community.

Recommendations

The key findings from the Management Diagnostic Summary Report are consistent with those contained within the Strategic Review provided to Council in November 2018. The key recommendations highlight the need for a management-led, management-supported local sustainability policy and local sustainability action plan that covers all aspects of the organisation, the community and the environment.

There is a strong emphasis on the need for ‘sustainability’ to be defined (what it means to our Council), a Policy and Action Plan to be developed from a local/regional point of view and implemented on a local level. Additionally, the development and implementation of a sustainability policy and action plan/strategy is fast becoming the industry standard in the local government sector, with many Councils becoming increasingly aware of the value sustainability can have in their communities.

The key recommendations include:

· Definition of Sustainability (to reflect local sustainable development priorities)

· Sustainability Policy (Link to Core Values and CSP)

· Sustainability Action Plan (Link to Community Strategic Plan)

The need for Council to have a clear and defined understanding of sustainability, a policy to support that understanding, and an effective plan that will assist in the delivery of ‘smart’ objectives, achievable outcomes with substance on a local level is required to achieve the following:

· Increased environmental performance

· Increased economic savings

· Increased eligibility for grant funding (e.g. Increasing Resilience to Climate Change; Building Better Regions Fund; Environmental Trust; Coastal & Estuary Grants etc.)

· Increase the organisation’s ability to demonstrate resilience, adaptability and strength

· Reduction of waste generation

· Efficient and effective resource use

· Protection, restoration and improvement of natural assets

· The opportunity to demonstrate corporate leadership to our community

· The opportunity to become a regional leader in sustainability

The outcome of the management diagnostic and subsequent summary report have identified key areas of Council business and operations that are doing well in terms of sustainability, in addition to identifying priority areas that require improvement. These recommendations provide direction in achieving such improvement.

The Workshop has prioritised the need for management action to be one of the key drivers in moving sustainability through the organisation. The need for these actions to be developed and implemented from the ‘top-down’ is essential if Council is to achieve effective and positive sustainability outcomes for Council, the local community and the environment.

The development and adoption of a corporate Sustainability Policy which would cover the three pillars of social, economic and environmental performance is therefore a key recommendation. The development and implementation of a Sustainability Action Plan would include action on priority areas with measurable key performance indicators (KPIs) and achievable sustainability targets.

This report recommends that Council proceed to endorse a reference Group composed of Councillors, senior management and key members of staff to further develop a Sustainability Policy that is consistent with the organisation’s core values and community’s needs. The development and implementation of a Sustainability Action Plan should then follow, with a long-term focus on being economically conservative, improving the local environment and supporting development within the Shoalhaven community.

Community Engagement

There will be opportunity for community engagement through Council staff and stakeholder consultation and could include a variety of community forums to assist in strategic decision making, the identification of priorities for future sustainable planning, development and implementation.

Policy Implications

A reference group to be formed to begin the development of a local sustainability policy which reflects a clear understanding of sustainability held by staff and Councillors.

Financial Implications

The long-term objective of the policy will be to assist staff in responsible resource use while being environmentally mindful, resulting in substantial cost and material savings while looking after our local natural environment.

Risk Implications

Failure to introduce a coordinated focus on sustainability through the implementation of an effective sustainability policy and action plan runs the risk of missing out on potential economic savings for the organisation (including grant funding), the opportunity to be a regional leader in environmental performance and demonstrate corporate leadership to our community.

Development & Environment Committee – Tuesday 02 April 2019

Page 1

DE19.21 Development Application No.18/1844 – 120 Macleans Point Road, Sanctuary Point – Lot 653 DP 27855

DA. No: DA18/1844/4

HPERM Ref: D19/70515

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Development Services

Attachments: 1. Recommended Conditions of Consent (under separate cover) ⇨

2. Planning Report (under separate cover) ⇨

Description of Development: Construction of two (2) boarding houses comprising 12 boarding rooms and a manager’s residence and strata title subdivision

Owner: Thunderace Holdings Pty Ltd & Second Owl Pty Ltd

Applicant: PDC Planners

Notification Dates: 8 August 2018 and 23 August 2018

28 August 2018 and 11 September 2018 to Sanctuary Point Community Pride

No. of Submissions: 7 in objection

Nil in support

Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council

On 14 August 2018 the Development Committee resolved that DA18/1844 be ‘called in’ to Council for determination due to the significant public interest.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Development Application No.18/1844 be determined by way of approval subject to the imposition of suitable conditions of consent as contained in attachment 1.

Options

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

Implications: Approving the DA will enable the provision of affordable housing in an appropriate location. There are third party appeal rights through the NSW Land and Environment Court (L&EC).

2. Refuse the Development Application (DA) in accordance with the recommendation.

Implications: Council would have to provide reasons for refusal to form part of the determination. 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.

Figure 1 – Location Map with Aerial Overlay

Background

Proposed Development

It is proposed to construct two (2) attached boarding houses, one with seven (7) rooms and the other with five (5) rooms and a manager’s residence. It is also proposed to Strata subdivide the development to create two (2) strata lots.

Lot 1 will contain the following:

- Two (2) single rooms and five (5) double rooms, including one accessible room, all of which will be self-contained. Subtotal – seven (7) boarding rooms, accommodating a maximum of twelve (12) persons.

- A communal living area.

Lot 2 will contain:

- Five (5) double rooms and one (1) manager’s residence, all of which are self-contained. Subtotal – five (5) boarding rooms, accommodating a maximum of ten (10) persons, and a manager’s residence.

- A communal living area.

Total – twelve (12) rooms, accommodating 22 persons and a manager’s residence.

The communal areas will contain the shared parking spaces, outdoor recreation areas, letterbox, bin storage, fencing and landscaping. As per the submitted plans 1.8m high fencing is proposed along the common boundaries. The applicant has commented within the statement of environmental effects that:

“The proposed boarding houses are intended to provide suitable accommodation for individuals and couples who are on low incomes. The proposed facilities of the boarding house ensure that all occupants are provided with a high standard of internal and external facilities.”

Figure 2 – Site Layout

Figure 3 - Elevations

Subject Land

- The site is rectangular in shape measuring some 639m².

- The site is vacant containing some vegetation located along the northern boundary. It is located within the B2 Local Centre zone of Sanctuary Point.

- It appears to be currently utilised as an informal access to commercial development to the east; however, there is no formal right of carriageway over the property.

- To the north, east and south are commercial developments. On the opposite side of Macleans Points Road is low density residential development.

Site & Context

The subject site is located within the town of Sanctuary Point in the B2 Local Centre zone. It is on the fringe of the commercial zone situated on the eastern side of Macleans Point Road with low density residential development opposite, comprising a mixture of single and two storey structures.

Adjoining the site to the south is a single storey structure containing a commercial use; the building is set back significantly from the front boundary with hardstand spaces for parking and access located forward of the building line. Further south (124 Macleans Point Road) is a hairdresser operating from a single storey structure set back a similar distance to adjoining development.

To the north of the site is a retail plant nursery operating from a single storey structure located a significant distance from the front boundary with stock located forward of the building line. There is established vegetation located along the common boundary and internal to the site. Further to the north is a commercial premise operating from a single storey structure that has the ‘appearance’ of a dwelling house. Car parking is provided off Macleans Point Road with significant retaining walls constructed to achieve a level grade.

History

The application was lodged with Council on 30 July 2018. The site is currently vacant.

Issues

Shoalhaven Affordable Housing Strategy

The Shoalhaven Affordable Housing Strategy (the Strategy) was adopted by Council on 11 December 2017. The Strategy “provides a range of effective policy solutions to facilitate additional affordable housing across the Shoalhaven local government area”. The Strategy outlines the issues of affordability in the Shoalhaven and the associated risks:

“Increasing pressure from the Sydney housing market is having a significant impact on local people, who are forced to compete in an increasingly competitive local housing market. In particular, local rents are increasing compared with local incomes in real terms, and the relative scarcity of rental accommodation at the more affordable end of the market means that real estate agents can be increasingly selective about who is housed. This is also contributing to homelessness and increasing the risk of homelessness among groups who would once have been in more secure accommodation.

Importantly, housing for purchase and rental that is affordable to very low and low income households is generally not being created through the market. Again, this is due to the increasing cost of housing and the income required to rent or purchase affordably.” (pg.5)

The Strategy contains ‘Locational Criteria for Affordable Housing’ which preferences affordable housing within well-located areas that are close to transport and services. Ideally, housing that meets the needs of very low, low and moderate-income households should be located close to larger service centres. This has been defined by the Strategy as precincts within 400-600m of the urban areas of Nowra-Bomaderry, Vincentia and Milton-Ulladulla. In this instance the boarding houses are located in Sanctuary Point some 4.5km from the Vincentia market place and 3km from the commercial core of St Georges Basin.

With regard to public transport there is a service provided by Premier buses, departing from the Sanctuary Point shops at 6:35am, 9:30am, 1:10pm and 2:10pm to Nowra via Vincentia Marketplace from Monday to Friday; there are buses returning to Sanctuary Point departing at 3:03pm and 5:31pm from Stewart Place in Nowra. On Saturday and Sunday this is limited to a service at 9:42am in the morning and returning at 2:16pm in the afternoon.

The proposed development is considered essentially consistent with the Strategy in the provision of high quality ‘new generation’ boarding houses that have been designed to satisfy the requirements of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. Whilst not being within a ‘well-located’ area as defined under the Strategy there are sufficient public transport links to established larger commercial areas, along with the day to day services provided within Sanctuary Point, that will provide for the needs of future residents.

Shoalhaven Growth Management Strategy 2019 - 2041

This is a high level strategic document that outlines Council’s vision for the growth of the Shoalhaven region over the coming decades. The document outlines a number of growth options for the region to accommodate the expected population growth as predicted by Council.

As it relates to the Jervis Bay area, Option 4 looks at accommodating future growth in existing centres by increasing densities with no further greenfield rezoning. Sanctuary Point is noted as one of those existing larger settlements that already have services in place to accommodate increased development. The proposed development is consistent with the thrust of the Growth Management Strategy.

Social Impacts

Submissions have been received during the notification period that have raised concerns with the impacts upon local businesses that may result from the proposed boarding houses.

There is the perception / assumption that the people who will reside at the boarding houses would be on some form of social welfare from the government and therefore be unemployed, amongst other things. The Shoalhaven Affordable Housing Strategy makes the following commentary regarding affordable housing and the potential residents:

“Anyone in the community could need affordable housing. This includes a young person seeking to live near where they grew up, a recently separated or divorced person with children for whom conventional home ownership may no longer be economically viable, households dependent on one (or even two) low or median waged, key worker jobs, or an older person on a reduced retirement income, including after the death of a spouse.” (pg. 8)

With regard to those community concerns a review of employment data by .id (a Demographic Resource company with details of over 300 local Councils and regional authorities) revealed that Sanctuary Point had a 9% unemployment rate in 2016 compared with an unemployment rate of 6.6% for Shoalhaven City. This is a significant reduction from 2011 when the unemployment rate within Sanctuary Point was 17% compared with an unemployment rate of 7.6% in Shoalhaven City.

On the issue of concerns or fears raised by the community when considering a development application, in New Century Developments Pty Limited v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [2003] NSWLEC 154, his Honour Lloyd J stated:

“That the subjective fears and concerns must have a rational basis and be amenable to objective assessment in order for any significant weight to be attached to them.”

In this instance the concerns raised in the public submissions regarding the potential impact of the future residents on local businesses are not able to be verified by way of ‘objective assessment’.

A Boarding House Management Plan and Boarding House Rules have been submitted with the application which outline the process for applying for affordable accommodation and the management arrangement, noting that a manager’s residence is proposed to facilitate a manager onsite. This includes a dispute resolution mechanism should there be issues with or between tenants of the premises. The application was referred to the NSW Police Force for comment; no concerns were raised regarding the operation of the boarding houses.

Council is satisfied that the proposed development will not result in significant adverse social impacts through the provision of affordable housing in Sanctuary Point. Conditions of consent that address the appropriate management of the boarding houses in accordance with the submitted documentation will be sufficient to mitigate potential impacts.

Variations from Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014

The applicant has sought several variations from planning controls contained within the Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 (the DCP).

Building Envelopes

Under A1.1 of Chapter N22: Sanctuary Point Local Centre, compliance is required with the Building Envelopes referred to in the Supporting Map as outlined below:

A1.1 All development is to comply with the Building Envelopes referred to in the Supporting Map.

The building envelope for the subject site is shown in red hatching noted as ‘Concept Building Envelopes Only’ with the built form to be focussed along the southern boundary and continuing into the adjoining site. The proposed development does not strictly adhere to the envisaged envelope with the boarding houses set back from the southern boundary by some 1.73m; however there is a substantive setback from the northern boundary of approximately 3m. The applicant has noted that:

To comply with BCA.NCC Construction requirements and to protect privacy, amenity and solar access to the neighbouring property to the east the building is not able to be built ‘to the boundary’ as indicated.

Further to the above there are issues stemming from the land being in different ownership and the ability to fulfil Council’s vision. It is considered that that the development has been designed generally in accordance with the building envelopes which are conceptual in nature.

Figure 4 – Extract from DCP, Chapter N22, Building Envelopes
(Site delineated in black)

Landscaping

Development within the subject site is also required to have a landscaped buffer along the front boundary as follows:

A1.7 Landscaped buffers to be provided to the east and west of Tourist Accommodation Area, Macleans Point Road.

The proposal does not comply. A 6m buffer is indicated along Macleans Point Road for the development. Instead, it is proposed to have landscaping beds measuring 0.7m and 1.2m along the front boundary. A landscaping bed measuring 0.6m is proposed along the southern boundary adjacent the proposed car park. Additional more substantial plantings are proposed along the southern and northern boundaries adjacent the proposed buildings.

It is important to consider the character of development within Macleans Point Road in the context of the planning control. To the north is a retail plant nursery with substantial hardstand surfaces within the 6m buffer. The area within the buffer appears to be utilised for the display of plants and other stock. It contains two access points with the main access located in proximity to the common southern boundary. Well established trees are located to the rear of the site.

Figure 5 – 116 – 118 Macleans Point Road

Further to the north is a commercial development adjoining Macleans Point Road and Paradise Beach Road that contains a car parking area up to the property boundary with a significant retaining wall facilitating an even grade. There is only minor landscaping along the side boundary.

Figure 6 – 114 Macleans Point Road

The two properties to the south are single storey structures utilised as commercial premises. They both contain hardstand surfaces (i.e. car parking and access points) forward of the building line and within the envisaged 6m landscaping buffer. So, whilst the development is contrary to the planning control, with the provision of car parking within the 6m landscaped buffer, it is not inconsistent with the character of the area. The performance criteria supporting the acceptable solution are as follows:

P1 Pedestrian areas leading from the village plaza to provide a range of landscape elements to enhance the retail core.

P2 Maximise landscape values for the village plaza and surrounds.

The proposed development will not impact on the fulfilment of the landscaping within pedestrian areas providing a nexus to the retail core, nor will the development impact on the provision of landscaping within the village plaza.

A revised landscape plan will be required prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, which provides appropriate street trees within the road reserve that will not affect the overhead power lines, as determined through discussion with Council’s Landscape Architect.

Car Parking

Car parking has been provided in accordance with the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

Clause 29 (2) states that “A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds”. Car parking is one of those matters that cannot be used by Council to refuse consent subject to compliance with the following:

(i) in the case of development carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider in an accessible area—at least 0.2 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

(ii) in the case of development carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider not in an accessible area—at least 0.4 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

(iia) in the case of development not carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider—at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

(iii) in the case of any development—not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site,

In this instance the development is not being undertaken by or on behalf of a social housing provider and as such at least 0.5 parking spaces are to be provided for each boarding room as per (iia).

There are twelve (12) boarding rooms generating the demand for six (6) parking spaces. A manager is also to be on site with one parking space allocated to them. A total of seven (7) parking spaces are proposed inclusive of two (2) accessible parking spaces. Further to the above, three (3) parking spaces are proposed for both motorcycles and bicycles in accordance with the SEPP. Accordingly, Council cannot refuse consent to the boarding houses based on the provision of car parking alone.

It is noted that through the assessment process design changes have been made by the applicant to locate the motorcycle parking to the front of the site, to remove the ‘issue’ of motorcycles accessing the rear of the site down a narrow path and along a common boundary. This in turn has impacted on the car park layout. However, on balance, the design solution is considered acceptable.

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposed development and has not raised any concerns with the access and manoeuvrability into and within the site in accordance with Chapter G21 of the Shoalhaven DCP 2014. Conditions of consent have been recommended regarding the design and standard of construction to ensure compliance with AS2890.1:2004 – Parking facilities Off-street car parking.

Planning Assessment

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

Policy Implications

There are no Policy implications as a result of the development as proposed.

Consultation and Community Engagement:

Seven (7) public submissions were received in relation to Council’s notification of the development. Seven (7) were objections to the development. Nil were in support of the development. The notification was made in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy with letters being sent within a 60m buffer of the site. The application was separately notified to the Sanctuary Point Community Pride. The formal notification was for a two (2) week period.

Further to the formal notification, Council staff also attended a meeting with concerned residents on 19 November 2018 at the St Georges Community Centre, as part of the Basin Villages Forum.

Key issues raised as a result of the notification are provided below along with comments by Council.

Summary of Public Submissions
Objection Raised	Comment
“Please be informed that our rear carpark and driveway at the rear of the proposed development is privately owned by Lots 687 & 688 with a Commercial Building known as Sanctuary Point Medical Center. This carpark is always occupied and busy especially during business hours being utilised by the customer, patients and staff of Medical Center, Chemist, X-Ray and Pathology tenants. Most of the patients using the carpark are elderly and frail. We don't want to compromise their safety as well as other customers by adding more traffic in this area. In this regard, we don't want access at our rear carpark”. “On the boundary between Lots 687 & 653, we will have to close the area by erecting a fence on agreement of the other lot owner. There will be no access to both sides of these properties.”	No access is to be provided via the adjoining commercial property. All access to the site is to be via Macleans Point Road.
The proposed boarding houses are out of character and current use of the surrounding properties in that the rear and immediate neighbour properties are all commercial properties including medical practice, Xray Imaging practice, Pathology service, Chemist, Hairdressers, solicitors and Garden Centre.	The zone permits a mix of land uses. The proposed use is permitted within the zone and is consistent with the character of the area as it pertains to the built form.
“To have a 24 person in total accommodation residence with minimul [sic] common areas on a 638 square metre block would have a detrimental effect on the operation on all these businesses given that the development is targeted to low income/homeless people who it would be reasonable to say would be on benefits and therefore unemployed and living in an area of the Shoalhaven that already has a very high unemployed problem.”	The application has been amended to accommodate 22 persons and a manager on site. The common areas that have been provided are in excess of what is required under the State Policy for a Boarding House. It is not clear how the residents of the development would have a ‘detrimental effect’ on the operation of the local businesses. In New Century Developments Pty Limited v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [2003] NSWLEC 154, his Honour Lloyd J stated: “That the subjective fears and concerns must have a rational basis and be amenable to objective assessment in order for any significant weight to be attached to them.” In this instance the comments made in the submission regarding low income / homeless people are assumptions and have no basis in fact and are not capable of ‘objective assessment’. In the Shoalhaven Affordable Housing Strategy (see pg. 8), the following comments are made regarding affordable housing and the people who may be in need: “Anyone in the community could need affordable housing. This includes a young person seeking to live near where they grew up, a recently separated or divorced person with children for whom conventional home ownership may no longer be economically viable, households dependent on one (or even two) low or median waged, key worker jobs, or an older person on a reduced retirement income, including after the death of a spouse.”
Parking for seven (7) cars will require a reduction in the garden/buffer from 3 metre to 1 metre. The provision of bicycle and motor bike parking is accessed from the rear of the building via private property.	Reference is made to acceptable solution A10.1 within Chapter G21 of the Shoalhaven DCP 2014 which requires perimeter planting of 3m for a car park. There is a note that relates to A10.1 stating: Council may consider a reduction in the minimum width of perimeter planting around car parks on smaller sites from 3m to 1m where it can be justified by the applicant that the reduction in landscaping will not create any adverse impacts on surrounding development/amenity. In this instance the applicant proposed landscaped beds measuring approximately 0.7m and 1.2m wide along the front boundary. A further landscape bed 0.6m wide framing the southern side of the car park. More substantial planting is located adjacent the built form. Street trees will be required in this instance either side of the access point. Council is satisfied that the quantity of landscaping is sufficient in this instance and the variation is capable of support.
Page 12 Subdivision of Land, for strata each site needs their own street frontage. The proposal does not meet this requirement as one strata property faces Mcleans Point Rd. and the second strata property faces and is accessed via a private property at the rear of the development.	In this instance the boarding houses share access and carparking forward of the building line, forming part of the common property. There are no concerns with the proposed arrangement. The subdivision layout does not prevent legal and practical access.
NSW requirement for boarding house that Accommodates more than 20 residents the property must provide a residence for an onsite manager. Although this development will accommodate 24 residents there will be no management facilities as the development is proposed to Strata into two properties of 12 residents.	The application has been modified to cater for a manager’s room within one of the boarding houses.
They are ‘setting future residents of these buildings up for failure’. Sanctuary Point already has an unemployment problem, minimal medical and shopping facilities and most importantly, little public transport.	The Affordable Housing Strategy contains ‘Locational Criteria for Affordable Housing’ which preferences affordable housing within well-located areas that are close to transport and services. Ideally, housing that meets the needs of very low, low and moderate-income households should be located close to larger service centres. This has been defined by the Strategy as precincts within 400-600m of the urban areas of Nowra-Bomaderry, Vincentia and Milton-Ulladulla. In this instance the boarding houses are located in Sanctuary Point some 4.5km from the Vincentia market place and 3km from the commercial core of St Georges Basin. With regard to public transport there is a service provided by Premier departing from the Sanctuary Point shops at 6:35am, 9:30am, 1:10pm and 2:10pm to Nowra via Vincentia Marketplace from Monday to Friday, there are buses returning to Sanctuary Point at 3:03pm and 5:31pm. On Saturday and Sunday this is limited to a service at 9:42am in the morning and returning at 2:16pm in the afternoon. The proposed development is not inconsistent with the Strategy in the provision of high quality ‘new generation’ boarding houses that have been designed to satisfy the requirements of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. Whilst not being within a ‘well-located’ area as defined under the Strategy there are sufficient public transport links to established commercial areas, along with the day to day services provided within Sanctuary Point, that will provide for the needs of future residents.
The closest Job Centres are approximately eight kilometres away and if someone misses the bus the next available one is not for a further two hours. This possibly means missing an appointment and potentially being cut off their Centrelink benefits. If anyone is lucky enough to be employed the last bus leaves Nowra around 5.30pm and does not arrive back to Sanctuary Point to around 7pm. The buses run even less at weekends and is non-existent on public holidays.
Car parking around the existing development is basically non-existent and will badly affect the small businesses and current nearby residents in the area.	Car parking and motorcycle parking have been provided consistent with the requirements of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, this calculation takes into account whether a development is in an accessible location and whether it is being undertaken by a social housing provider.

Financial Implications:

There are potential cost implications for Council in the event of a refusal of the application. Such costs would be associated with defending any appeal in the Land and Environment Court, should the applicant utilise appeal rights afforded under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

Legal Implications

Pursuant to section 8.2 of the EP&A Act, a decision of the Council may be subject of a review by the applicant in the event of an approval or refusal. In the event that such a review is ultimately pursued (if the recommendation is not adopted) the matter would be put to Council for consideration.

Alternatively, an applicant may also appeal to the Court against the determination pursuant to section 8.7 of the EP&A Act.

Summary and Conclusion

· The development is permitted within the zone and is consistent with the objectives of the zone.

· The development will result in affordable accommodation in a suitable location.

· The development will not result in significant social impacts subject to appropriate management and therefore the imposition of appropriate conditions of consent.

· The development is generally satisfactory, with no significant reason or issue being identified warranting a negative recommendation.

Having regard to the above, approval is recommended subject to the imposition of suitable conditions of consent as attached to this report.

Development & Environment Committee – Tuesday 02 April 2019

Page 1

DE19.23 Exhibition Outcomes and Proposed Finalisation - Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2019

HPERM Ref: D18/375094

Group:

Section: Strategic Planning

Attachments: 1. Summary of Submissions ⇩

Purpose / Summary

Report the outcomes of the public exhibition of the Draft Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2019 and enable the finalisation of the Plan.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Adopt the Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2019 as exhibited with the proposed amendments described in Table 2 of this report and proceed to finalise the plan.

2. Give effect to the Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2019 by publishing a written notice in local newspapers in accordance with legislation.

3. Notify development industry representatives, Community Consultative Bodies and those who made submissions, of Council’s decision.

4. Endorse the position that all funds from deleted projects are to remain within each relevant planning area and be transferred to a “recoupment fund”, with those funds used as Council's apportionment towards projects and to provide seed funding for community infrastructure projects identified in the revised contributions plan.

5. Endorse the preparation of a future amendment to the adopted Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2019 to:

a. update project costings, apportionment, and timeframes,

b. clarify calculation of credits, when contributions are charged for industrial/commercial subdivision, dedication of land and works in kind, and how merit assessment for miscellaneous development types is to be undertaken; and

c. address general housekeeping matters that may arise.

Options

1. Adopt the Draft Shoalhaven Contributions Plan with amendments as set out in Table 2 of the report and proceed to finalise the Plan as recommended.

Implications: This is the preferred option as it will enable the new Plan to be finalised and made effective. This will deliver a more flexible, user-friendly Plan and will facilitate the ability to deliver higher priority projects in a timelier manner.

2. Adopt the Draft Shoalhaven Contributions Plan with different amendments and proceed to finalise the Plan.

Implications: Dependent on the extent and nature of any amendments, this may necessitate re-exhibition of the draft Plan and delay the implementation of a more flexible, user-friendly Plan. Any amendments would need to be in line with the requirements of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 and Regulations.

3. Do not proceed to adopt/finalise the updated Plan or defer its adoption.

Implications: This is not recommended as the existing plan is now outdated and contains a large number of projects that are unlikely to be implemented or are recoupment projects that are not likely to be recouped in a reasonable timeframe. If needed, the adoption could be deferred to enable Councillors to be briefed on the outcomes of the exhibition and related implications.

Background

The Draft Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2019 (the draft Plan) was the result of a significant, ‘whole of Council’ review of the existing Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2010. This review aims to simplify the Plan that is now nine (9) years old, deliver a new contemporary plan and in doing so provide a mechanism for community infrastructure projects to be delivered/completed in a timelier manner.

The main components of the review are:

1. Revision of the content of the Plan to clarify areas of uncertainty and make it easier to interpret;

2. Review and rationalise the projects in the Plan to allow projects to be prioritised and completed in a timelier manner;

3. Creation of an updated, more user-friendly website including a new calculator.

Council’s Development Committee considered the draft Plan at its 10 April 2018 meeting and resolved to:

1. Adopt for exhibition purposes the draft Amendment No. 10 to Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2010 as attached;

2. Exhibit draft Amendment No. 10 for a minimum period of 28 days in accordance with legislation;

3. Receive a further report after public exhibition to consider any submissions and to adopt the amendment for finalisation; and

4. Acknowledge a further amendment to the Contributions Plan will be necessary once the two significant projects identified in this report have been revised and adopted by council.

The Development Committee made further later amendments to projects in the draft Plan in the Jervis Bay-St. Georges Basin area at its meeting on 3 July 2018, as flagged in part 4 of the April 2018 resolution above. These amendments related to community facilities and were included in the exhibited draft Plan.

Community Engagement

The draft Plan was formally publicly exhibited from 26 September to 26 October 2018 inclusive (31 days) in accordance with Council’s resolution of 10 April 2018. The exhibition notification included advertisements in local newspapers, direct notification to development industry representatives and community consultative bodies (CCBs), and the creation of a new website for the draft Plan.

The exhibition website for the draft Plan can still be accessed at the following link:

https://cp.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/

The material that was exhibited and made available through the website included the following:

· Explanatory Statement – Draft Shoalhaven Contributions Plan

· Appendix A – Projects to be deleted

· Appendix B – New and revised projects

· Fact Sheet – Contributions planning explained

As a result of the public exhibition, five (5) submissions were received:

· Three (3) internal submissions from Council’s Development Services Section, Recreation Community & Culture Section and Local Planning Team;

· One (1) submission from The Berry Forum CCB;

· One (1) submission from local development consultancy firm, Allen Price & Scarratts Pty Ltd.

The key issues raised in the submissions that were received during the exhibition period, and Council staff comments, are summarised below in Table 1. A more detailed description of issues raised in submissions, Council staff comments and recommendations is also included in Attachment 1.

Copies of the actual submissions received will be available for review in the Councillors’ Room prior to the meeting.

Table 1: Summary of key issues raised in submissions and staff comments

Comment from	Issues raised	Staff comments
Council - Recreation Community & Culture Section	The deletion of the Berry Gardens Neighbourhood Centre project (01CFAC0013) is supported on the basis that the need for this facility has significantly reduced due to the proposed Berry District Park (‘Boongaree’) and the role it will play as a multi-user community hub. Suggest that a new contributions project be created for the Berry District Park and that contributions paid into 01CFAC0013 be transferred to it.	Noted. The creation of a new contributions project for the Berry District Park (‘Boongaree’) is considered to have merit and will require a separate subsequent amendment to the Plan once project costing, catchment and other details have been determined. Consistent with Council’s resolution of 21 March 2017 (MIN17.197) that: funds from recoupment projects and identified deleted projects be transferred to a “recoupment fund” and used as Council’s apportionment to projects and to provide seed funding for community infrastructure projects identified in the revised Contributions Plan, the contributions collected for project 01CFAC0013 and other deleted projects would be transferred into the recoupment fund to be spent on high priority infrastructure projects necessary to support future population growth, for example, the provision of essential up-front community infrastructure in urban release areas like Moss Vale Road South and North. This approach has been used by several other Councils in recent reviews of their contribution’s plans, such as Shellharbour, Wollondilly and Bega Valley Councils. Alternatively, Council could resolve to retain project 01CFAC0013 in the Plan until such time as a project for the new Berry District Park project is created and the contributions could be transferred into it. This would mean that contributions from 01CFAC0013 would then be spent on community infrastructure in Berry. This approach would, however, be inconsistent with the treatment of contributions from other deleted projects which are being transferred into the proposed general recoupment fund. To address this concern, it is recommended that: · Project 01CFAC0013 be deleted and the funds collected be included in the recoupment fund. · The recoupment fund, that is to be made up of all previously deleted projects and the projects being deleted through this review, be allocated based on planning area, so that for example the funds collected in Planning Area 1 are spent on contribution projects in Planning Area 1 and so on. · Through the next subsequent amendment to the Plan, add the Berry District Park (‘Boongaree’) to the list of projects under the general active recreation project for Planning Area 1 (01AREC2008). It will then be able to benefit from some contribution funding. This will, however, increase the cost of the overall project in the plan by about $16,000,000 and increase the contribution rate from $721.31 to approximately $891.93 which would be payable by all relevant developments in Planning Area 1.
Berry Forum	Where will the funds collected for the Berry Gardens Neighbourhood Centre project (01CFAC0013) be spent when the project is deleted? Council has collected a significant amount of contributions on this project and should spend them on improving community facilities in Berry.
Council – Development Services Section	Additional explanatory information is needed in the Plan to clarify Council’s policy on various matters including calculation of contribution credits; assessment of miscellaneous developments; calculation of car parking contributions; dedication of land and works in kind; and when contributions are charged for industrial/commercial subdivision.	The majority of these issues require further functional consideration by the internal staff Contributions Panel in discussion with the Development Services Section and should be included in the next review of the Plan, rather than delay the introduction of the new plan. Two issues can however be resolved at this point through minor amendments to the draft Plan as outlined below: Add note in Section 3.7 under “Other requirements for commercial and industrial development”, at the end of the 2^nd paragraph to note that where car parking contributions are to be paid, the calculation of the rate is not rounded up or down e.g. if the calculation is 4.4 car parks then the contribution rate per car park is multiplied by 4.4 to determine the contribution total. This is stated in the Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 and should also be included in the contribution plan for transparency. Amend current wording in Section 3.7: “Where a room in a development is proposed as “study” and is of similar size to other bedrooms within the development, it is to be treated as a bedroom for the purposes of calculating contributions under this Plan” to read: “Where a room in a development is: · Proposed as a “study”, “home theatre”, “media room” or the like; and · Is of appropriate dimensions and capable of being used as a bedroom, it is to be treated as a bedroom for the purposes of calculating contributions under this Plan.”
Council – Local Planning team	The new website is much easier to navigate and understand than the existing website.	The new website is designed to be more user-friendly and consistent with the look and feel of the existing Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP) websites. It is considered to be sufficiently user-friendly for most users. No change is recommended. Any substantial remodelling of the website at this point has the potential to delay the finalisation of this important project. The website will continue to be refined and updated as needed in the future.
Allen Price & Scarratts	The new website is difficult to understand and navigate. More information is needed to instruct the user how to use it.
Allen Price & Scarratts	The reasons for the changes made to apportionment, completion timeframe and costs for revised projects are unclear as no explanation was provided in the public exhibition material.	As stated in the exhibited Explanatory Statement, costing for certain projects has been updated where more realistic information is known. Completion timeframe has been extended in response to the higher cost of some of these projects and based on the current priorities set out in Council’s Delivery and Operational Plan. No changes were made to the apportionment of any revised projects. As noted/flagged in the explanatory information, Council was awaiting updated population forecasting based on data from the 2016 census which was not finalised by Council’s consultants until after the exhibition period. Now that the updated population forecasting has been received, Council can revise the apportionment of the existing contribution projects. This will form the basis of the next review of the Plan, the commencement of which is included in the report recommendations.
Allen Price & Scarratts	Many projects have cost estimates which have not been updated for over 10 years. Cost estimates for these projects should be updated as part of this review.	Noted. Costings have been updated for certain projects where more accurate/realistic figures are known. It is intended to continue to review and update costings for remaining projects via ongoing future amendments to the Plan.
Council - Recreation Community & Culture Section	Project 02AREC0004 Planning Area 2 – Recreation Facilities Upgrades includes provision for exercise equipment at Bicentennial Park, Callala Bay. A new location needs to be selected for this upgrade due to constraints and limitations at the current site. As such, it is suggested that ‘Bicentennial Park’ be replaced with the generic ‘Callala Bay’ in the project’s supporting information.	Agreed, valid suggestion. The project sheet with be updated to reflect this change.
Council - Recreation Community & Culture Section	Project 03OREC0009 Embellishment of Passive Open Space - Tomerong should be revised to remove provision of amenities from the project cost and description of embellishments. The park is considered a local park given its low service level and does not warrant the inclusion of amenities.	Agreed, valid suggestion. Project information will be updated to remove reference to amenities.
Allen Price & Scarratts	Projected population for the Shoalhaven LGA for 2036 in the draft Contributions Plan 2018 is 119,984 and in the existing Contributions Plan 2010 it is 131,970 (and 11,986 difference). What impact has this had on developer contribution rates in the draft Plan? Council may need to increase its apportionment on new and revised projects so that development does not bear the full burden of the reduced population funding pool via higher contribution rates.	As noted earlier, project apportionments have not been updated as yet to reflect the latest population projections and household composition figures from the 2016 Census based on the availability of data. This will be undertaken as part of a future amendment to the Plan, which will likely result in amended contribution rates.
Allen Price & Scarratts	Appears that Council is deliberately releasing itself from its apportionment (share) of projects by deleting projects and using the recouped funds as its apportionment towards other projects. These other projects are not always in the contributions plan and effectively become 100% apportioned to development. This practice appears to contravene the legislation relating to development contributions. It is not fair on developers or communities who anticipate the infrastructure.	Council is permitted to add, remove and amend projects as part of a review of the contributions plan under the provisions of the EP&A Act. This ensures that the Plan remains current and continues to fund infrastructure that meets community requirements. 88 infrastructure projects have been identified that are considered to be redundant or unlikely to be delivered for various reasons. Retaining these projects in the Plan and continuing to charge contributions for them is difficult to justify into the future. As previously resolved by Council, the recoupment fund will be ‘ring-fenced’ specifically for contributions projects and will not be permitted to be used to fund other works or projects. This approach will allow Council to fast-track high priority projects necessary to support future population growth, such as essential community infrastructure in urban release areas. This will be done by using the recoupment fund to pay the developers’ share of the cost of the infrastructure to provide the infrastructure up front and then recouping this money from the developers when they proceed with development and pay contributions. This will reduce delays in achieving release of land in these areas and also provide infrastructure early, benefitting the community and developers alike. This approach does not contravene the legislation relating to developer contributions and has been used by several other Councils in recent reviews of their contribution’s plans, such as Shellharbour, Wollondilly and Bega Valley Shire Councils. No change is recommended in response.
Allen Price & Scarratts	Why have contribution rates for 17 projects increased by more than CPI? No explanation is provided in the exhibition material.	Project costings for these 17 projects were updated to reflect the current costs of the proposed works. These costings are more accurate and also reflects the fact that annual CPI increases have possibly not kept pace with construction costs.
Allen Price & Scarratts	Several town centre car parking projects have high contribution rates which are deterring development and driving poor development outcomes (e.g. 01CARP2002 Berry - $38,014 per car park; 01CARP3001 and Nowra - $26,830 per car park). Has Council reviewed these projects to ensure they are achieving their intended purpose?	These projects are a critical part of the coordinated approach to the supply of additional car parking spaces in the respective areas to meet demand from future population growth. As this demand is wholly attributable to future development, it is considered reasonable that the projects be apportioned 100% to development. The high value of the projects reflects the high cost of acquiring land in those locations. It should be noted that contributions for car parking only become payable if the developer is unable to provide car parking within their own site. Council then allows them to provide fewer car parks but requires a contribution to allow Council to provide the necessary car parking with the general vicinity. It should be acknowledged that Council has also made a number of concessions outside the contributions planning framework to assist in this regard (e.g. No additional car parking required for change of use DAs and the Nowra CBD Parking Discount Policy). No change is recommended in response at this point.
Allen Price & Scarratts	Development in some areas cannot proceed until essential infrastructure is provided, however, the associated projects often have a completion timeframe of ‘development dependent’. What does this mean? Council should be actively facilitating development and growth by delivering infrastructure upfront and then recouping the cost when development proceeds.	This comment is valid and noted. ‘Development dependent’ means that completion of the project is dependent on the timing of development and also therefore the payment of contributions. Council’s capacity to fund all identified infrastructure projects upfront is generally limited which is why the timeframe for many projects is ‘development dependent’ as without the development occurring, Council does not have the funds to construct the infrastructure. This is generally the case were the infrastructure is solely for the benefit of the properties within the catchment area, e.g. a service road that provides rear access that then allows the benefiting properties to be subdivide and/or develop the rear of their properties. This review of the plan will however enable Council to prioritise and complete essential projects in a timelier manner by rationalising the number of projects and authorising the pooling of funds from similar contributions projects in the same planning area. This will help to facilitate development that may otherwise be held up potentially awaiting construction of essential infrastructure as Council will be able to construct infrastructure upfront using pooled funds which will then allow development to proceed and Council will be then able to recoup funds. No change is recommended in response.
Allen Price & Scarratts	The policy on contribution refunds needs to be more flexible. Restricting requests for refunds to within 12 months of date of payment is unreasonable and an added risk for developers.	Consistent with the NSW Department of Planning and Environment's Development Contributions Practice Note, the Land and Environment Court has found that there is no express power for a Council to refund a contribution, and that a refund cannot be provided in circumstances where the Council has expended the money in accordance with the Plan or committed or applied the money. Thus, Council’s policy is considered reasonable as it actually allows for refunds where a mistake has been made by Council or if a development is not going to proceed and the development consent is surrendered. In line with the Practice Note, only funds that have not been spent can be refunded The restriction on the request for refunds being within 12 months is in line with the Recovery of Imposts Acts 1963 which sets a 12 month limit to act to recover a tax (being a fee, charge or other impost). As per Section 4.5 of the Plan, contributions are only payable at issue of a linen certificate for subdivision, issue of a construction certificate (where required) or prior to commencement of construction. This means contributions are only required to be paid once the developer is ready to proceed which minimises risk to the developer. The wording of the clause as exhibited is consistent with the Practice Note and the Act. Therefore, no change is recommended.
Council – Local Planning team	The three (3) new contributions projects for the Moss Vale Road South URA that recently became effective in Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2010 – Amendment No. 9 (01ROAD0154, 01DRAI006 and 01REC0015) need to be included in the final contributions plan.	Noted. The 3 new projects 01ROAD0154, 01DRAI006 and 01REC0015 will be included in the final Contributions Plan.
Council - Recreation Community & Culture Section	Project 01OREC0011 Passive Recreation – Falcon Crescent, North Nowra should be deleted as the facility is no longer required due to the growth of existing and new passive recreation facilities in the immediate locality (e.g. the significant passive recreation area to be provided in the adjacent Moss Vale Road South URA).	Agreed, valid request. Recommend project 01OREC0011 Passive Recreation – Falcon Crescent, North Nowra be deleted from the Plan as it is no longer considered to be required.
Council - Recreation Community & Culture Section	Project CWCFAC0007 Shoalhaven City Arts, Multimedia and Music Centre needs to be revised to reflect the new name as Shoalhaven Regional Gallery.	Agreed, valid request. The supporting information exhibited with this project incorrectly said that the project is to be deleted at the conclusion of the exhibition period. CWCFAC0005 Shoalhaven Multimedia and Music Centre is the project proposed to be deleted (it was included in the exhibited list of projects proposed to be deleted). The improvements in CWCFAC0005 were incorporated into CWCFAC0007. The supporting information for CWCFAC0007 also needs to be amended to reflect the fact that the project has been completed and is a recoupment project.

Additional Issue

A further issue has arisen since the public exhibition of draft Plan related to a development application for the subdivision for a multi-dwelling housing development (five townhouses). The multi-dwelling housing development was granted consent in 1982 prior to the commencement of the Contributions Plan 1993 and consequently, no contributions were paid. Two of the townhouses were constructed at the time but the remaining three are only now under construction. An application for the subdivision of the townhouses has been submitted. Council had advised the applicant that the consent for the subdivision would include a condition that contributions would be payable. The applicant then provided legal advice that concluded that the subdivision itself does not increase demand for infrastructure and that it is unreasonable to require payment of contributions. This advice has been accepted and, on this basis, the draft Plan should be updated to make it clear that contributions will not be charged on the subdivision of developments approved prior to the commencement of the original Contribution Plan 1993.

As a result of the submissions received and the additional issue outlined above, the following amendments (Table 2) are proposed as a result.

Table 2: Proposed amendments arising from the exhibition period

Section of Plan

Proposed Amendment

Section 3.5 Determination of reasonable contributions

Add wording to make it clear that contributions will not be charged on the subdivision of developments approved prior to the commencement of the Contribution Plan 1993.

Section 3.7

How is existing and future demand measured?

Amend wording in Section 3.7 where it states, “Where a room in a development is proposed as “study” and is of similar size to other bedrooms within the development, it is to be treated as a bedroom for the purposes of calculating contributions under this Plan” to read:

“Where a room in a development is:

· Proposed as a “study”, “home theatre”, “media room” or the like; and

· Is of appropriate dimensions and capable of being used as a bedroom,

it is to be treated as a bedroom for the purposes of calculating contributions under this Plan.”

Add note in section 3.7 under “Other requirements for commercial and industrial development”, at the end of the 2^nd paragraph to note that where car parking contributions are to be paid, the calculation of the rate is not rounded up or down, e.g. if the calculation is 4.4 car parks then the contribution rate per car park is multiplied by 4.4 to determine the contribution total.

Schedule 2

Remove the relevant properties that have been developed and paid the required contributions from Schedule 2 Old Subdivision Properties.

Schedule 1;

Schedule 3;

Projects page

· Contribution project 01OREC0011 Passive Recreation – Falcon Crescent, North Nowra will be deleted from the Plan as it is no longer considered to be required.

· Rename project CWCFAC0007 Shoalhaven City Arts, Multimedia and Music Centre to Shoalhaven Regional Gallery and amend its supporting information to reflect the fact that the project has been completed and is a recoupment project.

· Project 02AREC0004 Planning Area 2 – Recreation Facilities Upgrades amend supporting information to replace the location with the generic wording ‘Callala Bay’.

· Project 03OREC0009 Embellishment of Passive Open Space - Tomerong amend to remove amenities provision from the project cost and description of embellishments.

· Include the newly adopted projects 01ROAD0154, 01DRAI006 and 01REC0015 in the final Contributions Plan 2018.

Section 4, subsection 4.2

Insert additional text to clarify that where project contribution rates exceed the maximum contribution cap for residential contributions set by the NSW Minister for Planning, Council will not charge contributions in excess of the cap (except for those with a current exemption). See further comments below under ‘Recent legislative changes’.

Recent legislative changes

Section 7.11 contributions for residential development are currently capped at $20,000 per dwelling and $30,000 in greenfield areas. There is no cap for non-residential development.

In July 2017, the NSW Minister for Planning announced the removal of the cap on development contributions for residential lots where an Independent Pricing & Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) reviewed contributions plan, which is approved by the Minister and adopted by the Council, sets a higher rate. Contribution projects must meet ‘essential infrastructure’ criteria to be included in an approved plan.

The draft Plan currently contains some contributions that are exempt from the cap by the NSW Minister for Planning which will continue to be exempt. Contributions for some other projects that are not exempt exceed the cap. It is intended that additional text will be inserted into section 4.2 of the final Plan to clarify that Council will only levy contributions up to the cap for these projects. Council could alternatively seek IPART’s approval to levy higher contributions; however, there is a risk that IPART will remove projects from the Plan if it does not consider them to be essential infrastructure and there is a significant time delay in having plans reviewed by IPART (12+ months).

Contributions Calculator

One of the components of this was review was the creation of an updated, more user-friendly website and new online Contributions Calculator (part of or connected to the new website). While the website has been completed and will be ready to ‘go live’ at the commencement of the new Plan, there has been a minor delay with the background software for the Calculator, which is being adapted to synchronise with the new website and accommodate changes to the Plan. Thus, the current Contributions Calculator may continue to be utilised until the updated Calculator becomes available online in mid-2019 at the latest.

Future Amendments

Costings have only been updated for a limited number of projects in this current review. Costings for remaining projects need to be reviewed and updated to ensure that they are accurate and realistic. Project apportionments and timeframes also need to be updated to reflect the 2016 Census population projections and household composition figures which were only received recently. Thus, a Council resolution is sought to prepare a further amendment to the Plan (once adopted) to address these matters. This will be reported to Council for endorsement prior to any public exhibition.

Council’s Recreation, Community and Culture Section has also flagged potential changes to the scope of works for a number of recreation and community facilities projects. These projects will be reviewed as part of the draft amendment mentioned above, if possible, and subject to targeted consultation with local communities. The Development Services Section also identified some areas in the draft Plan where how the Plan is implemented could be further clarified.

Contribution project 01AREC0009 Planning Area 1 Recreational Facilities Upgrades (various locations) should also be amended at the appropriate point to add the Berry District Park (‘Boongaree’) to the list of projects under the general active recreation project for Planning Area 1 and the project cost and contribution rate be updated to reflect this.

Policy Implications

The draft Shoalhaven Contributions Plan is a simplified, more user-friendly plan that will enable Council to deliver priority community infrastructure projects in a timelier manner, in line with the needs of the growing community.

It is noted that the intended recoupment fund can potentially be spent on any type of project but must be within the same Planning Area as collected. It is intended that operating rules/procedures will be developed for the internal Contributions Plan Panel that will ideally prioritise ‘like for like’ projects in the same planning area initially if these are available.

Financial Implications

For a number of the projects being deleted, the debt incurred is being balanced with money available from deleted projects with a positive balance.

As previously resolved by Council, the money remaining from deleted projects is to be ‘ring-fenced’ specifically for contributions projects and will not be permitted to be used to fund other Council works. It will be restricted to providing either Council’s apportionment or seed funding for priority projects with a high developer apportionment. This will ensure that projects can commence and be completed in line with development requirements in urban release areas and other areas zoned for development. This approach has been used by several other Councils in recent reviews of their contribution’s plans, such as Shellharbour, Wollondilly and Bega Valley Shire Councils.

Council will need to continue to consider how Council’s liabilities that are outlined in the Contributions Plan are to be met going forward.

Development & Environment Committee – Tuesday 02 April 2019

Page 1

DE19.25 Two (2) Bushcare Group Action Plans - Review

HPERM Ref: D19/99736

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Environmental Services

Attachments: 1. Warden Head Bushcare Action Plan (under separate cover) ⇨

2. Bangalee Reserve Bushcare Action Plan (under separate cover) ⇨

Purpose / Summary

The purpose of the report is to present two (2) reviewed Bushcare Group Action Plans for adoption – for Warden Head and Bangalee Reserve.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council adopt the following two (2) reviewed Bushcare Group Action Plans:

1. Warden Head; and

2. Bangalee Reserve.

Options

1. As recommended.

Implications: The two (2) Bushcare Group Action Plans have been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Services Section and State Government agencies. All plans have been sent to relevant Council Consultative Bodies (CCB’s) and all residents and ratepayers within 200 metres of the reserve affected. This is as per the requirements of the Bushcare/Parkcare Policy and Procedures and in line with Council’s Community Engagement Plan. A Councillor briefing was planned for 21 March 2019 to explain and discuss the updates to the reviewed action plans and seek input from Councillors.

2. Adopt one of the reviewed Bushcare Group Action Plan and seek further changes to the other.

Implications: The positive and negative implications of choosing this option would depend on what the proposed changes are.

3. Not adopt any of reviewed Bushcare Group Action Plans.

Implications: This decision would significantly affect volunteer’s morale and result in a loss of volunteer participation in Council’s Bushcare program.

Background

Part C of MIN08.117 Ordinary Council meeting dated 29 January 2008 states that:

“Council affirms its direction that planting and other associated pursuits should only be done by abovementioned groups in accordance with Bushcare and Parkcare action plans as approved by Council”.

This part of the Council resolution requires that all Bushcare and Parkcare Groups that operate on Council owned or managed land, prepare action plans that are to be reported to Council for adoption.

Part D of MIN08.1552 Ordinary Council meeting dated 25 November 2008 states that:

“An all-embracing Consultation Policy be developed that will include nearby residents, the wider community, Tourism Shoalhaven, CCBs, Chambers of Commerce, community groups, church groups and local schools.”

The level of consultation required is dependent on the actions outlined within the plan and is specified in chapter 6, Community Consultation, of the Bushcare/Parkcare Group Policy 2018 and Bushcare/Parkcare Group Procedures 2012 (The Policy was updated in 2018; the procedures separated and are currently being revised). The Policy requires Group Action Plans to be reviewed every six (6) years.

Under the Council’s Community Engagement Policy engagement matrix, all Bushcare Action Plans are classed as a local low impact project. Therefore, combined with the requirements of the Bushcare Policy and Procedure, both reviewed Bushcare Action Plans used direct communication via a mail-out to all residents/ratepayers and the CCB’s and were made available through the SCC website.

The Bushcare Group Action Plans were mailed to 342 adjoining residents/ratepayers near the affected public reserves, Ulladulla and Districts forum and Ulladulla Local Aboriginal Land Council (Warden Head plan) and the Nowra Local Aboriginal Land Council (Bangalee Reserve plan).

A summary of the submissions is contained in the tables below.

Warden Head Bushcare Action Plan Review (D18/280529) - Summary of Submissions – 1 Submission received from 2 individuals

*Issues raised by submissions*	*Changes made, or actions taken because of the submissions*	*Number of submissions that raised this issue*
‘completely in agreement with the Bushcare plan for Warden Head’	None required	1

Bangalee Reserve Bushcare Action Plan Review (D18/278470) - Summary of Submissions – 1 Submission received from 1 individual

Issues raised by submissions

Changes made, or actions taken because of the submissions

Number of submissions that raised this issue

‘The Plan looks fairly comprehensive. It would be useful to tie some dollar figures into some of the proposed work - that would help when it comes to submitting funding applications and it's always useful to capture the dollar value of the time/effort expended by volunteers.’

No changes were made because it difficult to estimate volunteer hours for the six-year period of the plan, which provides much of the contribution to each activity listed.

A possible project that could be funded through external sources is listed in Section 7. At this stage, this represents a project concept which would require substantial planning in the development of a funding proposal. Therefore, no value is given for the project in the plan.

Community Engagement

CCBs, residents, ratepayers and Local Aboriginal Land Councils were informed of the opportunity to comment on the two (2) Bushcare Action Plans via mail. A total of 342 letters were mailed to residents and ratepayers within 200 metres of the reserves affected by the reviews.

Residents/Ratepayers were able to view the draft Bushcare Action Plans via a “Documents on Exhibition” web link on Council website and were given 28 days to make a submission. People without internet access were able to contact Council and request a hard copy of the plan and make a submission via the mail. This community engagement is in line with Council Community Engagement Policy for low impact local projects.

A Councillor briefing was planned for 21 March 2019 to explain and discuss the updates to the reviewed action plans and seek input from Councillors.

Financial Implications

Over the six years of the two (2) Bushcare Actions Plans, the cost of implementation will be a total of $45,700. These costs include an allocation of existing staff resources which support the Bushcare Program, which will be funded from the existing annual operation budget (job number 15915). A materials and equipment contribution of $400 per annum per group is also included in these costs.

The in-kind volunteer contribution over the six years of the two Bushcare plans is estimated at $106,000. This is a significant contribution from our volunteers in meeting the objectives of Council’s Community Strategic Plan.