Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 28 March 2022

Ordinary Meeting

Meeting Date: Monday, 28 March, 2022

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

Time: 5.30pm

Membership (Quorum - 7)

All Councillors

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

Statement of Ethical Obligations

The Mayor and Councillors are reminded that they remain bound by the Oath/Affirmation of Office made at the start of the council term to undertake their civic duties in the best interests of the people of Shoalhaven City and to faithfully and impartially carry out the functions, powers, authorities and discretions vested in them under the Local Government Act or any other Act, to the best of their skill and judgement.

The Mayor and Councillors are also reminded of the requirement for disclosure of conflicts of interest in relation to items listed for consideration on the Agenda or which are considered at this meeting in accordance with the Code of Conduct and Code of Meeting Practice.

Agenda

1. Acknowledgement of Country

2. Moment of Silence and Reflection

3. Australian National Anthem

4. Apologies / Leave of Absence

5. Confirmation of Minutes

· Ordinary Meeting - 14 March 2022

6. Declarations of Interest

7. Presentation of Petitions

8. Mayoral Minute

Mayoral Minute

MM22.4....... Mayoral Minute - Development Control Plan Provisions for Medium Density Development................................................................................................... 1

9. Deputations and Presentations

10. Call Over of the Business Paper

11. A Committee of the Whole (if necessary)

12. Committee Reports

CL22.143..... Report of the Shoalhaven Arts Board - 3 March 2022................................... 2

AB22.7........ Public Art - Opportunities and Requirements

AB22.11...... Lake Tabourie Museum - Collection Care and Management

13. Reports

City Performance

CL22.144..... Draft Code of Meeting Practice - Public Exhibition........................................ 7

CL22.145..... Investment Report - February 2022............................................................. 11

CL22.146..... Local Government Rating Structure & Rating Reform................................. 21

City Futures

CL22.147..... Motorsports Complex Working Group.......................................................... 31

CL22.148..... Agritourism - Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan Amendment - Land Use Zones & Optional Clauses Nomination........................................................ 40

CL22.149..... Proposed Amendment - Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA006) - Bishop Drive, Mollymook..................................................................................................... 56

City Services

CL22.150..... Bereavement Services - Cemeteries Crematoria and Memorial Gardens Policy Report...................................................................................................................... 60

CL22.151..... Tenders - Public Amenities Cleaning - Building Services............................ 62

CL22.152..... Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Sixth Assessment Report and Implications for Council................................................................................ 65

City Development

CL22.153..... Modification Application No. DS21/1353 – 76 West Cr, Culburra Beach – Lot 298 DP 11892............................................................................................................ 70

City Lifestyles

CL22.154..... Negotiations - Tenders - Demolition & Construction of an Accessible Boardwalk - Ray Brooks Reserve............................................................................................ 87

CL22.155..... Investigation of Meeting Place Budgong / Mt Scanzi.................................. 89

CL22.156..... Shoalhaven Heads Landscape Master Plan - Results of Public Exhibition and Finalisation of the Document........................................................................ 92

CL22.157..... Culburra Beach Community Centre - Facility Planning and Clarification on Way Forward....................................................................................................... 108

CL22.158..... Narrawallee Beach - Dog Access Areas - Review of Environmental Factors 133

CL22.159..... Sussex Inlet Library Investigations - Update.............................................. 137

Shoalhaven Water

CL22.160..... Review of Shoalhaven Water Public Policies - Round Two...................... 151

Councillor Conference Report

CL22.161..... LGNSW Water Management Conference 2022........................................ 162

CL22.162..... LGNSW Water Management Conference 2022........................................ 170

14. Notices of Motion / Questions on Notice

Notices of Motion / Questions on Notice

CL22.163..... Notice of Motion - Port Kembla Submarine Base...................................... 178

CL22.164..... Notice of Motion - Exemption for the Clearing of Asset Protection Zones under certain Circumstances............................................................................................ 179

15. Confidential Reports

Reports

CCL22.10.... Tenders – Public Amenities Cleaning - Building Services

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

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

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 28 March 2022

Page 1

CL22.144 Draft Code of Meeting Practice - Public Exhibition

HPERM Ref: D22/93401

Department: Business Assurance & Risk

Approver: Kevin Voegt, Director - City Performance

Attachments: 1. DRAFT - Code of Meeting Practice (under separate cover) ⇨

2. DRAFT - Code of Meeting Practice (with track changes shown) (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Office of Local Government - Model Code of Meeting Practice (under separate cover) ⇨

Reason for Report

To provide a Draft Code of Meeting Practice (Attachment 1) to be endorsed for public exhibition.

Recommendation

That:

1. In accordance with Section 361 of the Local Government Act, the Draft Code of Meeting Practice be placed on public exhibition to obtain community feedback.

2. A report be provided at the completion of the exhibition period, outlining the submissions received and providing a Final Draft Code of Meeting Practice for adoption by the Council.

3. Council amend its Draft Code of Meeting Practice (attached) Part 4 – Public Forum to be held Monday at 4.00pm prior to the Council Ordinary Meeting.

Options

1. As recommended including a nominated day and time for the proposed Public Forums.

Implications: The draft Code will be placed on exhibition as required by the Local Government Act and will be reported back to the Council for adoption.

2. Council amend the draft Code prior to exhibition.

Implications: Any amendments must not contain provisions that are inconsistent with the mandatory provisions.

3. Council defers the exhibition of the draft Code.

Implications: Under the Act, Council must adopt a Code of Meeting Practice that incorporates the mandatory provisions of the Model Code of Meeting Practice for Local Councils in NSW (Model Meeting Code) prescribed by the Regulation within 12 months of the election. Before adopting a Code of Meeting Practice, Council must prepare a draft code and exhibit it for at least 28 days and invite submissions for a period of at least 42 days

Background

On 29 October 2021, the Office of Local Government (OLG) released Circular No. 21-35 -2021 Model Code of Meeting Practice for Local Councils in NSW.

A workshop with Councillors was held on 17 March 2022. During this workshop, a discussion was held in relation to all provisions within the Model Code and additional matters that are contained in Council’s current code.

The draft Code provided in Attachment 2 to the report is provided in ‘Mark Up’ Mode based upon the Model Code of Meeting Practice and informed by the Councillor Workshop. Content that has been removed is presented in a ‘strikethrough’ format.

The coloured text in the draft Code indicates:

· Black font showing mandatory provisions of the Model Code of Meeting Practice

· Red font showing non-mandatory provisions of the Model Code of Meeting Practice. Where the text is in red ‘strikethrough’ format, the draft proposes that the provision is not adopted by the Council.

· Blue font showing provisions in the Model Code of Meeting Practice that apply to meetings of the boards of joint organisations and county councils. These are in ‘strikethrough’ format as not to be included in the Council’s Code.

· Green font indicating additional provisions or amendments that are proposed by the Council. These amendments are proposed to enhance or clarify the provisions of the Model Code of Meeting Practice. They are consistent with the mandatory provisions.

The Draft Code in Comparison to the Model Code of Meeting Practice

The key features of the draft Code in comparison with the Model Code of Meeting Practice (Attachment 3) are as follows:

· The new Model Meeting Code contains new provisions that allow Councils to permit individual councillors to attend meetings by audio-visual link and to hold meetings by audio-visual link in the event of natural disasters or public health emergencies.

o The provisions governing attendance at meetings by audio-visual link are non-mandatory. Councils can choose not to adopt them or to adapt them to meet their own needs.

· Amendments have also been made to the provisions governing the webcasting of meetings and disorder at meetings to reflect amendments to the Regulation since the previous iteration of the Model Meeting Code was prescribed.

· An amendment has also been made to the Model Meeting Code implementing recommendation 6 in ICAC’s report in relation to its investigation of the former Canterbury City Council (Operation Dasha).

o ICAC recommended that the Model Meeting Code be amended to require that Council business papers include a reminder to Councillors of their oath or affirmation of office, and their conflict of interest disclosure obligations.

· The repeal date for section 237 of the Regulation which exempts Councils from the requirement under clause 5.2 of the previous iteration of the Model Meeting Code for Councillors to be personally present at meetings in order to participate in them has been extended to 30 June 2022. This is to allow Councils additional time to exhibit and adopt new codes of meeting practice containing provisions allowing attendance by audio-visual link at meetings.

o If councils have not adopted a new meeting code that allows Councillors to attend meetings by audio-visual link, they will not be permitted to do so after that date.

Timeframe for adoption of the Code of Meeting Practice

The time frame for the adoption of the Code of Meeting Practice is as follows:

Date	Action
28 March 2022	Report to Council seeking endorsement for public exhibition
1 April 2022 – 12 May 2022	Public exhibition of draft Code and community comment (Required 42 days)
23 May 2022	Report to Council following exhibition – Policy adoption

Until Council adopts a new Code of Meeting Practice, its existing Code of Meeting Practice will remain in force. If Council fails to adopt a new Code of Meeting Practice by that date, any provisions of the Council’s adopted Code that are inconsistent with the mandatory provisions of the Model Code prescribed under the Regulation will automatically cease to have any effect to the extent that they are inconsistent with the mandatory provisions of the Model Code.

The Model Code of Meeting Practice outlines a range of Non-Mandatory provisions with respect to Public Forums (or deputations). These provisions are of distinct difference to the current provisions and practice of Council with respect to Deputations. They are based on a firm point outlined in the Model Code that states:

“Note: Public forums should not be held as part of a Council or Committee meeting. Council or Committee Meetings should be reserved for decision-making by the Council or Committee of Council.”

It is recommended to implement a Public Forum separate to Council’s Ordinary Meeting in line with the firm point outlined in the Model Code as stated above, this would allow for staff and Councillors to reflect on the information provided, and to seek clarification / answers to questions raised prior to the Ordinary meeting.

Following the Councillor Briefing held Thursday 17 March 2022, it was requested that this report be presented with options for days and times for a Public Forum to be convened.

Public Forum Options

1. No change to our current practice and for deputations to continue to be part of the Council’s Ordinary meeting.

This is not recommended as it is inconsistent with the Non-Mandatory provisions within the Model Code which are based on a firm point outlined in the Model Code that states:

“Note: Public forums should not be held as part of a Council or Committee meeting. Council or Committee Meetings should be reserved for decision-making by the Council or Committee of Council.”

2. Thursday at 4.00pm (prior to Councillor Briefings, consideration will have to be given in relation to the date of publication for the business paper and the timing of applications to address the forum).

This is not recommended as it is not considered practical from a range of operational perspectives given the deadline to produce reports.

3. Monday at 4.00pm (prior to Council’s Ordinary meeting).

This option is recommended as it is consistent with the Non-Mandatory provisions within the Model Code which are based on a firm point outlined in the Model Code that states:

“Note: Public forums should not be held as part of a Council or Committee meeting. Council or Committee Meetings should be reserved for decision-making by the Council or Committee of Council.”

Publication of the Business Paper

At present, members of the public have 4 days from the publication of the business paper to submit an application to make a deputation at an Ordinary Meeting. Consideration should be given to continue the practice of allowing the public to read the report and recommendation, and to apply and prepare to speak at the proposed Public Forums. For the options above, the following timeframes would be appropriate.

1. No change to our current practice and for deputations to continue to be part of the Council’s Ordinary meeting.

This is not recommended as it is inconsistent with the Non-Mandatory provisions within the Model Code which are based on a firm point outlined in the Model Code that states:

“Note: Public forums should not be held as part of a Council or Committee meeting. Council or Committee Meetings should be reserved for decision-making by the Council or Committee of Council.”

2. Thursday at 4.00pm (prior to Councillor briefings) – the business paper would be published on Monday (7 days prior to the meeting), this would also change the due dates for staff reports and Notice of Motions.

This is not recommended as it is not considered practical from a range of operational perspectives given the deadline to produce reports.

3. Monday at 4.00pm (prior to Council’s Ordinary meeting) – no change to the publication of the business paper, however, there is no additional time for staff to investigate and respond to any questions or concerns raised from deputations.

This is option is recommended as it is consistent with the Non-Mandatory provisions within the Model Code which are based on a firm point outlined in the Model Code that states:

“Note: Public forums should not be held as part of a Council or Committee meeting. Council or Committee Meetings should be reserved for decision-making by the Council or Committee of Council.”

Community Engagement

Before adopting a new Code of Meeting Practice, under section 361 of the LGA, Councils are still required to exhibit a draft of the Code of Meeting Practice for at least 28 days and provide members of the community at least 42 days in which to comment on the draft code.

Policy Implications

The provisions within the Code of Meeting Practice are related to the Code of Conduct, in particular in relation to conduct at meetings and conflict of interest management. Council is also required to adopt a Code of Conduct and Procedures within 12 months of election. It would be beneficial for these policy documents to be adopted within similar timeframes.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 28 March 2022

Page 1

CL22.145 Investment Report - February 2022

HPERM Ref: D22/65311

Department: Finance

Approver: Kevin Voegt, Director - City Performance

Attachments: 1. Investment Report - February 2022 (under separate cover) ⇨

Reason for Report

In accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993 and Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021, a written report is provided to Council setting out the details of all funds it has invested.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Receive the Record of Investments for the Period to 28 February 2022.

2. Note that Council’s total Investment Portfolio (excluding the Long-Term Growth Fund) returned 0.85% per annum for the month of February 2022, exceeding the benchmark AusBond Bank Bill Index (0.07% pa) by 78 basis points (0.78%).

3. Note the performance of the Long-Term Growth Fund as presented in the report.

Options

1. The report on the Record of Investments for the period to 28 February 2022 be received for information.

Implications: Nil

2. Further information regarding the Record of Investments for the period to 28 February 2022 be requested.

Implications: Nil

3. The report of the Record of Investments for the period to 28 February 2022 to be received for information, with any changes requested for the Record of Investments to be reflected in the report for the period to 31 March 2022.

Implications: Nil

Background

Please refer to the attached monthly report provided by Council’s Investment Advisor, CPG Research and Advisory Pty Ltd.

All investments are within the current Minister’s Order. Investments are diversified across the highly rated eligible fixed interest universe and are well spread across maturities. Capacity is effective unconstrained at all durations.

Portfolio Return

The Overall portfolio returned a negative -2.96% p.a. for the month of February 2022, entirely due to the negative movement of the growth fund. This will be a typical pattern, where monthly results depend entirely on stock market fluctuations.

The investment returns excluding growth fund were a stable 0.85% p.a., exceeding the benchmark AusBond Bank Bill Index (0.07% p.a.) by +78bp p.a.

Council’s investment in Long-Term Growth Fund returned a negative -33.39% for the month of February 2022, which offset previous significant market gains, bringing the year-to-date return to a negative -1.14% (-7.14% below the benchmark).

As highlighted in the CPG Investment Report attached, the Russian attack on Ukraine has affected all of Europe, and the financial system has been particularly hard-hit which is the primary reason for the negative return banks to raise interest rates and/or alternative measures to manage interest rates. The Russian/Ukraine conflict could conceivably draw in other countries as indications show that US growth is slowing dramatically from supply chain failures prior to the latest commodity shock.

The Australian S&P/ASX200 rebounded 2.1% over the month but the Small Ordinaries was flat. Core inflation was 2.6% with the Reserve Bank giving no indication of any consequential increase in interest rates. The market, however, believes that between July and December this year there will be at least four interest rate increases totalling 1.0%. International sanctions on Russia will impact supplies of oil, gas and other essential commodities increasing prices and putting pressure on the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates.

It is important to note that the fund is expected to return an average of 6.0% per annum over a seven-year cycle and the positive months will outweigh the negative months over the long term.

The following graph shows the performance of Council’s Investment Portfolio (excluding Long-Term Growth Fund) against the benchmark on a rolling twelve (12) month basis. As can be seen, performance has consistently exceeded the benchmark due to the mix of Council’s Investment Portfolio.

The following graph shows the performance of Council’s Long-Term Growth Fund against the benchmark on a rolling twelve (12) months basis.

Interest Earned – February 2022

The following table shows the interest earned for the month of February 2022.

Fund	Monthly Budget $	Actual Earned $	Difference $
General	88,910	64,526	(24,384)
Water	57,995	40,493	(17,502)
Sewer	27,565	26,034	(1,531)
Total excluding Long-Term Growth Fund	174,470	131,053	(43,417)
Long-Term Growth Fund	15,342	(630,281)	(645,623)
Total	189,812	(499,228)	(689,040)

The interest earned for the month of February, excluding changes in the fair value of the TCorp Long-Term Growth Fund was $131,053 compared to the monthly budget of $174,470.

The fair value of TCorp Long-Term Growth Fund decreased in February by -$630,281. It is important to note that it is expected that this value will fluctuate monthly and the actual return on this fund should be assessed against our budget forecast on an annual basis.

Interest Earned - Year to Date

The following table demonstrates how the actual amount of interest earned year to date has performed against the total budget.

Fund	Original Total Annual Budget $	Actual YTD $	% Achieved
General	1,159,000	649,083	56.00%
Water	756,000	353,317	46.74%
Sewer	359,333	199,457	55.51%
Total excluding Long-Term Growth Fund	2,274,333	1,201,857	52.84%
Growth fund	200,000	(165,305)	(82.65%)
Total	2,474,333	1,036,552	41.89%

The interest earned to the month of February excluding the change in fair value of TCorp Long-Term Growth Fund was $1,201,857 which is 52.84% of the current full year budget.

The fair value of TCorp Long-Term Growth Fund decreased to February by ($165,305) which is negative (82.65%) of the current full year budget.

The graphs below illustrate the cumulative interest earned for the year for each fund against budget:

Cash and Restricted Assets

Record Of Investments
Cash and Investment Balances
	$	$
	February 2022	January 2022
Cash and Investments Held
Cash at Bank - Transactional Account	12,568,672	11,412,480
Cash on Hand	21,080	21,080
Other Cash and Investments	200,895,035	196,521,044
	213,484,787	207,954,603
Fair Value Adjustment	160,034	167,523
Bank Reconciliation	279,975	(88,474)
	440,009	79,049
Book Value of Cash and Investments	213,924,796	208,033,652
Less Cash & Investments Held in Relation to Restricted Assets
Employee Leave Entitlements	7,050,087	7,050,087
Critical Asset Compliance	704,215	731,103
Other Internal Reserves	3,840,861	3,919,303
Section 7.11 Matching Funds	311,169	311,169
Industrial Land Development Reserve	4,977,676	4,992,781
Plant Replacement	1,624,459	1,441,591
S7.11 Recoupment	9,396,102	10,960,785
Commitment To Capital Works	2,424,172	2,825,187
Total Internally Restricted	30,328,741	32,232,007

Loans - General Fund	23,433,252	27,840,510
Self-Insurance Liability	2,946,925	3,102,317
Grant reserve	13,867,425	12,956,434
Section 7.11	17,564,920	16,788,911
Special Rate Variation	6,471,995	2,883,323
Storm Water Levy	719,127	617,281
Trust - Mayors Relief Fund	161,455	161,455
Trust - General Trust	3,547,460	3,169,535
Waste Disposal	8,628,532	9,154,104
Sewer Fund	31,506,344	32,565,496
Sewer Plant Fund	4,817,042	4,649,572
Section 64 Water	25,470,572	25,319,653
Water Fund	21,953,302	22,108,421
Water Communication Towers	4,381,600	4,365,802
Water Plant Fund	6,280,504	6,089,354
Total Externally Restricted	171,750,454	171,772,170

Total Restricted	202,079,195	204,004,177
Unrestricted Cash Balance - General Fund	11,845,600	4,029,476

Restricted Asset Movements

The table below lists the major movements in cash reserves increase/(decrease):

Total Cash	5,891,143	February was a rates instalment month
S7.11 Recoupment	(1,564,683)	Delivery of capital projects continues
Loans - General Fund	(4,407,258)	Delivery of major capital projects funded by loans such as Boongaree and Material Recovery Facility (MRF)
Special Rate Variation	3,588,672	Rates instalment month
Sewer Fund	(1,059,153)	Major decrease is associated with North Nowra surcharge main upgrade stage 1
Waste Disposal	(525,572)	RRF (Bioelectra) project offset by receipts from ratepayers.
Grant reserve	910,991	Ulladulla Maritime Berthing Facility, School Creek Bridge Disaster assistance to name a few grants received.
Unrestricted cash	7,816,124	Overall increase due to Council rates received in February.

Liquidity Indicators

In accordance with the Liquidity Contingency Plan as endorsed by Council, the following liquidity indicators were included in the Monthly Investment Report which will continue to enhance the transparency of Council’s financial reporting.

All liquidity ratios remain above the benchmark and Council remains in a sound financial position.

Unrestricted Current Ratio

The Unrestricted Current Ratio is an indicator used to assess the adequacy of working capital and its ability to satisfy obligations in the short term for the unrestricted activities of Council.

Unrestricted Current Ratio =

(Current Assets less all external restrictions) / (Current Liabilities less specific purpose liabilities)

The ratio remains above the benchmark for all funds.

Unrestricted Current Ratio Excluding Internal Reserves
	The Unrestricted Current Ratio Excluding Internal Reserves is an indicator used to assess the adequacy of working capital and its ability to satisfy obligations in the short term for the unrestricted activities of Council. Unrestricted Current Ratio Excluding Internal Reserves = (Current Assets less all external and internal restrictions) / (Current Liabilities less specific purpose liabilities) The ratio remains above the benchmark for all funds.
Cash Expense Cover Ratio
	Cash Expense Cover Ratio indicates the number of months a Council can continue paying for its immediate expenses without additional cash inflow. Cash expense cover ratio = (Cash equivalents, TDs and FRNs x 12) / (Payments from cash flow of operating and financing activities) The ratio remains above the benchmark of 3 months as at the end of February 2022 for all funds.
Cash Expense Cover Ratio Excluding External Restrictions
	Cash Expense Cover Ratio Excluding External Restrictions takes the OLG calculation for the Cash Expense Cover Ratio and removes external restrictions to represent the amount of months Council can continue paying for its immediate expenses without resorting to external restrictions. The ratio remains above the benchmark of 3 months as at the end of February for all funds.
Unrestricted Cash
	Unrestricted Cash is calculated as a total Cash and Investments, less external and Internal restrictions. The unrestricted cash balance remains above the benchmark as at the end of February for all funds. The benchmark is set up at 3% of budgeted cash outflows (excluding investment purchases and expenditures funded by reserves).

Financial Implications

COVID-19 has applied some pressure to Council’s financial position; however, despite this, Council’s financial position is operating in a sound manner based on the current cash position and liquidity ratios. It is also noted that revenue from interest earned forms a vital part of Council’s revenue stream.

Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer

I hereby certify that the investments listed in the attached report have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2021 and Council’s Investments Policy POL19/72.

A picture containing arthropod, invertebrate

Description automatically generated

Olena Tulubinska Date: 13 March 2022

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 28 March 2022

Page 1

CL22.146 Local Government Rating Structure & Rating Reform

HPERM Ref: D22/109793

Department: Finance

Approver: Kevin Voegt, Director - City Performance

Reason for Report

To provide Councillors with background information relating to Rating Legislation, Council’s current Rating Structure, as well as current and pending State Government Rating Reforms.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Receive the report for information and note the various options available to Council for setting a rating structure as part of the Revenue Policy for inclusion in its Delivery Program and Operational Plan.

2. Maintain for 2022/23 the practice of using a base amount to levy up to 50% of the rates and to which an ad valorem (rate in the dollar) amount is added to levy the remaining percentage for the reason of equity as outlined in the report.

3. Commit to review the rating structure when further rating reform guidelines are released by the State Government.

Options

1. Council accepts this report for information noting that the rating structure is to remain unchanged for 2022/23 financial year.

Implications: Rating structure will be incorporated into the Draft Delivery Program Operational Plan for the purpose of public exhibition.

2. Council resolves to implement alternative rating structure.

Implications: Impact will need be further assessed by staff and reported back to Council.

Background

Council has several revenue sources that generate income to deliver a wide and diverse range of services for the community.

The Annual Rate Levy is Council's primary source of general fund operating income, making up 31.6% of our annual income in 2021/22. This percentage does not include the Annual Charges that are also included on the Annual Rates and Charges notice.

For 2021/22 Council levied $81.7M in rates comprising:

Rating Category /Sub-Category	Income ($‘000)
Residential	73,587
Residential /Non-Urban	111
Business	6
Business / Commercial - Industrial	3,948
Business / Nowra	1,536
Farmland	1,776
Farmland / Dairy Farmers	290
Special Rates	467
Totals	81,721

Rates are levied on the basis of land values which are issued by the Valuer General of NSW. Rates are used to provide essential infrastructure and services such as roads, footpaths, parks, sporting fields, playgrounds, swimming pools, community centres, cycleways, public amenities, and libraries.

Growth in each council’s total rates income is capped to a percentage each year which is determined by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART). This is known as the rate peg. For the 2022/23 rating year, this has been set at 1.7% (0.7% base percentage plus 1% population growth factor).

Council may seek to increase its rates above the allowed percentage with IPART approval through an application for a Special Rates Variation under Section 508(2) and 508A of the Local Government Act 1993 (Act). In 2017, Council was successful in obtaining approval for a Special Rate Variation (SRV) and has not yet fully utilised this approval and therefore has approximately $2.38M in catch-up income that Council may use to increase the rates income for 2022/23 in excess of the 1.7% rate peg.

For 2021/22, Council’s average residential rate is $1,337 while the average business rate is $2,183 and farmland $2,715.

It is important to note that Council cannot increase its overall rates revenue by an amount higher than the rate peg plus approved special rates variation by introducing new rating categories and changing the rate structure. Council can only determine on the allocation of rates between rating categories.

Annual rates revenue and rating structure form part of the Revenue Policy that Council adopts on an annual basis as a part of Delivery Program and Operational Plan (DPOP) process.

Council’s Rates and Charges levied each July may consist of Ordinary Rates; Special Rates; Waste Service Charges and Stormwater Charges.

Before Council can levy its rates each year it must adopt and give public notice of its proposed rating structure. This report steps through the process and underlying legislation relating to the preparation of Council’s rating structure. By way of background, it provides:

· an overview of the categorisation and sub-categorisation of land, and associated limitations,

· the options available to Council for the calculation of rates, and

· the requirements of a rating structure.

Rating Structure

Calculation of Rates Levied

In accordance with the Act, Council’s structure of a rate can only be:

· on a pure ad valorem (rate in the dollar) basis;

· on an ad valorem basis, subject to a minimum rate; or

· using a base amount to levy up to 50% of the rates to which an ad valorem (rate in the dollar) amount is added to levy the remaining percentage.

Traditionally Shoalhaven City Council uses a combination of ad valorem and base amounts for most of its rate categories.

‘Ad valorem’ rates are calculated on the land value of a property, multiplied by a ‘rate in the dollar.’

An ad valorem amount is set as a proportion of the unimproved land value (UV) of the rateable property - that is, the value of the property without any buildings, houses, or other capital investments. The Valuer General provides Council’s new land values at least every three years and the next land valuation will be applied to the 2023/24 rates. The rate in the dollar is to apply uniformly to the land value of all rateable land within the same rate category.

A base amount enables Council to charge all properties subject to the rate (or to the specific category or sub-category of the rate) a sufficient levy to cover the cost of common services, as well as basic general administration costs. A base amount is a quantifiable cost per property that aims to represents the basic administrative costs of Council and from which all properties benefit, regardless of their rateable value. A base amount is also used to ‘flatten’ out the incidence of rates across ratepayers where, for example, land values vary greatly within categories of ratepayers - which is the case for Shoalhaven residential rates.

The base amount is calculated using the Residential rating category and is set to the maximum of 50% of Residential income. This means that any properties that have a land value of equal to or near the average land value (approximately $369,000) would have an ad valorem amount very close to or equal to the base amount.

Minimum Rates are currently not used by Shoalhaven City Council. Under this system a council must impose a uniform rate per dollar of land value but with ‘a minimum’. This is so that those with the lowest values do not end up paying very small amounts compared to others. This methodology is considered less equitable in Council area (such as Shoalhaven LGA) where there are significant variances in residential land values across the Local Government Area. Imposing a minimum rates structure could result in residents living in lower income areas having to pay high rates.

As noted in the introduction to this report, each year, prior to levying its rates, Council is required to adopt its rating structure for the relevant year. The rating structure forms part of Council’s Revenue Policy that is required to be included in its annual operational plan.

Information with respect to rates proposed to be levied must include:

· the ad valorem amount (rate in the dollar) of the rate, noting any minimum rate

· whether the rate is to have a base amount and, if so: the amount in dollars of the base amount, and the percentage of the total amount payable that the levying of the base amount will produce

· the estimated yield of the rate

· in the case of a special rate, the purpose for which the rate is to be levied; and –

· the categories or sub-categories of land in respect of which Council proposes to levy the rate.

This is achieved by including Council’s rating structure in the public exhibition of its annual Delivery Program and Operational Plan.

The table below represent the current rating structure of Shoalhaven City Council:

Rating Category / Sub-Category	Number	Ad Valorem ($)	Base Amount ($)	Income ($‘000)	Land Value ($‘000)	Average Rates ($)
Residential	55,034	0.18112	$668.00	73,587	20,331,664	$1,337
Residential / Non-Urban	948	0.18112	47.00	111	36,762	$117
Business	149	0.37285		6	1,721	$43
Business / Commercial - Industrial	1,808	0.26240	668.00	3,948	1,044,144	$2,183
Business / Nowra	363	0.56420	668.00	1,536	229,183	$4,230
Farmland	654	0.15010	668.00	1,776	891,891	$2,715
Farmland / Dairy Farmers	143	0.07640	668.00	290	254,411	$2,027
Special Rates				467	-
Totals	59,099			81,721	22,789,776

Rating Categories

Prior to determining an ordinary rate, Council must have declared each parcel of rateable land in its area to be within one or other of the four categories as per Section 514 of the Act:

· Residential (dominant use is for residential accommodation) ^{*1 *2}

· Business (land is to be categorised as business if it cannot be categorised as farmland, residential or mining)

· Farmland (dominant use is for farming)

· Mining (not applicable in the Shoalhaven LGA)

*¹ otherwise than as a hotel, motel, guesthouse, backpacker hostel or nursing home or any other form of residential accommodation (not being a boarding house or a lodging house) prescribed by the regulations.

*² The regulations prescribe:

· 121 - If the dominant use of land is for a caravan park or a manufactured home estate, the land is not to be categorised as residential for rating purposes

· 122 - If the dominant use of land is for a retirement village, serviced apartments or a time-share scheme, the land is to be categorised as residential for rating purposes

Rating Subcategories

Under the Act a council may determine a sub-category or sub-categories for one or more of its categories of rateable land. The residential category can be sub-categorised according to whether the land is rural residential land or is within a ‘centre of population’. The business category may be sub-categorised according to a ‘centre of activity’. Council has utilised this provision in relation to its residential and business category.

Council has previously resolved, under Section 529 of the Act, to create subcategories under each of its rating categories. The current subcategories are:

· Residential Non-Urban (on all rateable land which is zoned so as not to permit any building)

· Farmland Dairy Farmers (currently licensed with the NSW Food Authority for the production of fresh milk and are operating as a Dairy Farm)

· Business Commercial/Industrial (land used or zoned for professional/commercial trade or industrial purposes)

· Business Nowra (on all business rated property in the Nowra CBD)

Rate paying pensioners that hold a current Pensioner Concession Card and the property is their sole or principal place of residence, may be eligible to receive a pensioner rebate. The pensioner rebate for a full year from 1 July to 30 June is based on 50% of the residential rate levy to a maximum of $250. (Note: Pensioners may be also entitled to a 50% rebate on their water and sewer charges up to a maximum of $87.50 for each. If entitled, they will receive these rebates on their water accounts). It is important to note that 55% of the total value of pensioner subsidies provided by the Council are reimbursed by the State Government on an annual basis while the remaining 45% is subsidised from non-pensioner ratepayers.

The proportions of ordinary rates collected from the rates categories and sub-categories are:

*Rating Category Sub-Category**	Average Rates	% of Rates
Residential	$1,337	90.05%
Residential * Non Urban	$117	0.14%
Business	$43	0.01%
Business * Commercial / Industrial	$2,183	4.83%
Business * Nowra	$4,230	1.88%
Farmland	$2,715	2.17%
Farmland * Dairy Farmers	$2,027	0.35%
Special Rates		0.57%
		100.00%

The spread of land values across the rates categories and sub-categories are:

*Rating Category Sub-Category**	Average Rates	% of Land Value
Residential	$1,337	89.21%
Residential * Non Urban	$117	0.16%
Business	$43	0.01%
Business * Commercial / Industrial	$2,183	4.58%
Business * Nowra	$4,230	1.01%
Farmland	$2,715	3.91%
Farmland * Dairy Farmers	$2,027	1.12%
Special Rates
		100.00%

Special Rates

The Act also provides for ‘special’ rates to be levied where a council is of the opinion that an area benefits, or will benefit, from particular works, services, facilities or activities.

Council has previously resolved, under Section 495 of the Act, to levy special rates to meet promotional/infrastructure needs of the specific ratepayers.

Special rates only apply to identified properties and not all properties within a certain category. For example, the Sussex Special Rates are levied to meet the costs of business promotions for the Sussex Inlet area and surrounds and apply to all properties in this area categorised as Business Commercial/Industrial. The special rates ensure that additional infrastructure and other additional costs that benefit specific ratepayers remain cost neutral to Council.

The current special rates are:

· Sussex Area Special – ongoing, levied to meet the costs of business promotions for the Sussex Inlet area and surrounds and apply to all properties in this area categorised as Business Commercial/Industrial

· Nebraska Road Construction Special Rate – ongoing, this is a small interim rate (pending rezoning) to fund minor upgrades in the road reserve over time (as funds are collected). If/when the land is rezoned, a new special rate (or equivalent funding arrangement) will be required

· Jerberra Road Infrastructure

· Jerberra Electricity Infrastructure

· Jerberra Road - E2 Infrastructure – post-rezoning subdivision infrastructure construction work is now completed. The loan will be repaid by 2024/25. This work included road constructions and the provision of electricity infrastructure for Jerberra Estate residents

· Verons Road Upgrades - Dwelling Potential

· Verons Road Upgrades - No Dwelling Potential – post-rezoning subdivision infrastructure construction including road construction, funded by a loan that will be repaid by 2036/37

Rates Calculator

On Council’s website there is a Rates Calculator that will calculate an estimate of the amount of rates and charges for the majority of properties.

As an example, the calculation of the Residential Ordinary Rate on a land value of $369,000 is as follows:

Ad Valorem	$369,000.00	$0.0018112	$668.33
Base amount			$668.00
		Total	$1,336.33

Non-Rateable Properties

By virtue of Section 554 of the Act, all land in a Local Government area is "rateable" unless it is "exempt from rating".

Some land is exempt from all rates under Section 555. The types of land included under Section 555 include:

· Land held by the Crown, not being leased for private purposes

· Land within a national park, historic site, nature reserve or state game reserve

· Land subject to a conservation agreement

· Land occupied by a church, or another building used or occupied for public worship

· Land occupied by a building used or occupied with religious teaching or training, or as a residence for a minister of religion

· Land that belongs to and is occupied and used in connection with a school

· Land that is within a special area for the Hunter Water Corporation or other water supply authority

· Land that is vested in the NSW Aboriginal Land Council or a Local Aboriginal Land Council and is declared under Division 5 of Part 2 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (this may also exempt land from all charges in some circumstances)

· Land owned by the Rail Infrastructure Corporation

· Land below the high-water mark and used for any aquaculture relating to the cultivation of oysters

Section 502 deals with charges for actual use of service as opposed to annual charges. It should be noted that a charge for actual use of service is not linked to the fact that a land is rateable or non-rateable. Accordingly, no land is exempt from user charges made under Section 502.

Some land is exempt from all rates, other than water supply special rates and sewerage special rates: see Section 556. It must be noted that land under this section is not exempt from annual charges made under Section 501.

The types of land included under Section 556 include:

· Land that is a public place, common or public reserve

· Land used as a public cemetery, public library, public hospital, college, university or mining rescue company

· Land that belongs to and is used by a public benevolent institution or charity

· Land belonging to the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust or the Zoological Parks Board

Non-rateable properties still have to pay for any other services provided by Council, for example waste fees and charges.

Council Donations

Under Council’s Donation Policy, Council pays for the rates via donation for some eligible rateable properties. The properties receiving a rates donation during the 2021/22 rating year are:

Ratepayer	Annual Rates Donation Amount ($)
Berry RSL Club	$2,698.86
Cambewarra School Of Arts	$1,738.92
Country Women’s Association	$2,059.50
Country Women’s Association	$1,961.70
Culburra & District Community Health Service	$4,231.56
Currarong Community Association Inc	$2,732.18
Mollymook Bridge Club Inc	$1,953.36
Nowra & District Motorcycle Club	$2,073.49
Nowra Rifle Club Inc	$1,550.30
Pyree Literary Institute	$1,090.26
RSL Custodian Pty Ltd	$1,954.03
Shoalhaven Clay Target Club Inc	$1,167.89
Shoalhaven Pistol Club	$1,064.65
The Flagstaff Group Ltd	$47.00
Tomerong School Of Arts	$3,074.11
Ulladulla Pistol Club	$856.36
Upper Kangaroo River Progress Association Inc	$927.00
Wandandian Progress Association Inc	$1,609.59
Total	$32,790.76

Overview of Rating Reforms

In June 2020, the NSW Government committed to rating reform in response to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal’s (IPART’s) review of the Local Government rating system. This response acknowledged that Local Government and the communities they serve need to have a more flexible rating system, whilst ensuring rates are applied fairly and more equitably to local communities.

Last year important reforms to the rating system were made through the Local Government Amendment Act 2021 (the Amendment Act). That law was passed by the NSW Parliament on 13 May 2021 and assented to on 24 May 2021.

All Councils and other Local Government organisations had an opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed reform. Shoalhaven City Council provided feedback in the form of a submission from the Council and as a member of the NSW Revenue Professionals.

Overall, Council supported the proposed changes to the Local Government.

Immediate Reforms

Four rating reforms came into effect immediately on 24 May 2021.

These are:

1. For those Councils formed in 2016, to harmonise their rating structures gradually up to eight years - Councils that take up this option must apply no more than 50% of the total increase in rates for each rating category over the period, in any year. This reform does not apply to our Council.

2. The Act now clearly allows for multiple rate pegs to be set, if required, as part of limiting councils’ general income each year. This will enable the NSW Government to deliver on its commitment to align Councils’ general income to population growth in future to help relieve pressure in growing communities. This is now in place and has allowed Council to have a rate peg for 2022/23 of 1.7% (base percentage 0.7% + population growth factor 1.0%).

3. Councils are able to set different residential rates within a contiguous urban area. Prior to this reform, Councils were effectively prevented from applying different residential rates in urban areas, such as those in Greater Sydney, which allows Councils to separate residential rates in contiguous urban areas if there is, on average, different access to, demand for, or cost of, providing services and infrastructure.

4. To set separate rates for farming land based on geographic location.

Reforms yet to commence

Six further rating reforms formed part of the Amendment Act but did not come into effect on assent. These will be commenced by proclamation once supporting regulations and guidelines are in place.

These are:

1. To reduce red tape, the Act will allow councils to levy a new kind of special rate for infrastructure jointly funded with other government entities. These special rates are not limited to funding Council functions and resulting income does not form part of Council’s general income under the rate peg.

2. A new rating category for environmental land will be created for land where meaningful development is constrained by geography or regulation that imposes significant restrictions on use, such as conservation agreements. This may mean that we would no longer need to use our current Residential Non-Urban and Business (permits) rating categories. However, we will need to wait for the regulations and guide to be finalised before we know what this new rating category may be used for.

3. Councils will be able to set business rates based on whether the land is predominantly used for industrial activities. We will need to wait for the regulations and guide to be finalised before we know what the definition will be for ‘industrial activities.’

4. The Act also allows for regulations to be made to specify circumstances under which the rating exemption for land subject to a conservation agreement may be removed. This will not commence until regulations are made following consultation with key stakeholders to ensure incentives for land conservation remain in place. We will need to wait for the regulations and guide to be finalised before we know under what circumstances these may be removed.

5. The Act will enable any Councils that provide water and sewerage services and levy special rates for that purpose with discretion about whether to exempt certain properties from those rates, and

6. Limits will be placed on ratepayers eligible to postpone rates due to a change in the permitted use of their land. This will still allow owner occupiers who would face hardship to apply to Council for a postponement of the portion of their rates that have increased due to rezoning. Council will need to give consideration to the treatment of these ratepayers once more information is available.

Management will report further details of the reform to Council once the Office of Local Government have released more information.

Conclusion

The purpose of this report was to provide Councillors with background information relating to Rating Legislation, Council’s current Rating Structure and current/pending State Government Rating Reforms ahead of its consideration of a draft Rating Structure and Revenue Policy for inclusion in the 2022/23 Delivery Program and Operational Plan.

Having considered the information presented, it is recommended that Council maintain its practice of using a base amount to levy up to 50% of the rates to which an ad valorem (rate in the dollar) amount is added to levy the remaining percentage for the reason of equity as outlined in the report.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 28 March 2022

Page 1

CL22.148 Agritourism - Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan Amendment - Land Use Zones & Optional Clauses Nomination

HPERM Ref: D22/66892

Department: Strategic Planning

Approver: Gordon Clark, Interim Director - City Futures

Attachments: 1. Draft Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Amendment (Agritourism) Order 2021 ⇩

Reason for Report

Obtain Council support for the following in relation to the NSW Government’s Standard Instrument LEP Agritourism Amendment Order:

· Opt-in to the proposed new ‘farm stay accommodation’ and farm gate premises’ optional clauses for inclusion in the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014.

· Nominate the RU1 Primary Production and RU2 Rural Landscape zones as land to which the new ‘Agritourism’, ‘Farm experience premises’ and ‘Farm gate premises’ land use terms will be permitted with consent in the LEP.

· Not nominate additional zones where ‘farm stay accommodation’, ‘cellar door premises’ and ‘roadside stalls’ would be permitted with consent at this point.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Opt-in to the proposed new ‘Farm stay accommodation’ and ‘Farm gate premises’ optional clauses for inclusion in the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014, including the Shoalhaven specific numerical standards outlined in the report.

2. Nominate the RU1 Primary Production and RU2 Rural Landscape zones as land to which the new ‘Agritourism’, ‘Farm experience premises’ and ‘Farm gate premises’ land use terms will be permitted with consent in the Shoalhaven LEP 2014.

3. Not nominate additional zones where ‘farm stay accommodation’, ‘cellar door premises’ and ‘roadside stalls’ would be permitted with consent at this point.

4. Advise the NSW Department of Planning & Environment (DPE) of Council’s resolution by 31 March 2022 and request further meaningful consultation and dialogue with DPE on the current proposal and broader agritourism reforms, where relevant.

5. Receive future reports, if required, to:

a. Enable further comment on the detail (or adjustment) of the proposed agritourism planning reforms.

b. Present any matters that may arise in the 12 months following the introduction of the new ‘Farm stay accommodation’ and ‘Farm gate premises’ optional clauses, which could be considered as part of the regular LEP housekeeping process.

Options

1. As recommended.

Implications: This is the preferred option as it will enable Council to nominate the optional clauses and land use zones for the new agritourism related land uses that are appropriate within Shoalhaven LEP 2014. The suggested approach is considered a good outcome for Shoalhaven in balancing the need for resilience and sustainable tourism, with the existing character and amenity of certain rural and conservation zoned land across the City.

2. Make changes to the draft nomination and submit to DPE.

Implications: This will still enable Council to provide a nomination; however, the implications of any possible changes are unknown and may require closer consideration and refinement. Changes could include not opting into the optional clauses, specifying different numerical standards for the optional clauses or nominating different zones for the agritourism land use terms. It is noted that Council’s nomination is due on 31 March 2022, and if this timeframe is exceeded, Council would need to pursue the optional clauses as part of a Council initiated planning proposal using staff resources and existing budgets.

3. Not make a nomination.

Implications: This is not favoured as Council will not be able to nominate any optional clauses or land use zones for the new agritourism related land uses in the Shoalhaven LEP 2014. The proposed clauses and land uses have merit and would assist in the balanced consideration of related applications. If Council chooses not to nominate any clauses or land use zones at this stage, Council could pursue a planning proposal with a similar focus in the future using staff resources and exiting budgets.

Background

In March 2021, the NSW Government released initial exhibition material relating to Agritourism and small-scale agriculture development. This exhibition proposed amendments to the NSW planning System in order to boost farm businesses and regional tourism, by streamlining the approval of agritourism and other small-scale agricultural development. The proposed reforms are part of the response to the economic impacts of natural disasters and COVID-19 on the farming community.

The Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE) supporting the exhibition outlined that additional consultation would be needed relating to the agritourism proposals. Given the relevance of this matter to the Shoalhaven, Council requested to be included in any additional consultation and engagement to ensure that the final reforms were appropriate for Shoalhaven, functioned as intended and balanced impacts. Council resolved in this regard as follows on 11 May 2021:

1. Endorse the draft submission on the proposed planning reforms related to agritourism and small-scale agriculture development (Attachment 1) so it can be finalised and sent to the NSW Department of Planning, Industry & Environment for consideration.

2. Request further consultation and dialogue on the proposed reforms before they are finalised.

3. Receive future reports, if required, to enable further comment on the detail of the proposed planning reforms.

The detailed reporting (DE21.41) relating to this resolution can be accessed here.

In December 2021 DPE released further material in this regard and commenced its additional consultation. The consultation package consisted of the following:

· Information sheet (not publicly accessible)

· Agritourism Nomination Form (not publicly accessible)

· Draft Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Amendment (Agritourism) Order 2021 (LEP Order) (Attachment 1)

It is important to note that the draft clauses and land uses are not on exhibition – Council does not have the opportunity to make a submission on these as such. Essentially, Council has been asked to nominate the optional clauses and land use zones for the new agritourism related land uses outlined in the LEP Order that would be appropriate for Shoalhaven.

DPE have advised that they are intending to make the LEP Order in early 2022 (i.e., the changes are legislated and become effective), and an amending State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) will amend the LEP’s of all Councils that nominated favourably mid-2022.

NSW Councils have been requested to provide preliminary nominations to DPE by 25 February 2022 (this has been done for Shoalhaven), with a Council endorsed nomination due by 31 March 2022.

Overview of proposed changes

The intended LEP Order seeks to include:

· Optional clauses in the Standard Instrument (SI) LEP for ‘farm stay accommodation’ and ‘farm gate premises’. In turn, Council has the opportunity to include these clauses in its relevant LEPs.

· New land use terms for ‘agritourism’, ‘farm gate premises’ and ‘farm experience premises’.

· Changes to the existing definition of ‘farm stay accommodation’.

· Transferring ‘cellar door premises’ to become a subset of ‘farm gate premises’.

· Changes to existing SI LEP clauses relating to roadside stalls and intensive livestock agriculture.

See Attachment 1 for the definitions of the above terms.

As a result of the introduction of the new land use terms, Council also has the opportunity to specify the land use zones where the new land uses would be permissible it its LEP’s.

Each of the proposed changes are discussed below. How the new land use terms relate to each other is also shown in Figure 1.

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Hierarchy of Land Uses

(Source: DPE Standard Instrument LEP Agritourism Amendment Order Information Sheet)

Optional Clauses – ‘Farm Stay Accommodation’ and ‘Farm Gate Premises’

The LEP Order (Attachment 1) proposes to introduce two new ‘optional’ clauses into the SI LEP being:

· Clause 5.23 - Farm Stay Accommodation

· Clause 5.24 - Farm Gate Premises

These clauses are ‘optional’ – Thus, Council can choose whether to nominate (opt in) to adopt these clauses or not. The clauses are generally supported as they provide Shoalhaven with a set of numerical standards in a legislative context, which will assist in the assessment of agritourism developments across certain rural and conservation zones in Shoalhaven. There is currently little policy guidance in this space.

The clauses have been drafted so there are certain components that are consistent across NSW (i.e., heads of consideration), however an opportunity for local variation (gross floor area, number, people) has been provided to allow a tailored approach relative to each NSW Council. This approach is supported.

The merit of each optional clause is discussed below, along with opportunities for local variation. It is recommended that the optional clauses only be included in LEP 2014, as the respective land uses are unlikely to occur in the Jerberra Estate (has its own LEP) area as the ‘Agriculture’ group term is prohibited in the area (noting that extensive agriculture may sporadically occur).

Clause 5.23 Farm stay accommodation

‘Farm stay accommodation’ is a subset of the land use term ‘Tourist and visitor accommodation’. The proposed ‘Farm stay accommodation’ optional clause seeks to allow a diversification of agricultural land without impacting upon the use of the land for a primary production business. This requirement has been incorporated into the definition which means that if the primary production business ceases, then the ‘Farm stay accommodation’ element would also need to cease. ‘Farm stay accommodation’ can also only be considered on a lot with a lawfully erected dwelling, or where the lot is larger than the minimum lot size for the land. The accommodation is to provide temporary accommodation to paying guests of a working farm in buildings and moveable dwellings. It is noted that in addition to development consent, a moveable dwelling may also need to comply with the approval requirements of section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993, as detailed in Council’s Local Approvals Policy.

The overall objectives, nature of the numerical standards and heads of consideration in the draft optional clause are supported. Council has the opportunity to add additional objectives to this clause (now or in the future), however it is considered that the objectives are adequate for Shoalhaven at this point in time.

Council also has the opportunity to apply numerical standards that are appropriate for ‘Farm stay accommodation’ in the Shoalhaven context. The following table outlines the standard that needs a specific response, the suggested standard and the reasoning for it.

Type of numerical standard	Proposed subclause (2) Development must not be granted… unless the consent authority is satisfied that –	Suggested numerical standard
Maximum gross floor area (GFA) for a building to accommodate guests	(b) the gross floor area of a building used to accommodate guests will not be more than [insert number no less than 60] square metres	60 square metres Shoalhaven LEP 2014 does not currently specify a GFA for farm stay accommodation; however, secondary dwellings are limited to 60 square metres or 60% of the total floor area of the principal dwelling. For consistency, it is recommended that the GFA for farm stay accommodation not be greater than 60 square metres. Note: Council is able to reduce the GFA through a condition of development consent. This clause does not apply if the development is a change of use of an existing dwelling to farm stay accommodation.
Maximum number of days for guests in a moveable dwelling	(c) the maximum number of guests accommodated in moveable dwellings on the land holding will not be more than [insert number no more than 20] at any 1 time	10 guests with a maximum of 3 moveable dwellings It is considered that 20 guests is not generally appropriate due to concerns related to amenity, management of human waste or on-site sewerage, planning for bushfire, flooding and waste disposal relating to this form of development. 10 guests is considered a more appropriate number balancing amenity and environmental factors, and represents half of the maximum. A total of 3 moveable dwellings is recommended, enabling a range of combinations to accommodate the maximum of 10 permitted guests.
Maximum number of moveable dwellings for the accommodation of guests (note: this may include small-scale camping)	(d) the maximum number of moveable dwellings used for the accommodation of guests will not be more than [insert no more than 6]

Clause 5.24 Farm Gate Premises

‘Farm gate premises’ is a subset of the land use term ‘Agritourism’. The proposed ‘Farm gate premises’ optional clause seeks to allow a diversification of agricultural land through the provision of agricultural products (from the farm or other farms in the region) or services and activities relating to the products, to visitors to the farm. This could include the following activities that are ancillary to the farm:

· Processing and packaging of certain products.

· Operating a restaurant, café or cellar door premises.

· Holding tastings, workshops or education related to the products.

Council also has the opportunity to apply numerical standards that are appropriate for ‘Farm gate premises’ in the Shoalhaven context. The following table outlines the standard that needs a specific response, the suggested standard and the reason why.

Type of numerical standard

Proposed subclause

(2) Development must not be granted… unless the consent authority is satisfied that –

Suggested numerical standard

Maximum gross floor area (GFA) for a building used for farm gate premises

(a) the gross floor area of a building used for farm gate premises will not be more than [insert number no more than 200] square metres

100 square metres with 30 people at any one time

The maximum GFA or people suggested for farm gate activities is generally not considered appropriate for Shoalhaven as the GFA, coupled with potential volume of patrons, will likely generate significant impacts relating to both amenity and the environment. It is considered that a maximum of 100 square metres with 30 people is more suitable within the context of Shoalhaven and will better balance amenity and environmental factors.

Maximum number of persons permitted

(b) the maximum number of persons that will be permitted on the landholding at any 1 time for the purposes of the farm gate premises will not be more than [insert number not more than 50] persons

Nomination of Land Use Zones for New and Existing Agritourism Land Uses

As outlined above, the LEP Order seeks to introduce a range of new land uses into the SI LEP including ‘Agritourism’, ‘Farm gate premises’ and ‘Farm experience premises’. DPE has requested Council nominate the zones to which these land uses should apply in the Shoalhaven LEP 2014 and Shoalhaven (Jerberra Estate) LEP 2014. Council also needs to consider whether the permissibility of other agritourism land uses should be expanded to other zones where they are currently prohibited.

The following table outlines the new and existing land uses for Council’s consideration and details current and suggested zoning. Refer to the definitions of these land uses at Attachment 1 and the hierarchy of land use image at Figure 1. Essentially, it is recommended that the ‘status quo’ be maintained where applicable, and optional clauses only be included within the RU1 Primary Production and RU2 Rural Landscape zones in the Shoalhaven LEP 2014, where ‘Agriculture’ is already permissible with consent.

Land Use Term	Proposed Change	Current zone	Proposed zone	Comment
Agritourism	This is a new term that sits under the Agriculture group term. It includes farm gate premises and farm experience premises	LEP 2014 - N/A Jerberra LEP – N/A	LEP 2014 - RU1, RU2 Jerberra LEP - Nil	‘Agritourism’ is a subset of ‘Agriculture’ and will be permissible wherever ‘Agriculture’ is permissible (i.e., RU1, RU2). Considering that ‘Agritourism’ essentially means ‘Farm experience premises’ and ‘Farm gate premises’, it is appropriate that the same zones also apply. The zones are also considered appropriate given the requirement for the farm to be a primary production business or land categorised as farmland. Further expansion to other zones is not considered warranted at this time. The group term ‘Agriculture’ is prohibited across the Jerberra Estate area (with the exception of extensive agriculture in the C3 zone) and it is not recommended that the permissibility of these uses extend to this area.
Farm experience premises	This is a new term that sits under the Agritourism term.	LEP 2014 - N/A Jerberra LEP – N/A
Farm gate premises	This is a new term that sits under the Agritourism term.	RU1 Primary Production, RU2 Rural Landscape
Farm stay accommodation	Proposes to remove the existing definition for farm stay accommodation and insert a new definition that includes moveable dwellings to allow small scale camping on farms.	LEP 2014 - RU1, RU2, RU4 Primary Production Small Lots, C3 Environmental Management Jerberra LEP – C3	LEP 2014 - RU1, RU2, RU4, C3 Jerberra LEP – C3	As existing. A ‘like for like’ transfer was considered the most appropriate way to manage the revised ‘Farm stay accommodation’ land use permissibility. Further expansion of the zones is not considered warranted at this time.
Cellar door premises	No change to definition except to reflect the change in hierarchy (now a subset of ‘Farm gate premises’	LEP 2014 – RU1, RU2, RU4, RU5 Village, B2-B5 (business zones), C3 Jerberra LEP - Nil	LEP 2014 – RU1, RU2, RU4, RU5 Village, B2-B5 (business zones), C3 Jerberra LEP - Nil	As existing. A like for like transfer was considered the most appropriate way to manage these land uses, especially as no substantial changes are proposed to the definition.
Roadside stalls	No change to definition.	LEP 2014 – RU1, RU2, RU4, RU5, B1-B5 (business zones), C3, C4 Jerberra LEP – C3, C4	LEP 2014 – RU1, RU2, RU4, RU5, B1-B5 (business zones), C3, C4 Jerberra LEP – C3, C4

The LEP Order also proposes some other changes to the ‘Agriculture’, ‘Restaurant or café’ and ‘Retail premises’ land uses and the introduction of new ‘Landholding’ and ‘Primary production business’ land uses. These appear logical and minor in nature as they essentially reflect the changes to the new broader agritourism hierarchy of land uses and assist in interpretation.

Additional changes to existing LEP Clauses

The LEP Order proposes two further instrument changes to existing clauses in the SI LEP, as outlined in the following table.

SI LEP Clause

Proposed Change

Implications for Shoalhaven

5.4 Controls relating to Miscellaneous Permissible Uses

Subclause 8, Roadside Stalls

Change the “not less than 8 square metres” currently in the SI LEP to “not less than 9 square metres.

Nil

The Shoalhaven LEP 2014 and Shoalhaven (Jerberra Estate) LEP 2014 includes an area of 20 square metres for roadside stalls which already exceeds the revised 9 square metre minimum.

5.18 Intensive livestock agriculture

The proposed amendment provides increased thresholds with regards to the distance poultry and pig farms can be located from one another.

This outcome is positive for both amenity and biosecurity issues and the proposed change remains consistent with the current objective at clause 5.18(1)(b) of LEP 2014 (development consent not required for certain small scale intensive livestock agriculture ventures).

This clause does not apply to the Shoalhaven (Jerberra Estate) LEP 2014.

Conclusion

DPE have presented the Agritourism Reforms to provide opportunities for farmers to become more resilient through opportunities for further income sources in addition to the primary production incomes generated from working farms. The proposal seeks to promote sustainable tourism and resilience, whilst balancing the amenity, environmental considerations and expectations of local communities.

The proposed LEP Order predominantly presents Council with an opportunity to provide legislative rigour to ‘Farm stay accommodation’ and ‘Farm gate premises’ throughout Shoalhaven via the new optional clauses which is considered to be a positive outcome.

Community Engagement

In March 2021, the NSW Government released exhibition material relating to Agritourism and small-scale agriculture development and the community were able to make comment during the exhibition period.

DPE have requested that Councils in NSW provide preliminary nominations to DPE by 25 February 2022 (this has been done for Shoalhaven), with a Council endorsed nomination due by 31 March 2022. This is a closed process run by DPE and broader community consultation is not part of their process.

DPE have advised that they are intending to make the LEP Order in early 2022 and an amending State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) will amend the LEPs of all Councils that nominated favourably around mid-2022. It is unclear whether community engagement will occur as part of DPE’s process.

Policy Implications

The amending SEPP will make all the changes nominated by Council. This means that Council will not need to prepare a Planning Proposal (PP) to make any nominated changes.

Should Council wish to hold off on nominating any optional clauses at this stage, inclusion at a later date would need to be undertaken via a Council run PP which would require resourcing.

Following on from the resulting changes to the LEP, it is likely that the Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 (DCP) will need to be updated to provide additional commentary and guidance on the relevant land uses. This can be included in the DCP Tourism Review (a project currently identified on the Strategic Planning Works Program) that is currently ongoing.

If adopted, the nominated numerical standards in the optional clauses can be reviewed after a 12-month period, as part of the regular LEP housekeeping process if needed/appropriate. At this point, any necessary changes could be presented to Council for consideration.

It is noted that the proposed optional clause nominations apply to Shoalhaven LEP 2014 only, as the agritourism pursuits are unlikely to occur in the Jerberra Estate area and the SI LEP does not apply to the earlier Shoalhaven LEP 1985 or Shoalhaven Interim Development Order. It is recommended that the nomination of zones for certain new/existing land uses applies to Shoalhaven LEP 2014, with no additional zones nominated for the Shoalhaven (Jerberra Estate) LEP 2014.

Financial Implications

The process of amending the Shoalhaven’s LEPs following the nomination will be managed by DPE. As such, there will be minimal financial implications for Council.

Any amendments to the DCP or housing keeping review of the LEP in the future would be resourced via the existing Strategic Planning budget.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 28 March 2022

Page 1

CL22.149 Proposed Amendment - Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA006) - Bishop Drive, Mollymook

HPERM Ref: D22/89550

Department: Strategic Planning

Approver: Gordon Clark, Interim Director - City Futures

Reason for Report

Obtain ‘in principle’ support to commence the process of entering into an amendment to the existing Bishop Drive, Mollymook Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA).

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Provide ‘in-principle’ support to enter into an amendment to the existing Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) relating to Bishop Drive, Mollymook as outlined in this report.

2. Delegate authority to Council’s Chief Executive Officer, or his delegate, to:

a. Prepare the draft VPA amendment and associated Explanatory Note.

b. Publicly exhibit the draft VPA and associated Explanatory Note for a minimum period of 28 days as required by legislation.

c. Enter into the VPA consistent with the detailed key terms, except where objections or substantial issues are raised as a result of public notification, in which case the VPA is to be reported to Council before it is entered into.

3. Notify the landowners within the VPA subject area, all parties to the VPA and other stakeholders as relevant, of the public exhibition arrangements in due course.

Options

1. As recommended.

Implications: The proposed VPA amendment will result in the earlier release of residential land within a subdivision adjacent to Bishop Drive, which will provide much needed land supply to the local area. The construction of the extension to Bishop Drive is eagerly anticipated in the Mollymook area.

2. Adopt an alternative recommendation.

Implications: An alternative recommendation may frustrate or delay the construction of the extension of Bishop Drive and will in turn delay the release of residential land in an area that is experiencing a high demand for new housing.

Background

In 2014, the current VPA for the dedication of land and carrying out of road works to construct Bishop Drive, Mollymook was executed by Council, Greslon Pty Ltd, Hazcorp Pty Ltd and Revesby-Padstow Modern Homes Pty Ltd. These road works are included in the Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2019 (project 05ROAD2001) as infrastructure that will provide an improved, efficient and safe public road network for increasing traffic volumes associated with development demand in the local area. The Bishop Drive project extends from Matron Porter Drive in the north, to the Princes Highway in the south, as shown in Figure 1 in red. The executed VPA arrangements can be seen here.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Location of Bishop Drive, Contributions Plan Project 05ROAD2001

Stage 1 and 2 of the road works in the VPA have been completed, meeting the obligations of the Greslon (now Leda Holdings) and Revesby-Padstow Modern Homes parties. This leaves the Stage 3 road works outstanding which includes the construction of the remainder of Bishop Drive and the roundabout at Bishop/Coombe Drive, by Hazcorp. The VPA currently specifies that the Stage 3 road works are to be completed prior to the release of the subdivision consented to under major project approval (MP06/0276) and must be completed by the end of 2030. It is understood that the Stage 3 road works have commenced.

Council has been approached by Hazcorp with a request to amend the VPA to allow Hazcorp to provide alternative security for the completion of the road works to enable the new residential land to be released. The security would be provided in the form of a bond, in addition to the funds already collected from Section 7.11 contributions (the Bishop Drive Fund, as per the VPA), which will enable Council to step in and complete the Stage 3 road works should Hazcorp not complete the works in a timely fashion.

The proposal has merit ‘in principle’, as it enables the release of much needed residential land. As part of negotiations, it is appropriate that the:

· Bond provided covers the full value of the road works so that Council can step in and complete Bishop Drive if required.

· VPA make provision for the dedication of any land that is not within the Bishop Drive road reserve relating to the Stage 3 road works, in the event that the Council is required to carry out the Stage 3 road works itself.

· VPA amendment process brings forward the completion timeframe of the road works from the end of 2030 to mid-2023, at the latest. The road is much needed and there is significant interest from the local community in the construction/completion of Bishop Drive in the short term.

· Other parties to the VPA (being Revesby-Padstow Modern Homes and Leda Holdings) are agreeable to the proposed amendment.

Delegation Opportunities

In accordance with the existing Planning Agreement Policy, Council may resolve to delegate authority to Council’s Chief Executive Officer, or his delegate, to negotiate, publicly notify, enter into and register the agreement (as relevant).

The proposed agreement has some final negotiation yet to occur (e.g., exact bond amount and revised completion timeframe), however the proposal is supported ‘in principle’ and these matters can be resolved and progressed in time. As such, it is recommended that Council extend delegation for the above functions, unless further negotiations result in substantial changes to the proposal, in which case Council will receive a further report prior to finalisation.

Conclusion

Due to the public benefit realised from the timely construction of the Stage 3 road works and the release of the residential land under the major project approval (MP06/0276), it is in Council’s interest to support the proposal as recommended, finalise negotiations and proceed to prepare the VPA amendment for exhibition.

Community Engagement

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 requires that the draft VPA amendment be publicly exhibited for a minimum period of 28 days. Community engagement will be encouraged through the public exhibition period.

Policy Implications

Following the construction of the Stage 3 road works, the status of the contributions project 05ROAD2001 will need to be reviewed. This review can be undertaken as part of a future amendment/s to the Shoalhaven CP 2019 and would be reported separately at the appropriate point in time.

Financial Implications

The bond amount is critical to ensure that the anticipated cost of the road works is covered so that Council can step in and complete the road works if required. An appropriate bond amount can be determined through the negotiation process, and delegation is requested to complete this element of the negotiations. The VPA amendment will also address dedication of land to ensure Council is not burdened by land acquisition costs (beyond peppercorn payment), should the developer not complete the works. As such, it is expected that there will be no financial implications for Council relating to the proposed amendment.

In accordance with Council’s Planning Agreement Policy, the Developer will cover Council’s costs (direct and incidental) relating to the negotiation, preparation and entering into the agreement (including associated legal costs) and enforcing the agreement.

Risk Implications

The VPA amendment will be drafted to allow Council to draw on the bond and remaining Bishop Drive Funds to complete the Stage 3 road works. As such, the risk of the road works not being completed in a timely fashion is low. The bond amount is critical to ensuring that an appropriate guarantee is in place for the entire anticipated road work costs, plus continency. Consideration of the dedication of land beyond the existing road reserve has also been made. The revised completion date will also see the road completed in the short term which is a good outcome for the local community.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 28 March 2022

Page 1

CL22.151 Tenders - Public Amenities Cleaning - Building Services

HPERM Ref: D21/408566

Department: Building Services

Approver: Paul Keech, Director - City Services

Reason for Report

To allow Council to consider the tender process for Public Amenities Cleaning Contract – Building Services.

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

Recommendation

That Council consider a separate confidential report regarding Tenders - Public Amenities Cleaning - Building Services, in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation

Implications: Consider a separated confidential report on the matter

2. Council could choose not to accept the recommendation and select a different tenderer.

Implications: This is not recommended as an extensive evaluation process has been undertaken by the tender evaluation team in accordance with the tender evaluation plan. This option will result in additional costs to Council.

Background

Public amenity cleaning activities until November 2021 had been undertaken by a combination of casuals, contractors and predominantly Council’s Parks and Open Space staff.

Prior discussions between management and staff have identified the following service challenges.

Public amenity service:

1. The work is routine year-round and frequently repeated to achieve a high level of service.

2. Public amenity cleaning is relatively low skilled work, generally undesirable among a skilled “trade orientated” workforce. Overtime at “skilled” pay level rates can however make it an attractive salary supplement.

3. The public amenity work is a seasonally scheduled service and cleanliness may be “trashed” soon after the clean is finished.

4. There are seasonal and weekend high demand periods which makes permanent “nine-day fortnight” staffing arrangements challenging.

5. The operation is generally a one-person operation with the main “training” being understanding the cleaning schedule and site characteristics of each facility.

6. The cleaning at high visitation facilities is typically required to be done very early in the morning, and there are a number of high visitation areas.

7. COVID has changed the service, in that community cleanliness expectations are heightened and increased. Visitations due to lack of interstate and international travel opportunities has increased dramatically. This has typically been managed by increasing overtime.

Highly specialised mowing schedules;

1. Mowing schedules are so finally timed that staff have been forced to adopt a get in and get out attitude paying no attention to detail or items that are not covered in the schedule assumptions.

2. Public amenity cleaning takes precedence over other maintenance work and often skilled employees find themselves cleaning toilets for long periods of time.

3. Specialised mowing schedules allow for a large “seasonal workforce” and little preventative maintenance can be undertaken during the off season.

4. Unplanned interruptions like storms, breakdowns and absenteeism quickly throw schedules out and given no preventative maintenance has been undertaken the return to “normal” from a disruptive event can take time and is often unacceptable to Parks and Open space users.

5. Seasonal workers are high cost to recruit, induct, train, tool up and supervise and are typically high turnover not long after they are established.

6. Specialised and tight mowing schedules keep staff in repetitive activities for long periods and this creates motivation and health and safety concerns.

7. Customer engagement and thus customer experience is compromised when staff are specialised into focused schedules, and this detracts from user and employee satisfaction, particularly at showgrounds, sporting fields and iconic parks.

To address these challenges, discussions with staff turned to how can the Parks and Open Space service be improved. Based on these discussions restructuring has resulted in the following changes;

1. Swim Sport and Fitness (City Lifestyles) manage – Iconic Parks, Showgrounds and Sporting fields. Some Parks and Open Space staff have been transferred to that Directorate.

2. Works and Services (City Services) manage - Town Parks, Reserves, Natural Area Infrastructure, Asset Protection Zones and Road Reserves. Some Parks and Open Space staff have been retained by that Directorate

3. Building Services (City Services) manage – Commercial Buildings and Properties, Community Buildings, Admin Centres & Depots, and Public Amenities. No Parks and Open Space staff have been reassigned to the Building Services Department.

4. Building Services now manages 99 of Council’s 132 public amenities facilities throughout the Local Government Area (LGA). This includes the provision of all cleaning and maintenance activities as well as renewal or replacement of facilities as needed.

5. Council staff in the Swim Sport and Fitness, Works and Services and Building Services have been asked to consider themselves as Asset Caretakers. Getting to know their own assets, engaging with customers / users and taking a more holistic view of the maintenance responsibilities. Balancing routine tasks and proactive tasks with the seasons and user demands.

6. Public amenity cleaning has been identified as a routine task best managed by a competitive contract, with some council staff being available to respond to “call out” and “trashed” facilities. This arrangement least distracts the staff from operating as Asset Caretakers and allows increased effort at an efficient cost.

7. Building grounds maintenance has also been identified as a routine task at this stage best managed by a competitive contract but potentially being provided in the future as part of a refined management committee tenanted arrangements, or development of vacant sites.

All the above (except for the public amenity cleaning contract) has been implemented and after an initial “settling in” period is beginning to deliver much improved customer experience.

Tendering

Council called tenders for Public Amenities Cleaning on 17 April 2021 which closed at 10:00am on 11 May 2021. Five (5) tenders were received at the time of closing. Tenders were received from the following:

Rank	Tenderer	Location
1	Storm International	Yennora NSW 2161
2	Solo services	Macquarie Park NSW 2113
3	Principal Asset Services	Ultimo NSW 2007
4	J&M Campbell	South Nowra NSW 2541
5	Joshua Moore	Yagoona NSW 2199

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

Financial Implications:

Details relating to the Risk Implications are contained in the confidential report.

Consultation:

Details relating to the Risk Implications are contained in the confidential report.

Policy Implications

Nil. The tender process has followed the requirements of the provisions of the Local Government Act.

Risk Implications

Details relating to the Risk Implications are contained in the confidential report.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 28 March 2022

Page 1

CL22.152 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Sixth Assessment Report and Implications for Council

HPERM Ref: D21/412771

Department: Technical Services

Approver: Paul Keech, Director - City Services

Attachments: 1. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report Summary for Policy Makers WG1 (under separate cover) ⇨

2. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report Summary for Policy Makers WG2 (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Climate Costs and Risks to Councils Climate Council 2021 (under separate cover) ⇨

Reason for Report

At Ordinary Meeting 31 August 2021, Council requested a report on the impact of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report and the risk implications for Council, including:

1. Bushfire risk.

2. Predicted sea level rise and risk to property and infrastructure.

3. Occupational health and safety risks for outdoor workers, especially in regards to heatwaves and other climate extremes.

4. Health risks for residents, especially in regard to heatwaves and other climate extremes.

5. Predicted ocean warming risk to mariculture and marine tourist attractions.

6. Risks to tourist industry generally.

7. Increased costs of emergency responses, community support and infrastructure rebuilds due to increased incidence of extreme weather.

The report was requested for a future meeting – noting also that that Council has previously resolved (MIN19.923) to “inform the ARIC the need to address climate change risk should be included as a key issue in the Committee’s audit plan” – which has been actioned.

Recommendation

That Council note:

1. The findings of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report and ‘Summary for Policymakers’ documents (Attachment 1 and 2) which are outlined in the report below regarding current and projected climate risks associated with the very low – very high emissions scenarios.

2. The recommendations of the ‘Neighbourhood Issue: Climate Cost and Risks to Councils’ report (Attachment 3), which draws on the findings of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report and recommends that Councils increase operational net zero targets and efforts to mitigate climate change.

3. That Council completed a Climate Change Risk Assessment in June 2021 to identify key climate change risks to Council, including temperature and extreme heat, fire weather, changes to rainfall, and sea level rise, and that this Assessment will now be reviewed in light of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. The resulting Adaptation Plan will be presented to a future meeting of Council.

4. That a Councillor Briefing presentation will be scheduled in the coming month to present current and future sustainability initiatives which address climate change, including Council’s climate change risk and adaptation planning process.

5. That the scheduled review of Council’s Sustainable Energy Policy (POL20/71), Council’s Sea Level Rise Projections and Policy Framework (SA16.74) and the development of Council’s Sustainability Policy will be informed by the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.

Options

1. As recommended

Implications: Nil, report is for noting.

Background

On 8 August 2021, Working Group 1 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released the first instalment of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, providing an update on the latest physical science of climate change. This report was the work of 234 climate science experts from across the world reviewing 14,000 papers. The report draws on the latest scientific data and observed changes to model the likelihood and severity of climate change impacts under five emissions scenarios, known as the SSPs (Share socio-economic pathways). These scenarios, or SSPs, range from very low (emissions declining to zero by 2050) to very high (emissions doubling).

The release of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report from Working Group 1 was timed to ensure that all Governments had the most accurate science to discuss at the COP26 Summit to be held in Glasgow in October. A ‘Summary for Policy makers’ report was provided for this purpose (Attachment 1).

On 28 February 2022, Working Group 2 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released the second instalment of the Sixth Assessment Report, building off the physical science of Working Group 1 and focusing on climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. This report was the work of 270 authors across 67 countries, incorporating 34,000 references and 62,000 expert and Government review comments. A ‘Summary for Policy makers’ report is provided (Attachment 2).

The Summary for Policy makers reports released by Working Group 1 and 2 provide the most comprehensive and authoritative update on the state of climate change knowledge undertaken to date. The reports are policy neutral and must be approved line by line by representatives of every participating Government. The statements provided in the reports are qualified with levels of certainty and can therefore be used as statements of fact. As the reports require agreement and sign off from all Governments, it should be noted that the findings are more likely to be conservative in nature and understate risks, rather than overstating them.

Some of the key findings of the reports regarding the risk and incidence of climate impacts and extreme weather include:

· Each of the last four decades have been successively warmer than the last and the rate of warming is unprecedented in the last 2000 years

· The global average of warming over land is 1.1°C, however Australia is already at 1.4°C of warming

· Extreme weather and climate impacts such as heatwaves, marine heatwaves, fire weather, heavy rainfall, severe droughts and more severe flooding are all occurring more frequently and with greater intensity

· The likelihood of compounding extreme weather events happening at the same time or in succession (such as bushfire, flooding and storm events) is increasing

· Increased drought, heat, flooding and fire result in cascading impacts upon food and water resources, health and supply chains

· Heat related deaths in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane increased by more than one third in recent decades

· Heavy rainfall and floods are increasing and projected to continue to do so

· The intensity, frequency and duration of fire weather events are projected to increase throughout Australia

· Sea level rise around Australia is rising at a faster rate than the global average and will continue to rise over the next century, contributing to increased coastal flooding and shoreline retreat along sandy coasts throughout Australia

· The speed of sea level rise is escalating, with sea level rise between 2006-2019 occurring at twice the rate of sea level rise from 1971-2006

· Extreme sea level events that previously occurred once every hundred years are now projected to occur once per year

· An increase in marine heatwaves and ocean acidity is already observed and projected to continue

· Key ecosystems are at risk with over 50% of hard cover of coral lost and Australian coral, kelp, alpine and some forest ecosystems “at critical thresholds”

· Australia is projected to experience a decline in crop and horticulture production, mainly due to heat and declining cool season rainfall in the South West, South East and South Australia

· Aggregated loss of wealth due to climate-induced reduction in productivity across agriculture, manufacturing and service sectors is projected to exceed A$19 billion by 2030, A$211 billion by 2050 and A$4 trillion by 2100 under a high emissions scenario.

Implications for Warming and Paris Agreement Target

Under the Paris Agreement, signatory Governments including Australia committed to the target of keeping global temperature rise this century to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. The average warming over land in Australia is currently at 1.4°C, and 2°C of warming is considered a very dangerous boundary.

Some of the key findings of the IPCC Sixth Assessment report regarding the projected emissions scenarios and likelihood of reaching and exceeding 1.5 - 2°C include:

· Past greenhouse gas emissions have already committed us to more warming and we are likely to exceed 1.5°C by 2030, however with deep emissions reductions, 1.5°C could be achieved in the longer term with short term overshoot

· Under each of the three highest emissions scenarios, as well as the low emissions scenario, it is projected that 2°C of warming will be exceeded in the next 80 years

· Changes in several climatic impact-drivers (e.g. heatwaves, droughts, floods) would be more widespread at 2°C compared to 1.5°C

· If we do not cut emissions rapidly and steeply within the next decade, climate impacts will escalate steeply post-2040

· At every fraction of a degree of extra warming, the intensity and frequency of climate change events worsens, so all action to reduce emissions is critical.

Based on these findings, in order to limit warming to below 2°C, global emissions would need to be halved by 2030, with net zero global emissions achieved by 2040.

Discussion

How Council Can Respond to Climate Change – Adaptation and Mitigation

Council can respond to and reduce the risk of climate change in two key ways; through mitigation and through adaptation. Climate change mitigation aims to address the causes and minimise the future impacts of climate change (primarily by reducing greenhouse gas emissions), while climate change adaptation looks at preparing for climate change and seeking ways to reduce the negative impacts of these changes.

Council currently addresses climate change adaptation by conducting Climate Change Risk Assessments and developing responding Adaptation Plans. These Plans identify key actions and adaptive measures to protect Council against the anticipated impacts of climate change. Council conducted its most recent Climate Change Risk Assessment in June 2021, and the findings of this Assessment will inform the update of Council’s Adaptation Plan.

Council addresses climate change mitigation through emissions reduction targets and initiatives, currently outlined in the Sustainable Energy Policy and Sustainable Energy Strategy. These include:

· A commitment to reduce corporate greenhouse gas emissions, with a current target of achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

· Improving energy efficiency across Council assets and infrastructure to reduce energy-related emissions.

· Increasing renewable energy generation across Council assets to reduce our reliance on fossil-fuels.

· Trailing Electric Vehicles to reduce transport emissions.

Climate Council Recommendations

The Climate Council of Australia report ‘Neighbourhood Issue: Climate Cost and Risks to Councils’ identified eight key recommendations for Local Government:

1. Increase operational net zero targets and efforts to mitigate climate change through emissions reduction activities. (The report advised that in order to limit warming to the Paris agreement target of 1.5°C and lessen the increasing impacts of climate change, Australia needs to decrease emissions by 75% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2035).

2. Work with local communities and businesses to support broader efforts to cut emissions beyond council operations and infrastructure.

3. Undertake a climate change risk assessment and implement plans for adapting to those risks.

4. Seek out opportunities for collaboration across multiple councils to reduce emissions and adapt to climate impacts.

5. Encourage economic development units to explore how climate action can boost the local economy.

6. Upskill all Council staff to ensure they are confident about the impact of climate change on their day-to-day work, including opportunities for adaptation and mitigation.

7. Ensure that all planning and development activity at a local level considers climate risks and opportunities to cut emissions.

8. Advocate for other tiers of Government to embrace stronger climate policies, emissions reductions targets and frameworks for mitigation and adaptation.

Policy Implications

Council is currently committed to a target of net-zero emissions by 2050 as outlined in the Sustainable Energy Policy (POL20/71) endorsed in 2019 (Review Date 1 December 2021). The scheduled review of this Policy provides an opportunity to revise this target and commitments, and reduce the risk of future climate change impacts for Council and our community.

The findings of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Reports also has implications for Council’s Sea Level Rise Projections and Policy Framework (SA16.74) adopted 10 February 2015, and due to be reviewed in 2022. The reports found that sea level rise is occurring faster in Australia than the global average, with the speed of sea level rise between 2006-2019 occurring at twice the rate of rise from 1971-2006. Extreme sea level events that previously occurred once every hundred years are now also projected to occur once per year. These findings can be considered and used to inform the review of Council’s Sea Level Rise Projections and Policy Framework to protect coastal infrastructure and development from climate risks.

Risk Implications

The physical impacts of climate change and extreme weather can significantly disrupt services and damage infrastructure resulting in serious financial and social risks for Council and community. According to the Climate Council Report ‘Neighbourhood Issue: Climate Cost and Risks to Councils’, Local Governments should take care to ensure that decision making is based on the most up-to-date science available in order to reduce the risk of litigation.

Next steps

Council has identified key climate risks as part of a Climate Change Risk Assessment completed in June 2021 and will address these risks through Council’s Enterprise Risk Management Framework, and by preparing a Draft Adaptation Plan.

A Councillor briefing presentation will be scheduled in the coming months to present current and future sustainability initiatives which address climate change, including:

- Current sustainability and energy targets and projects underway

- Key sustainability projects in the pipeline and opportunities to reduce corporate emissions

- Findings of Climate Change Risk Assessment and development of Council’s Draft Adaptation Plan

- Response to Questions on Notice

- Development of Council’s Sustainability Policy and Sustainability Action Plan – proposed approach.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 28 March 2022

Page 1

CL22.153 Modification Application No. DS21/1353 – 76 West Cr, Culburra Beach – Lot 298 DP 11892

DA. No: DS21/1353/4

HPERM Ref: D22/67554

Department: Development Services

Approver: James Ruprai, Director - City Development

Attachments: 1. Draft Notice of Determination - Refusal ⇩

2. Section 4.15 Assessment Report (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Applicant's Covering Letter (under separate cover) ⇨

Description of Development: S4.55(1A) Modification Application seeking to delete Condition 19 from the development consent relating to the construction of kerb and gutter across the frontage of the site.

Owner: C Phillips & S Vidler

Applicant: C Phillips

Notification Dates: 20^th October to 5^th November 2021

No. of Submissions: One (1) by way of objection.

Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council

Modification Application No. DS21/1353 was called in for determination by the Ordinary Council at the Development and Environment Committee Meeting held on 5 October 2021 [MIN21.708].

Recommendation

That Modification Application No. DS21/1353 for a s4.55(1A) Modification seeking to delete Condition 19 from Development Consent No. DA20/1809 lodged over Lot 298 DP 11892 at 76 West Cr, Culburra Beach be determined by way of refusal.

Options

1. Refuse the Modification Application in accordance with the recommendation.

Implications: The modification would not be approved, and Condition 19 would remain within the development consent. The applicant can, however, apply for a section 8.2 review of Council’s decision and/or could lodge an appeal with the NSW Land and Environment Court (LEC) against Council’s decision.

2. Approve the Modification Application.

Implications: Council would need to provide grounds on which to support the proposal, that is, provide reasons to support the development, having regard to section 4.15 considerations – noting that the Council assessment did not find any planning grounds in support the removal of this condition.

3. Alternative recommendation.

Implications: Council will need to specify an alternative recommendation and delegate to the Chief Executive Officer to action.

Location Map

A high angle view of a city

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Figure 1: Aerial Photography – Subject Site

Background

Proposed Development

Development Application No. DA20/1809 was approved under delegation on 7 October 2020 for ‘Relocation of Dwelling to create Detached Dual Occupancy’ (‘the consent’). It is also noted for completeness that Torrens Title subdivision of the approved dual occupancy is approved under Development Consent No. SF10849 (dated 19/02/2021).

An application to modify the consent was submitted by the applicant in accordance with the provisions of section 4.55(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979.

The application proposes to delete condition 19 of the consent. Condition 19 presently states as follows:

Road Design Standards

Concrete integral kerb and gutter with either a minimum 30mm thick 10mm asphaltic concrete on a primer seal or 2 coat bitumen seal with 14mm & 7mm aggregate surfaced shoulder (to match the existing seal) and associated drainage must be designed across the frontage of the proposed new lot(s).

a) The kerb and gutter must have a standard upright profile.

b) The alignment must be 3.5m from the boundary on Wollumboola Lane and 7.0m from boundary on the West Cr frontage.

c) The shoulder crossfall to the lip of the gutter must be no less than 2% and no greater than 5%. A minimum width of 1m is to be constructed adjacent to the lip of the gutter to facilitate compaction of the new pavement.

d) The shoulder seal is to overlap the existing pavement by a minimum of 300mm with the existing seal to be saw cut and the exposed pavement is to have a tack coat or prime seal if finished with AC.

e) The kerb and gutter must have a minimum grade of 0.5% and the longitudinal design must extend a minimum of 30 metres each end of the development and at least 60m if the grade is <0.5% or ≥ 0.3%. This is to ensure the proposed works will be compatible with the existing longitudinal pavement grade and allow future extension of the kerb without unnecessary modification of existing works.

f) The road shoulder pavement must be designed in accordance with Council’s Engineering Design Specifications section D2.04.

g) The road table drain either side of the proposed development is to be reconstructed as required to match the K&G and to prevent ponding of water, including any adjustment or reconstruction of nearby driveways.

h) Subsoil drainage is to be provided behind the kerb line where an outlet to existing underground drainage (or other alternative suitable to Council) is available. Subsoil drainage is to be placed on the high side of the road or both sides if the cross-fall is neutral.

Where roadway widening (shoulder construction) is not required, the thickness of the pavement for the new kerb and gutter maybe designed using an adopted CBR of 3.0. If a higher CBR value is used, it must be determined by geotechnical testing in accordance with Council’s Engineering Design Specification.

This condition was recommended for inclusion in the consent by Council’s Development Engineer as a standard engineering condition as it is a requirement for both dual occupancy development and subdivision of land under Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014 Chapters G11, G13 and G21. This requirement has been consistently applied in accordance with the DCP 2014.

Subject Land

The site is described as Lot 298 DP 11892 and is located at No. 76 West Crescent, Culburra Beach. (See Figure 1.)

Site & Context

The development site:

· Is located at the corner of West Crescent (to the south) and Wollumboola Lane (to the east).

· Contains an existing single storey dwelling located in the southern part of the site adjacent to West Crescent.

· Contains a new single storey dwelling which is placed on the northern part of the site following an approval for ‘Relocation of Dwelling to create Detached Dual Occupancy’ given as part of DA20/1809 and CC20/1797.

Note: An Occupation Certificate cannot be issued until all conditions of consent, including Condition 19 the subject of this application, have been satisfied.

· Is zoned R2 Low Density Residential in accordance with the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (SLEP) 2014 (see Figure 2 - Zoning Map).

· Has a total area of 992.74m².

· Adjoins properties zoned R2 Low Density Residential and RE1 Public Recreation pursuant to the SLEP 2014.

· Is located within a predominantly residential area, with surrounding properties consisting largely of detached dwellings and dual occupancy developments.

Chart

Description automatically generated

Figure 2: Shoalhaven LEP 2014 Zoning Map

History

The following provides a history of approvals issued in relation to the subject development and actions / events relating to the subject application:

Action / Event	Date
Development Approval No. DA20/1809 issued for the development (Relocation of Dwelling to create Detached Dual Occupancy) by Shoalhaven City Council.	7 October 2020
Construction Certificate Approval No. CC20/1797 issued by Shoalhaven City Council.	19 October 2020
Modification Application No. DS21/1353 lodged with Shoalhaven City Council seeking consent for deletion of Condition 19.	29 September 2021
Application called in for determination at the Ordinary Council Meeting at a Meeting of the Development and Environment Committee.	5 October 2021
Referral response provided by Development Engineer advising that they do not support the proposed deletion of Condition 19. Specifically, the following comments were provided: Both dual occupancy development and subdivision of land require the construction of kerb and gutter under DCP Chapters G11, G13 and G21. This has been consistently applied since implementation of DCP 2014 and any exceptions are a rarity. Developers undertaking dual occupancy development and/or subdivision and their consultants are generally aware of this requirement and factor it into the cost of development. The subdivision at 98 Greenbank Grove is referenced as evidence of a precedent, however this was approved prior to the implementation of DCP2014 under previous provisions which exempted kerb and gutter on the frontage of the lot containing the existing dwelling. A more recent dual occupancy approved at 34 Greenbank Grove at the corner of Black Swan Way did require full frontage construction of kerb and gutter. The area has precedent of kerb and guttering nearby (kerb and gutter on Greenbank Grove including kerb returns into Wollumboola Lane) which is likely to continue with future redevelopment. There is also evidence of stormwater flow and containment issues (such as previous construction of an informal kerb outside the subject property, and recent photographic evidence of stormwater ponding in the road reserve outside the property) which would be improved through the provision of kerb and gutter. Concern has been flagged regarding the discharge of flow from the end of the constructed gutter on West Cres, however the approval requires table drains to be reshaped to accept the flow from the kerb and gutter and levels would prevent any runoff impacting on adjoining properties. It is also noted that a relatively short section of kerb and gutter would not excessively increase peak stormwater flows during a large storm event where the existing grassed table drains would be saturated. The requirement for kerb and gutter has been correctly applied in accordance with Council’s policies. The deletion of the condition is not supported. It is also noted there are currently construction-ready approved engineering design plans for the kerb and gutter for this development, demonstrating its constructability and ability to comply with Council’s standards and the implemented conditions of consent.	18 October 2021
Completion of notification undertaken in accordance with Community Consultation Policy.	5 November 2021

Issues

1. Applicant Reasons for the proposed modification & Council response

The following provides a summary of the applicant’s reasons for submission of the application and Council’s responses to the items raised:

a) Environmental impact:

The proposed modification would have no negative environmental impact. The engineer’s report prepared by civil engineers Allen, Price Scarratts calculates that the DA will not increase peak stormwater flows compared to the existing structure on the block prior to development. Indeed, removing the condition for concrete kerb and gutter would have a positive environmental impact. Kerb and gutter near the lake would concentrate polluted run-off from the road and channel it directly into the lake, rather than allowing it to disperse and filter through the sandy soil at the side of the road as it currently does. The Lake Wollumboola Protection Society have expressed their opposition to kerb and gutter in this location for this reason as it would have a negative impact on the environment of the lake.

Response: Concern has been flagged regarding the discharge of flow from the end of the constructed gutter on West Crescent, however the approval requires table drains to be reshaped to accept the flow from the kerb and gutter and levels would prevent any runoff impacting on adjoining properties. It is also noted that a relatively short section of kerb and gutter would not excessively increase peak stormwater flows during a large storm event where the existing grassed table drains would be saturated.

The requirement for kerb and gutter has been correctly applied in accordance with Council’s policies.

b) Detrimental to character of area

The whole area of West Crescent and Wollumboola Lane where the property is located enjoy a natural grassed edge to the roadway without kerb and gutter. This natural aesthetic fits well with the untouched and unspoiled lakeside environs. Forcing one property in the middle of this to install concrete kerb and gutter would stand out – but not in a good way. It would be an eyesore that detracts from the character of the area.

Response: Council undertook a site inspection of the property and surrounding environments of West Cr and Wollumboola Ln on Thursday 24^th February 2022 (refer TRIM Ref. No. D22/79471).

The site inspection revealed that the southern side of the length of Greenbank Gr has kerb and gutter, and extensive kerb and guttering exists on both the south-western and south-eastern corners of the intersection of Wollumboola Ln and Greenbank Gr located approximately 50m from the site.

Figure 3 provides a site photo and Figure 4 an aerial photo of kerb and gutter within the immediate vicinity of the site on Wollumboola Lane and Greenbank Gr.

Figure 3. Photo looking south towards Wollumboola Ln intersection with Greenbank Gr, showing wide of extent of kerb and guttering within the vicinity of the site (site at the end of the laneway on the right of photo)

Figure 4. Aerial photo indicating parts of the immediate street network with existing kerb and gutter provision (Source: Nearmap).

It is further noted that many of the properties within the immediate vicinity of the subject site are capable of further redevelopment for dual occupancy (both attached and detached) development or Torrens Title subdivision in their own right, meeting the relevant zoning and minimum lot size requirements under Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014.

Any application for dual occupancy or subdivision of these lots lodged under the current planning controls would also include a requirement for kerb and guttering and collectively contribute to the delivery of kerb and gutter within the locality.

c) Stormwater impact on adjacent properties

There is no stormwater drain on West Crescent. So, water caught by any kerb & gutter installed on West Crescent will simply be diverted downhill to adjacent properties – potentially creating damage to their verge.

Response: The following excerpt (Figure 5) from Council’s GIS system indicates the location of Council’s existing drainage system (shown in green). The excerpt also demonstrates that the construction of the kerb and gutter at the corner of West Cr and Wollumboola Ln as required by Condition 19 would link in with the existing drainage system in Wollumboola Ln and crossing West Cr.

A picture containing outdoor

Description automatically generated

Figure 5. Location of property (outlined in blue) in relation to existing stormwater drainage line (in green)

As stated above, the approval also requires table drains to be reshaped to accept the flow from the kerb and gutter, where the constructed levels would prevent any runoff impacting on adjoining properties. This is also consistent with the construction ready kerb and gutter plans already submitted by the applicant and approved as part of the Construction Certificate issued by Council (Application Ref No. CC20/1797).

The proposed arrangement as required by Condition 19 would improve the significant pooling of water which occurs within the road verge adjacent to the site during rain events under the current scenario (also demonstrated in the Figures 6 and 7):

A picture containing tree, outdoor, grass, residential

Description automatically generated

Figure 6. Site and road verge from perspective of Wollumboola Ln looking south (site to the right of photo)

A road with trees and houses on the side

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Figure 7. Site and road verge from perspective of West Cr looking north (site to the left of photo)

d) Disproportional cost

Kerb and gutter is extremely expensive to install. Not to mention disruptive – it requires tearing up and rebuilding the edge of the roadway and building up nature strip to match the level of the kerb. The costs are vastly out of proportion to the modest budget of our small development with a budget of under $200,000.

Response: The standard approach taken as part of the assessment of all Development Applications across the Shoalhaven City Council area, is that the onus is on the developer to construct the infrastructure that is required for their development and to ensure their development complies with applicable Acts, plans and policies.

This approach is especially important when considering that Council’s Policy No. POL12/65 – Asset Management Plan (accessible on Council’s website at https://doc.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/displaydoc.aspx?record=POL12/65) indicates that it would take 620 years before all Council’s requirements regarding construction of kerb and gutter would be met if funded by Council under Council’s current Resourcing Strategy.. Council also notes that it receives repeated requests for kerb and gutter and that as a result of the backlog, funding levels have been traditionally low. POL12/65 further outlines that “All new developments/subdivisions include the provision of K&G (or grass swales) as consent conditions. So, population growth is not expected to increase demand”. Should Council exclude certain areas of the LGA from requiring developers to provide the kerb and gutter for infill development which increases density, this will only serve to intensify the pressure on Council to provide kerb and gutter to existing residential areas of the LGA in the future.

As such, it is important that the community and Council are assisted by developers in providing the infrastructure which is triggered by their development.

e) Resident opposition

The residents of West Crescent are opposed to kerb and gutter for the above reasons – particularly when there are little prospects of any more than one property on the street having concrete kerb and gutter in the foreseeable future.

Response: The notification undertaken by Council between 20^th October and 5^th November 2021 resulted in one (1) submission being received, objecting to the applicant’s proposed deletion of this condition. This indicates that there is interest from residents within the immediate surrounding locality in requiring the construction of kerb and gutter to address water pooling concerns within the road verge following rain events.

As noted earlier in this report, all properties within the immediate vicinity of the subject site are also capable of development either as dual occupancies under clause 4.1A of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 (being min. 500sqm for attached dual occupancy and 700sqm for detached dual occupancy) or for Torrens Title subdivision in their own right into 500m² lots under clause 4.1 of the LEP (refer Figure 8). Culburra Beach, like most of the Shoalhaven is experiencing accommodation pressures and this type of development is not uncommon, with multiple examples of recent dual occupancy and subdivision development applications within the locality of the site being lodged and under assessment and/or approved.

Figure 8. Aerial photograph of the locality indicating the approx. lot sizes according to Council’s records.

As noted in POL12/65, Council has a programmed kerb and gutter strategy. Council’s City Services Section have a works schedule that involves planned upgrades to the Culburra Beach Road network and demonstrates that Council’s approach moving forward is to construct kerb and guttering over the long term within the locality to improve stormwater disposal for the safety of the community. A current project underway for kerb and gutter construction at Fairlands St, between Black Swan Way and Cross Street (to the west of Culburra Public School some 400m to the north west of the subject site) – a link to this information is available on Council’s website: Fairlands Street Culburra Beach - Shoalhaven City Council (nsw.gov.au). The purpose of these upgrades is for kerb, gutter and footpath construction for School safety improvements. Owners of affected properties for this project were charged for proposed kerb and gutter as per Councils Kerb and Guttering – Charges Applicable Policy POL16/148. An excerpt of the plan showing these works is provided below at Figure 9:

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 9. General arrangement plan for kerb and gutter/footpath – Fairlands St, Black Swan Way to Cross St Culburra Beach.

f) Existing precedents

We questioned the requirement when it was added to the DA but were advised that council was unable make any exception for this development as it would set a precedent. We have since learned that there are already a number of existing precedents in the area of developments that have not had to meet this requirement. These include 98a & 98b Greenbank Grove, just around the corner from our property, on a road that, unlike ours, predominantly has kerb and gutter.

Response: Both dual occupancy development and subdivision of land require the construction of kerb and gutter under DCP Chapters G11, G13 and G21. This has been consistently applied in accordance with DCP 2014. Developers undertaking dual occupancy development and/or subdivision and their consultants are generally aware of this requirement and factor it into the cost of development.

The subdivision at 98 Greenbank Grove is referenced as evidence of a precedent, however this was lodged and approved prior to the implementation of DCP2014 under previous provisions which exempted kerb and gutter on the frontage of the lot containing the existing dwelling (SF10403, lodged 10/07/2014 and approved at Development Committee 19/01/2015). A more recent dual occupancy approved at 34 Greenbank Grove at the corner of Black Swan Way did require full frontage construction of kerb and gutter (DA16/2430 approved 13/04/2017).

The area has precedent of kerb and guttering nearby (kerb and gutter on Greenbank Grove including kerb returns into Wollumboola Lane) which is likely to continue with future redevelopment.

2. Planning Assessment matters

It is found that the proposed deletion of Condition 19 of the consent would result in the following non-compliances:

a) Acceptable Solution A16.1 and Performance Criteria P16 of Chapter G21 of Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014. (Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)

b) Is likely to result in adverse impacts upon the surrounding built environment. (Section 4.15(1)(b) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)

c) The granting of approval to the modification is not considered to be in the public interest. (Section 4.15(1)(e) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)

Acceptable Solution A16.1 and Performance Criteria P16 of Chapter G21 of Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014. (Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)

The proposed deletion of the integral kerb and gutter construction requirements would result in non-compliance with A16.1/P16 of Chapter G21 – Car Parking and Traffic as follows:

Part 6.6 – Construction Standards

A16.1 The construction of internal driveways, roads, car parks, service areas and works in the road reserve comply with Table 3.

Table 3 – Dual Occupancy Development

· Kerb and Guttering

o Concrete kerb and gutter is to be provided to Council’s specification for the full frontage of the development together with a concrete layback and footpath crossing.

o In the case of corner allotments, kerb and gutter will be required on each road frontage of the development.

Acceptable Solution 16.1 provides a clear description that concrete kerb and gutter is required to be constructed for the full length of the development together with a concrete layback. However, given the site is a corner allotment, the proposal is also required to provided kerb and guttering to each road frontage of the development,

Condition 19 of the development consent has been implemented in accordance with the requirements of Acceptable Solution A16.1 of Chapter G21. Removal of the condition would result in non-compliance with the Acceptable Solution.

P16 The construction of internal driveways, roads, car parks, service areas and works in the road reserve is of a suitable standard according to land use type.

Noting that the DCP is a guideline and is to be applied flexibly, the deletion of the kerb and gutter is effectively an alternative solution. Whilst Council can consider alternatives, the proposed deletion of the requirement for kerb and gutter is also considered to be non-compliant with the listed Performance Criteria given:

· The works within the road reserve would no longer be constructed to the suitable standard required under Table 3 for the relevant land use type.

· The works would also result in non-compliance with other provisions of Council’s Development Control Plan which also reflect the requirement for kerb and guttering such as A65.4, A113.1, and Section 6.2.3 of Chapter G11 – Subdivision of Land.

Noting that the proposal is non-compliant with both the Acceptable Solution and Performance Criteria, the proposal is not supported.

Is likely to result in adverse impacts upon the surrounding built environment. (Section 4.15(1)(b) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)

The proposed deletion of the requirement for kerb and guttering has the potential to result in adverse impacts to the surrounding built environment.

The impacts to the surrounding built environment would in particular relate to Council’s infrastructure and assets including constructed road (Wollumboola Ln) given the potential for deterioration in the condition of Wollumboola Ln, noting the large ponding of water which presently occurs in the pre-kerb and gutter condition during heavy rain events.

The submission received objecting to the deletion of the condition, also reflects Council’s concern in relation to this matter.

The granting of approval to the modification is not considered to be in the public interest. (Section 4.15(1)(e) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)

The proposed deletion of the requirement for kerb and guttering would not be within the public interest for the following reasons:

· The additional runoff generated by the additional dwelling, which is already placed on the land, has created a water hazard within the road reserve area – as depicted in the photographs taken as part of Council’s site inspection and as depicted in the objection received during the notification period.

· The hazardous pooling of water is likely to result in the deterioration of the condition of Wollumboola Ln outside the site were the requirement for kerb and guttering to be removed.

· Any requests by the owner of the land down the track for repairs to the road are likely to then fall in the hands of Council to fund.

· The removal of the requirement for kerb and guttering would not be consistent with the established kerb and guttering located on the corners of the properties fronting the northern part of Wollumboola Ln and recent determinations issued by Council such as 34 Greenbank Grove.

· The removal of the requirement for kerb and guttering would not be consistent with Council’s existing Works Schedule and Council’s Policy No. POL12/65 – Asset Management Plan.

Planning Assessment

The Modification Application has been assessed under s4.15(1) and s4.55(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Please refer to Attachment 2.

Consultation and Community Engagement:

One (1) public submission was received in relation to Council’s notification of the modification application, objecting to the development. The notification was made in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy with letters being sent to neighbouring and surrounding property owners. The notification was for a two-week period between 20^th October and 5^th November 2021.

Key issues raised as a result of the notification are provided below. It is noted that the objection largely relates to kerb and gutter requirements along Wollumboola Lane, not the West Cres frontage of the site.

a) Water Hazard

Since they now have roof guttering that disperse now on the edge of the road it has created a large water hazard every time it rains.

Figure 10. Photographs provided by objector of Wollumboola Ln in a rain event

Comment

Photographs provided by the applicant (Figure 10) and taken by Council as part of the site inspection confirm a water hazard does exist following the placement of the additional dwelling on the land during rain events – therefore necessitating the construction of the kerb and gutter as required by Condition 19.

b) Potential for Deterioration of Road Reserve

This will continue to create damage to the existing road.

Comment

This reflects Council’s concerns and demonstrates the potential ongoing impacts upon the surrounding built environment, as it relates to Council’s public infrastructure.

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 an appeal in the Land and Environment Court of NSW. Further, there is a potential that Council would eventually have to fund capital works associated with kerb and guttering within the locale, including in the location of the proposed development, should the removal of Condition 19 be supported.

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. If such a review is ultimately pursued 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

A review of the applicant’s request for the deletion of Condition 19 of Development Consent No. DA20/1809 has found that the reasons given are not reasonable or signify extenuating or unique circumstances to warrant the exception of the subject site from Council’s planning controls and policy on the matter. Exception from the controls would not achieve a better outcome; would set an undesirable precedent for future infill development within the Local Government Area (LGA); and transfer the ultimate costs associated with kerb and gutter provision onto Council, contrary to current Council policy.

As the modification application is not considered capable of support it is recommended the proposal be refused for the reasons outlined below:

1. The modification is non-compliant with Acceptable Solution A16.1 and Performance Criteria P16 of Chapter G21 of the Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014. (Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)

2. The modification is likely to result in adverse impacts upon the surrounding built environment. (Section 4.15(1)(b) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)

3. The modification would result in the proposal not being suitable for the site. (Section 4.15(1)(c) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)

4. Having regard to the above matters, the granting of approval to the modification is not considered to be in the public interest. (Section 4.15(1)(e) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 28 March 2022

Page 1

CL22.156 Shoalhaven Heads Landscape Master Plan - Results of Public Exhibition and Finalisation of the Document

HPERM Ref: D22/69964

Department: Community Planning & Projects

Approver: Jane Lewis, Director - City Lifestyles

Attachments: 1. Community Consultation Results ⇩

2. Results of Public Exhibition ⇩

3. Draft Shoalhaven Heads Landscape Master Plan (under separate cover) ⇨

Reason for Report

To provide an update to Council on the background of the review of the Shoalhaven Heads Landscape Master Plan, including the community consultation and public exhibition of the document. This report seeks Council’s resolution on the final draft of the Shoalhaven Heads Landscape Master Plan.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Receive this report as an update on the community consultation and public exhibition completed in the revision of the Shoalhaven Heads Landscape Master Plan.

2. Adopt and finalise the draft Shoalhaven Heads Landscape Master Plan.

3. Proceed to implementation of the Shoalhaven Heads Landscape Master Plan, utilising the document as a strategic way forward in the town of Shoalhaven Heads.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation

Implications: This will allow the Shoalhaven Heads Landscape Master Plan to be finalised and provide a strategic future direction for the town of Shoalhaven Heads. It will also allow Council and the community to seek funding opportunities for the delivery of projects in line with the Master Plan.

2. Adopt an alternative recommendation and provide direction to staff

Implications: Depending on the significance of the recommendation, this may impact the finalisation of the Shoalhaven Heads Landscape Master Plan, resulting in delay in a strategic way forward and not being ready to apply for any upcoming funding where the projects may be eligible.

Background

The Shoalhaven Heads Township Landscape Master Plan outlines the general approach to the planning and implementation of streetscape and landscaping improvements in the town of Shoalhaven Heads.

Whilst the Master Plan is a Council document, it is community driven. The delivery of these infrastructure projects reflects the ongoing partnership of Council with the Shoalhaven Heads Community Forum and the broader Shoalhaven Heads community.

The Master Plan provides an overarching approach and seeks to coordinate the intentions of the community with the objectives of Council’s improvement programs. It incorporates pathway networks, town entrances, streetscaping, and upgrades to infrastructure as well as a Shoalhaven Heads specific colour palette, preferred materials, and plant species to be utilised throughout the town.

The Master Plan has been used to assist with funding applications and has provided a methodology to deliver infrastructure and upgrades in Shoalhaven Heads by both Council and the Shoalhaven Heads Community Forum on behalf of the broader community.

The Shoalhaven Heads Landscape Master Plan was developed in June 2014 in consultation with community. Given the age of the Master Plan, many projects have since been completed, or the priorities in the community may have changed. The need to review the existing Master Plan was reported to the Strategy and Assets Committee Meeting on 21/07/2020, where it was resolved (MIN20.490):

That Council:

1. Commence a review of the Shoalhaven Heads Township Landscape Masterplan.

2. Undertake community consultation with the Shoalhaven Heads Community Forum and broader community to inform the review, including public exhibition of the revised Draft Shoalhaven Heads Township Landscape Masterplan for a minimum period of 28 days.

3. Report back to Council following community consultation with an update on the revised Shoalhaven Heads Township Landscape Masterplan prior to adoption.

As a result, extensive consultation has occurred with Council staff, stakeholders, and the community to inform the review of the document. Details of the consultation are included below.

Community Engagement

In November 2020, community consultation was conducted on the existing Master Plan. This included communication with key stakeholders in the Shoalhaven Heads township, including:

· The Shoalhaven Heads Community Forum

· Shoalhaven Heads Loins Club

· Shoalhaven Heads Surf Lifesaving Club

· Shoalhaven Heads Bowling Club

· Holiday Haven

· Save Jerry Bailey Oval Inc

· Pepper Reserve Working Group

· Shoalhaven Heads Men’s Shed

· Local Rugby League Club and Cricket Club

The consultation on the Master Plan was promoted to the Shoalhaven Heads community and organisations by an article in the local newspaper, flyer distribution, and via Council’s social media and Get Involved platform.

The consultation resulted in 36 responses, where 91% of responses were Shoalhaven Heads residents. The consultation results can be found in Attachment 1.

Document Revision

The feedback received from internal sections of Council and the initial round of community consultation were incorporated into a draft revision of the Shoalhaven Heads Landscape Master Plan.

The draft revision included:

· Detail of streetscape and landscape improvements throughout the town of Shoalhaven Heads

· Condensed imagery and photographs throughout the document

· Updated zoning under the Shoalhaven LEP 2014

· Updated mapping of the Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP)

· Updated planting schemes and colour palette

· Updated Placemaking and Playspace themes

· Recently completed projects

· Future scope for highly utilised spaces

· Spaces that previously were not recognised

· Areas subject to future investigations and planning

The draft revised Master Plan has been circulated to the relevant internal Council staff for feedback, as well being presented to the executive of the Shoalhaven Heads Community Forum, the Shoalhaven Heads Estuary Taskforce, and the Shoalhaven Heads Chamber of Commerce.

As a result of the feedback, some minor amendments were made, and there were no objections to proceeding to a public exhibition.

In September 2021, Councillors were briefed on this project, who provided their support of the draft revision of the Master Plan and to proceed to public exhibition.

Public Exhibition

The draft revision of the Shoalhaven Heads Landscape Master Plan was placed on public exhibition from 28 October to 28 November 2021. The exhibition was advertised via the local newspaper, Council’s social media, and direct email to key stakeholders and past participants. Hard copies of the exhibited document were also put on display at the Shoalhaven Heads Community Centre. Internal Council stakeholders were also invited to review and submit feedback where necessary.

At the conclusion of the exhibition, 19 survey responses were received via the Get Involved platform, as well as an additional 9 written submissions. The online survey resulted in 89.5% of participants providing their support to the document.

The exhibition identified several requests for minor additions and amendments to the plan. A summary of all the feedback, including Council’s response, is provided in Attachment 2.

Final Draft Document

The feedback from the public exhibition was collated and reviewed by the Project Control Group. As a result of the range of feedback received, the following general actions occurred:

· The Master Plan was updated accordingly, or

· The Master Plan was updated to reflect the request, however identified the proposal was subject to its own detailed investigation and design, or

· The proposal was not included in the Master Plan due to it being outside of the project scope, or

· The proposal was not included in the Master Plan due to other information or investigations

Due to the broad range of feedback received, and only minor adjustments being made to the draft revised Master Plan, it was deemed that re-exhibition was not necessary. The final draft revision of the Shoalhaven Heads Master Plan can be viewed in Attachment 3.

Next Steps

Upon the adoption of the Shoalhaven Heads Landscape Master Plan, the document will be available to Council and the Community to demonstrate support and influence future projects or upgrades to the town of Shoalhaven Heads. The document may also provide in principle support for future grant applications.

Council staff will work with the Shoalhaven Heads community to determine an implementation plan and funding strategy for items identified in the Master Plan. The future projects identified in the Master Plan will also form part of the review of Council’s Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan.

Policy Implications

Shoalhaven City Councils Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan (CISP) recommends the future provision, priorities, and funding of community infrastructure at local, district and regional levels. The CISP covers the whole of the Shoalhaven Local Government Area and is being reviewed in 2022.

The future projects and aspirations identified in the Shoalhaven Heads Landscape Master Plan will be incorporated and reflected in the review of the CISP.

Financial Implications

The review of the Shoalhaven Heads Township Landscape Master Plan has been funded by the Community Planning and Projects operational budget.

The various infrastructure projects delivered to date have been delivered from Special Rate Variation funding, grant monies (which have been attained by both Council and the Shoalhaven Heads Community Forum), Council’s Minor Improvement Fund and fundraising from the Shoalhaven Heads Community Forum.

Amendments to the Shoalhaven Heads Township Landscape Master Plan may have an impact to the whole of life costs for Council owned or managed land in Shoalhaven Heads.

Projects identified for the future may have financial implications to the relevant Asset Custodians. These include design, delivery, ongoing maintenance, and future replacement of new or updated infrastructure. These financial implications will require to be further explored and elaborated on where required, upon the delivery of the draft Shoalhaven Heads Township Landscape Master Plan.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 28 March 2022

Page 1

CL22.157 Culburra Beach Community Centre - Facility Planning and Clarification on Way Forward

HPERM Ref: D22/72019

Department: Community Planning & Projects

Approver: Sarah Taylor, Manager - Library Services

Attachments: 1. Report - Site Investigations and Consultation - Community Swimming Pool - Culburra Beach - Strategy & Assets Committee 20 July 2021 ⇩

2. West Culburra Concept Plan - SSD 3846 DA Determination and Consent ⇩

3. Report - Culburra Beach Community Centre - Ordinary Meeting 2 November 2021 ⇩

Reason for Report

This report is to update Council on the progress of investigations in identifying a suitable site for the proposed community swimming pool in Culburra Beach.

This report allows Council to consider the Culburra Beach Community Centre site and to seek clarification on a way forward with various proposals resolved as per:

· MIN21.510 – the preferred locations for investigations and consultation to be undertaken for the proposed community swimming pool at Culburra Beach; and

· MIN21.826 - to undertake a Master Plan for this site to include a war memorial, space for community gatherings and events.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Acknowledge the various proposals as determined at Council’s Strategy & Assets Committee Meeting in July 2021 and Ordinary Meeting in November 2021 in relation to the Culburra Beach Community Centre site.

2. Proceed to undertake a community-based master planning exercise for the Culburra Beach Community Centre site in line with the Open Space Master Planning Priority List to be determined by Council.

3. Note that the Master Plan of the Culburra Beach Community Centre is to identify needs over the next 20 years and include engagement with all users and stakeholders.

4. Continue discussions with The Halloran Trust regarding the potential opportunities to locate a community swimming pool within the West Culburra Development.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation.

Implications: This will provide direction for the future of the Culburra Beach Community Centre site and ensure that potential projects progress in line with Council resolutions and community expectations.

2. Adopt an alternate recommendation.

Implications: Depending on the significance of the resolution, this may not provide a strategic way forward for the Culburra Beach Community Centre site. Council will need to provide direction in relation to the Culburra Beach Community Centre site and the conflicting proposals.

Implications: This will delay the progression of proposals for the Culburra Beach Community Centre site and not provide a way forward.

Background

The Culburra Beach Community Centre (CBCC) is located at 988 Culburra Road on a 1.25ha lot (see Figure 1). The CBCC comprises two community buildings serviced by a common off-street carpark located to the rear of the property. The property is operated and managed by the CBCC Management Committee (on behalf of Council).

Varying proposals over the CBCC site requires Council to provide direction and a way forward relating to two resolutions in 2021, summarised below:

· MIN21.510 – the preferred locations for investigations and consultation to be undertaken for the proposed community swimming pool at Culburra Beach; and

· MIN21.826 - to undertake a Master Plan for this site to include a war memorial, space for community gatherings and events.

A bird's eye view of a city

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Figure 1 Culburra Beach Community Centre site

Culburra Community Swimming Pool Investigations (MIN21.510)

A report was presented at the Strategy and Assets Committee on 12 July 2021 presenting the outcome of site investigations for a community swimming pool in the Culburra Beach locality and to seek Council’s endorsement on a way forward for this proposal. As a result of the report, it was resolved (MIN21.510):

That Council:

1. Receive this report as an update on:

a. Possible sites for the location of the proposed community swimming pool in the Culburra Beach locality being;

i. Culburra Community Centre

ii. West Culburra development

b. Legislative requirements and guidelines for swimming pool management, operation and safety;

c. Discussions with The Halloran Trust on a potential Public Private Partnership to deliver the proposed community swimming pool within the West Culburra development.

2. Commence consultations with the community and the Halloran Trust to investigate the desired location, features and feasibility of the proposed community swimming pool at Culburra Beach at the locations noted in 1(a)(i) being Culburra Community Centre and 1(a)(ii) being West Culburra development;

3. Commence consultations with the community on their willingness to operate and manage a community swimming pool;

4. Receive a further report on the outcomes of the consultation, site identification and feasibility of establishing the proposed community pool to be operated by the local community.

MIN21.510 Part 1 – July 2021 Update Report

The Report presented to Council in July 2021 is included as Attachment 1, and provided updates on actions and investigations undertaken being:

a) Desktop analysis and overview of potential sites for the proposed swimming pool in the Culburra Beach locality;

b) Swimming pool legislative requirements and guidelines for management, operation and safety; and

c) Discussions with The Halloran Trust in relation to locating the proposed swimming pool within the West Culburra development, potentially in the form of a Public Private Partnership.

MIN21.510 Part 2 – Consultation with the community and the Halloran Trust

Council staff had initial discussions with The Halloran Trust in relation to the delivery of a community pool, which could be located in the West Culburra development in early 2021. The Halloran Trust advised their willingness to support the Culburra Beach Community and engage in more detailed discussions with Council, however, they do not wish to disrupt the current processes for the West Culburra development.

Council staff met with The Halloran Trust again in November 2021 to provide an overview of investigations to date.

Further discussions were undertaken in March 2022 in relation to future opportunities for a potential site for the community swimming pool within the West Culburra Development. Subsequent correspondence was received from a representative from The Halloran Trust which advised, inter alia:

“The Halloran Trust owns Sealark Pty Ltd which has received approval for the West Culburra Concept Plan. This Concept Plan includes a 25,600 square metre park plus sporting club, amenities and carpark. These will be developed and transferred in due course to the Council for the benefit of the community. The Concept Plan also includes the provision of other parks, reserves and community benefits.

The Halloran Trust is a charitable trust and all beneficiaries of the trust have charitable purposes. One of the named beneficiaries is “the Community of Culburra Beach”. The Trust is therefore interested in providing financial support over time which is of direct benefit to Culburra Beach. Any decision about a swimming pool needs to be made by the Council but the Trust is open to working with the Council if it wishes to own and operate a swimming pool at Culburra Beach. Support by the Trust could be by providing land and/or making a financial contribution to the capital cost of the construction of the facility.

Council staff met again with representatives of The Halloran Trust during March 2022 to discuss the Concept Plan and related matters. The potential for collaboration around the swimming pool project was raised at this meeting and discussions will continue.

The Concept Plan referenced in the above correspondence, is provided as Attachment 2.

MIN21.510 Part 3 – Consultation with the community on swimming pool operation and management

A page has been created on Council’s Get Involved platform to keep the community informed of the project as it progresses. In addition, a draft community survey has been prepared to gain community feedback on desired features, support for the pool and preferred locations.

Pending Council’s way forward, the community survey will be made available for public response, with collation of the feedback anticipated to provide a clearer direction for the determination of suitable sites. This feedback will guide additional consultation with the community on their willingness to operate and manage the community swimming pool.

MIN21.510 Part 4 – Further report at completion of consultation

Upon receiving Council’s preferred direction for the CBCC site, Council staff will action and provide an update either through a further report or Councillor Briefing on the outcomes of consultation, preferred sites and budget required.

Future Direction for Culburra Beach Community Centre - MIN21.826

A separate Report was presented at the Ordinary meeting of Council on 2 November 2021 regarding the use of the CBCC site, including the proposal for installation of a War Memorial by the Culburra Beach Orient Point RSL Sub-Branch (CBOPRSL), and the use of this space for Community Based Markets and Gatherings.

It was resolved (MIN21.826):

That Council:

1. Supports the vision that the Culburra Beach Community Centre Committee has for the Culburra Beach Community Centre in that the Committee believe that the grounds fronting Culburra Road should not be diminished and should be used to host community-based markets and gatherings.

2. Allocates $20,000 in the Draft 2022/2023 Budget to undertake a community-based master planning exercise for the Culburra Beach Community Centre with the view of planning for the sites needs over the next 20 years.

MIN21.826 Part 1 – Support of Culburra Beach Community Centre Committee

The Report presented to Council in November 2021 is included as Attachment 3 and provided an overview of the differing visions for the CBCC site presented by the CBOPRSL and CBCC Committee.

Council’s resolution supports the vision of the CBCC Committee that the works proposed by the CBOPRSL will significantly reduce the usable grounds fronting Culburra Road, and subsequently their ability to host community-based markets and gatherings.

MIN21.826 Part 2 – Community-Based Master Plan for the CBCC site

Master Plans are high-level, long-term strategic plans intended to set out objectives and strategies to manage development, provide a vision and framework for how an area can grow and develop. Master Plans include future projects, as well as addressing the upcoming needs from the community and stakeholders. The Master Planning process defines what is important about a place and how its character and quality can be conserved, improved, and enhanced to meet the current and future needs of users, the community, and relevant stakeholders.

Master Plans assist Council in determining upcoming work programs and financial plans and are essential for grant funding applications. In a best-case scenario, Master Planning is completed before any significant project works or capital investment is delivered. Master Planning is the first stage of progressing a project to ‘shovel ready’.

A report was presented to Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 21 February 2022 that provided an update on the current Master Plans for Council owned or managed parks, active and passive open space, or sports grounds and reserves, and to seek Council’s direction on the way forward regarding the prioritisation and timing for these Master Plans. A recommended priority list of Master Plans for Council owned or managed parks and reserves was provided as per Table 1.

Table 1 Proposed Priority List of Master Plans for Council owned or managed parks and reserves

Masterplan	Categorisation	Timeframe / Year	Supported by	Priority
Huskisson Foreshore Precinct, (Voyager Park to Moona Moona Creek) Huskisson	Destination Park	22/23	CISP	1
Mollymook Beach Reserve, Mollymook	Destination Park	22/23	CISP	2
Ulladulla Foreshore and Apex Park, Ulladulla	Destination Park	22/23	CISP	3
Culburra Beach Community Centre, Culburra Beach	Local Community Centre	23/24	MIN21.826	4
Greenwell Point Foreshore Reserve, Greenwell Point	District Recreation Park	23/24	MIN21.406	5
Francis Ryan Reserve, Sanctuary Point	District Sports Park	23/24	CISP	6
Elliott Reserve, Currarong	District Sports Park	24/25	Community	7
Wool Lane Sporting Complex, Sanctuary Point	District Sports Park	24/25	CISP	8
Huskisson Sportsground, Huskisson	District Sports Park	24/25	Community/Staff	9
Greys Beach, North Nowra	District Recreation Park	25/26	Nowra Bridge Project	10
Harry Sawkins Park, Nowra	District Recreation Park	25/26	CISP	11
Plantation Point Reserve, Vincentia	District Recreation Park	25/26	Community	12
Edwards Avenue Reserve, Bomaderry	Local Recreation Park	26/27	CISP	13
Barker Reserve, Burrill Lake	Local Recreation Park	26/27	MIN20.754 Community led MP	14
Callala Bay Sports Park, Callala Bay	District Sports Park	27/28	Community/Staff	15

It was resolved (MIN22.135):

That Council:

1. Consider an annual recurrent funding request of $300,000 + CPI within the City Lifestyles budget to facilitate the development and completion of Master Plans for Council owned or managed parks and reserves (as proposed in Table 1).

2. Hold a Workshop for Councillors to determine priorities for the completion of Master Plans

A Councillor workshop will be scheduled in accordance with Council’s processes to determine and finalise the priority list of Master Plans in which the CBCC site is included, and Council staff will action the determined priority list accordingly.

Varying proposals for CBCC site

It has been identified that the proposals as resolved (MIN21.510 and MIN21.826), illustrated below in 2 to 4 on the CBCC site, are conflicting and may result in incompatible developments. Council staff require direction on priorities for investigation and actions to be undertaken. Community consultation will be required to be undertaken to quantify community support for the future use of the site.

Council’s resolution (MIN21.826) supports the retention of the grounds fronting Culburra Road to host community-based markets and gatherings, which removes one option for the community pool on the CBCC site as identified in Figure 4.

Figure 2 Current CBCC Site Plan showing existing memorial

Figure 3 CBCC Site plan showing proposed alterations and additions to the existing memorial

Graphical user interface

Description automatically generated

Figure 4 Potential locations for the swimming pool on the CBCC site

Community Engagement

Community Swimming Pool Community Submissions

Four submissions have been received from the general public in relation to the Culburra Community Pool investigations. Key points raised in the correspondence have been provided below:

· An ocean pool would be a great asset for tourists and the local community

· Favouring an indoor pool wholly owned and operated by Council with no financial liability to the community, situated at the Community Centre location

· Support for the community swimming pool as a benefit for residents and visitors, with preference for a heated pool and safe area to teach children water safety

· Would be great for the growing community

These submissions have been recorded in Council’s system for consideration throughout investigations.

Culburra Beach Community Centre War Memorial

Culburra Beach Orient Point RSL Sub-Branch

Council staff from City Services directorate met with Bob Colligan (Hon. Secretary -CBOPRSL) on the 17 June 2021 to discuss the proposed modifications to the War memorial.

Culburra Beach Community Centre Committee

Council staff met with the Culburra Beach Community Centre Committee on the 17 June 2021 to discuss the proposed modifications to the War memorial.

Discussion on 16 July 2021

Council met with both the CBOPRSL and CBCC Committee on the 16 July 2021 on-site to discuss the proposed modifications to the War memorial. Conflicting views and priorities were raised, with Council staff actioned to report to Council on the outcomes of discussions to date and seek direction from Councillors for a decision for Stage 2 works.

Policy Implications

Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan

Swimming Pools / Aquatic Facilities

Shoalhaven City Council’s Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan (CISP) identifies that Council’s pools are highly valued and well used. Figure 5 illustrates existing swimming pools in the Shoalhaven LGA.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 5 Existing swimming pools in the Shoalhaven LGA

Application of the Community Infrastructure Classification Framework and Provision Standards for aquatic facilities recommends:

· Local Aquatic Facility – 1 facility per 10,000 – 40,000 people

· District Aquatic Facility – 1 facility per 40,000 – 70,000 people

The CISP identifies that the Shoalhaven LGA is well provided for with aquatic facilities, which is meeting demands now and into the future 2036.

Culburra Beach Community Centre

Community buildings are able to be used by groups and organisations for recreational, social, community service, educational or health promoting activities, and as community meeting places or be hired by the public on a casual basis. Council’s CISP identifies a trend for community buildings to move away from single-purpose or dedicated buildings towards a cost and land use efficient model of multi-purpose buildings with flexible design to cater for a variety of user groups.

Within the CISP, the Culburra Beach Community Centre is identified as a “Local Community Centre” with no future work planned for the site.

Financial Implications

Community Swimming Pool

Preliminary discussions have taken place with Shoalhaven Swim Sport and Fitness on costings associated with the operation and management of existing village pools. A basic swimming pool similar in size and features of a village pool would cost approximately $6 million to deliver, while a basic indoor heated swimming pool would cost approximately $12 million to deliver. Additional costings would need to be considered for current compliance requirements, amenities, pool plants, machinery and fit out. It is anticipated that the ongoing cost for the proposed swimming pool in Culburra Beach would be similar to that which is incurred at similar village pools which ranges from $80,000 – to $112,000 net cost per season.

Upon receipt of feedback received as part of consultation, pending Council’s preferred direction, a high level preliminary estimated cost to deliver and maintain the proposed facility can be provided to Council, to assist assessing the overall feasibility.

CBCC site Master Plan

A budget of $20,000 has been allocated as resolved (MIN21.826) to undertake the community-based master planning for the Culburra Beach Community Centre. This does not cover costs for the investigations into the community swimming pool and may be insufficient for the development of a master plan.

Council does not currently have an identified budget to plan, build or operate the proposed swimming pool at Culburra Beach. In addition, the project is in its initial planning stages and the estimated cost of construction cannot yet be determined.

An allocated budget will be required if Council is to progress a Master Plan for the CBCC site separately or accept the priority position for the CBCC site. This is to be determined at a Councillor Briefing as part of the priority list of Master Plans for Council owned or managed parks and reserves.

Risk Implications

Culburra Beach Community Centre site

The proposed community-based master planning for the Culburra Beach Community Centre would reduce the risk of conflicting projects and proposal progressing simultaneously. The creation of a Master Plan for the Culburra Beach Community Centre will provide a strategic way forward for the future use of the space.

East Nowra, Worrigee Aquatic Centre Investigations

Council staff are currently investigating the provision of a potential Aquatic Facility for the Worrigee, South Nowra and East Nowra areas (MIN21.11 and MIN21.509). The locality of Culburra Beach is in close proximity to the Worrigee, South Nowra and East Nowra areas and as per the CISP, it has been identified that the Shoalhaven LGA is well provided for with aquatic facilities, which is meeting current and future demands. Pursuit of the Culburra Beach community swimming pool and Worrigee, South Nowra and East Nowra aquatic facility in such close proximity may result in additional oversupply of similar facilities and take budget from other needed social infrastructure or community facilities in the area.

Next Steps

Pending Council’s resolution on the way forward, Council staff propose to commence a community-based master planning exercise for the Culburra Beach Community Centre. Consultation for this master plan will include feedback and aspirations from all user groups and the general community. The Culburra Beach Orient Point RSL Sub-Branch and the Culburra Beach Community Centre Committee would be key stakeholders in this process.

A draft Master Plan for the Culburra Beach Community Centre would be reported to Council for adoption and provide a true representation on the community’s desires for the future use of the space.

The timing of the community-based master planning exercise for the Culburra Beach Community Centre is to be determined by Council. This will indicate whether a separate investigation will be undertaken, or it remains in line with the to be determined priority list of Master Plans for Council owned or managed parks and reserves.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 28 March 2022

Page 1

CL22.158 Narrawallee Beach - Dog Access Areas - Review of Environmental Factors

HPERM Ref: D22/93064

Department: Community Planning & Projects

Approver: James Ruprai, Director - City Development

Attachments: 1. Review of Environmental Factors - Dog Off-Leash Access (under separate cover) ⇨

Reason for Report

To seek Council’s concurrence to proceed with the Proposed Activity concerning dog access areas and associated works at Narrawallee Beach.

Recommendation

That Council, after consideration of the proposed dog off-leash area and associated works at Narrawallee Beach (the Proposed Activity) assessed in the Review of Environmental Factors dated 28 January 2022 (the REF):

1. Determines:

(a) that it has examined and taken into account, to the fullest extent possible, all matters affecting, or likely to affect, the environment by reason of the Proposed Activity.

(b) that the Proposed Activity is unlikely to significantly affect the environment provided that the proposed safeguards and mitigation measures identified in the REF are adopted and implemented, and therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required to be obtained, examined, and considered in respect of the Proposed Activity; and

(c) to adopt and implement the proposed environmental safeguards, mitigation measures and controls identified in the REF.

2. Pursuant to section 13(6) of the Companion Animals Act 1998, declare that part of Narrawallee Beach between BA8 and BA2 identified in Figure 3 of the REF to be an off-leash area between the hours of 4pm and 8am Australian Eastern Daylight-Saving Time and between 3pm and 10am Australian Eastern Standard Time.

3. Pursuant to section 14(1)(d) of the Companion Animals Act 1998 declare that part of Narrawallee Beach at BA1; between BA9 and BA15; and between IA1 and IA3 as identified in Figure 3 of the REF to be dog prohibited.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendations.

Implications: This is recommended as the Proposed Activity, with the proposed safeguards and mitigation measures, will inspire social interaction, inclusion and support the health and wellbeing for the community and their dogs whilst ensuring and maintaining the protection of the environment including the nesting shorebird population.

2. Not adopt the recommendations and modify or amend the Proposed Activity, including, for example, the location or timing of the Proposed Activity.

Implications: Depending on the nature of any modifications or amendments of the Proposed Activity, further investigations, including a further REF may be required to be undertaken and may result in financial and time implications.

3. Not adopt the recommendations and direct Council staff to undertake investigations and further reporting on any alternative proposals.

Implications: Further investigations and reporting may have time and financial implications.

Background

At the Ordinary Council meeting on 21 February 2022, a confidential report was considered by Council. As a result of the meeting, Council resolved (MIN22.150C)

That Council:

1. Receive and note the confidential legal advice received in relation to this matter.

2. Note that investigations and assessments are currently underway which will inform the way forward for Dog Access to Narrawallee Beach.

3. Proceed in accordance with Option 1 in the report and receive a further report from Council officers regarding the way forward in relation to Dog Access at Narrawallee Beach in March 2022.

In accordance with the above resolution, this report is to provide Council with an update regarding investigations completed and the way forward in relation to Dog Access at Narrawallee Beach.

Historical Context & Public Recreational Use

Narrawallee Beach has historically been used by the public for recreational purposes since prior to 1964. This public recreational use has continued to date and has included various recreational activities, including dog on-leash and off-leash activities.

Having regard to public recreational use of Narrawallee Beach commencing prior to 1964 and continuing to date, Narrawallee Beach has the benefit of a lawful continuing use right for the purpose of a public recreation area pursuant to section 4.68 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Dog access on Narrawallee Beach is considered an activity as defined under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and in accordance with the requirements of Part 5, a Review of Environmental Factors dated 28 January 2022 has been prepared and forms Attachment 1.

Review of Environmental Factors

The Proposed Activity is dog off-leash activity and associated works at Narrawallee Beach, Narrawallee as identified in the REF and includes:

· The on-leash transit area between Surfers Avenue and Victor Avenue (identified in Figure 3 of the REF as areas BA1 and BA2 respectively) where dogs can be walked on-leash to access the timed off-leash area to the north (identified in Figure 3 of the REF as between areas BA2 and BA7).

· The timed off-leash access area (identified in Figure 3 of the REF as between areas BA2 and BA8), where dogs may be off-leash during off-peak times (4pm – 8am Australian Eastern Daylight-Saving Time and 3pm – 1pam Australian Eastern Standard Time).

· The dog prohibited area between Narrawallee Creek Nature Reserve and the timed off-leash area (identified in Figure 3 of the REF as between areas IA1 and BA8) which provides a buffer area to mitigate impacts of off-leash dogs to shorebird habitat at the Narrawallee Creek Inlet and Nature Reserve.

· The installation of signage to outline restrictions of the Proposed Activity.

Shoalhaven City Council is the proponent and determining authority under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The environmental assessment of the proposed activity and associated environmental impacts has been undertaken in the context of Clause 228 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. In doing so, the REF assists fulfil the requirements of section 5.5 of the Act that Council examine and take into account to the fullest extent possible, all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment by reason of the activity.

The REF has been attached under separate cover for Council’s reference, and concludes as follows:

This Review of Environmental Factors has assessed the likely environmental impacts, in the context of Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, of a proposal by Shoalhaven City Council to permit dogs off-leash on a stretch of Narrawallee Beach, including the associated sign installation.

Shoalhaven City Council has considered the potential environmental effects of the proposal and the effectiveness and feasibility of measures for reducing or preventing detrimental effects. It is determined that:

1. The proposed safeguards identified in the report (Section 2.4) shall be adopted and implemented.

2. It is unlikely that there will be any significant environmental impact because of the proposed activity and an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the proposed activity.

3. The proposed activity is not likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats and entry into the Biodiversity Offset Scheme or preparation of a Species Impact Statement is not required.

4. The proposed activity is not a ‘controlled action’ for the purposes of the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and referral to the Commonwealth Environment Minister is not required.

Community Engagement

Pursuant to section 2.21(2)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 community participation is not required as it was determined in the REF that an environmental impacts statement was not required.

Council has however, undertaken engagement with the community and key stakeholders as detailed below.

Community Engagement

Council has received ongoing community feedback both in support, and in opposition of dog access to Narrawallee Beach since before to the implementation of the Access Areas for Dogs Policy in 2005. This feedback has been received in a variety of forms such as submissions, petitions, and in-person consultation. The most recent trial involved Councillors and Council staff liaising with local individuals and interest groups, encouraging all to provide written feedback in relation to the operation of the trial.

The current review being undertaken of Council’s Access Areas for Dogs Policy has included extensive community engagement, offering multiple opportunities for the community to provide feedback. In that, site specific feedback and suggestions have been received in relation to dog access areas across the Shoalhaven, inclusive of Narrawallee Beach.

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS)

As part of the Review of Environmental Factors and assessment of environmental impacts pursuant to Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council consulted with NPWS and as part of its environmental safeguards and measures to minimise impacts, will continue to engage with NPWS.

Department of Planning Industry and Environment (DPIE)

DPIE have been consulted to determine whether Council is required to obtain any specific licence for the proposed activity. DPIE have advised that Council as the Crown Land Manager over Reserve 91246 – Lot 7009 DP 1116370, known as Narrawallee Beach Reserve is the authority to issue consent over the Reserve and that Crown approval is not required. DPIE have also advised that any activity should be in accordance with the Reserve Purpose which is Public Recreation, Public Places, Community Consultation or other approvals under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

DPIE have also advised Council that the Crown does not issue licences for unreserved area of land below the MHWM and that it does not have any existing policy for such land.

Based on advice from DPIE, Council is not required to obtain any licences associated with the proposed activity.

Policy Implications

Council is in the process of reviewing the Access Areas for Dogs Policy. If Council concurs with the recommendations, the Proposed Activity at Narrawallee Beach will be included in the revised Access Areas for Dogs Policy.

Financial Implications

The Proposed Activity reflects the current activity on Narrawallee Beach. The safeguards and mitigation measures recommended in the REF will be required to be implemented, managed and maintained by Council staff. Such measures are already being undertaken by staff and are not anticipated to have any significant financial implications.

Risk Implications

Environmental risks have been identified and addressed in the REF by the recommendation of safeguards and mitigation measures. These safeguard and mitigation measures will be required to be implemented and maintained by Council staff.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 28 March 2022

Page 1

CL22.159 Sussex Inlet Library Investigations - Update

HPERM Ref: D22/70498

Department: Library Services

Approver: Jane Lewis, Director - City Lifestyles

Attachments: 1. Councillor Workshop - Sussex Inlet Library ⇩

Reason for Report

To update Council on the investigations into a library for Sussex Inlet.

Recommendation

That Council

1. Receive the Sussex Inlet Library Investigations report and note the advice provided in respect of previous Council resolutions regarding a Library for Sussex Inlet.

2. Receive further reports on the matter as information on the ongoing investigations into an alternate site for a Sussex Inlet Library becomes available.

Options

1. Receive the report

Implications: Council will be informed and updated on the investigations.

2. Request more information

Implications: Unknown

Background

There has been discussion around the provision of a library at Sussex Inlet since early 2018. At Council’s Strategy & Assets Committee Meeting in February 2018, a Notice of Motion was received regarding the establishment of a library in the township and it was resolved that:

MIN18.91

1. Council staff prepare a report on suitable sites for the establishment of a local library in the township of Sussex Inlet. The report would also address the possibility of re-locating the current Sanctuary Point library, once the district library had been completed in that community.

A report was prepared for Council’s June 2018 Strategy & Assets Committee Meeting outlining 4 possible sites that staff had identified as potential locations. It was resolved that:

MIN18.443

1. The General Manager hold a Councillor workshop to explore the need and possible options for the development and possible timing of a Library, noting the Committee’s preference for the site to be 29 Thomson St, Sussex Inlet.

A Councillor Workshop was held in September 2018 (see Attachment 1 – Councillor Workshop – Sussex Inlet Library). At the workshop staff were advised that three of the four possible locations for the facility, all located in Thomson Street, were considered too far from the Sussex Inlet CBD. Staff were asked to focus investigations on 175 Jacobs Drive, which is currently owned by the Uniting Church. A further site at 161 Jacobs Dr, Sussex Inlet, which is currently owned by NSW Health, was also identified.

At the briefing it was also noted that a library for the Bay & Basin area was a priority, and that consultation in regard to a library at Sussex Inlet would be undertaken with the community at a later date.

Discussion also took place regarding how to repurpose the current Sanctuary Point Library building and what its best future use would be.

A Notice of Motion was received in October 2018, regarding future uses for the current Sanctuary Point Library building and at Council’s Ordinary meeting in October it was resolved that:

MIN 18.841

The General Manager undertake an assessment of the possibility of leaving the existing building onsite to be used by the school community. The assessment consider the following:

1. The cost of relocating the building to Sussex Inlet, as originally intended, as opposed to the construction of a New building.

2. The possible use of an existing building at Sussex Inlet either leased or owned by Council.

3. Should relocation of the building be determined not to be desirable for any of the above reasons Council open negotiations with School Principal and the Department of Education regarding the possibility of leaving the building on site.

An assessment of the Sanctuary Point Library building was conducted in October 2019 by MI Engineers and advice was received that the demountable could be moved. The report concluded that the:

“… main structural elements shouldn’t be adversely affected provided sufficient bracing is installed, and the lifting points match the current support for the steel beams. The finishes are likely to suffer some damage during the transportation, such as cracking in the wall linings, cladding and ceiling lining.”

The report also listed transportation considerations which would require disconnecting the various modules, fitting braced lifting beams, additional bracing, new concrete footing and brick piers at a potential new site. An analysis of the cost of the relocation of the building has not been undertaken, however the Feasibility Study suggested that relocation of the modular library building is possible if required.

Council staff have used the “People Places: A Guide for Public Library Buildings in NSW Sydney: Library Council of New South Wales” publication, which is the library industry standard, to calculate the required size of a library for the Sussex Inlet population.

This has given a recommended library size of between 320m² and 460m² as a minimum, which does not support the relocation of the current Sanctuary Point Library building, which has a gross floor area of 140m².

Correspondence was also received from Sanctuary Point Public School, who requested use of the building once the new library was built. The current Sanctuary Point Library building is located on land owned by the Department of Education and leased to Council. The school advised that they wanted to set up a Comprehensive Wellbeing Hub for the school and wider community to access in a similar manner to the Nowra East Public School Wellbeing Hub, with a focus on access to a range of services that support their community. Sanctuary Point School was advised that a decision had still not been made regarding the future of the building and that further progress with the new library was needed before a decision was made.

There was also some interest in the building being used as a possible site for a new P.C.Y.C in Sanctuary Point. At Council’s Ordinary Meeting in April 2019 a Notice of Motion on this topic was received and it was resolved that:

MIN19.242

1. Council staff liaise with Nowra P.C.Y.C. with a view to establishing a P.C.Y.C. at Sanctuary Point, with the current Sanctuary Point Library building being considered as a possible future site. Staff identify funding opportunities and write to the local state member, the Honourable Shelley Hancock, Minister for Local Government seeking her preliminary support.

A report was prepared for Council’s Strategy & Assets Committee Meeting in December 2019, which provided updates for the two outstanding Notices of Motion (MIN18.841 and MIN19.242) regarding the current Sanctuary Point Library building and its potential future uses, as well as providing an update on an outstanding Notice of Motion (MIN18.91) in relation to a future library at Sussex Inlet.

At Council’s December Strategy & Assets Committee Meeting it was resolved to:

MIN19.931

1. Accept this report as an update on MIN18.841 and defer the decision regarding the future use of the Sanctuary Point building until the new District Library at Sanctuary Point project has progressed.

2. Receive a future report discussing relocation options for the building, including potential uses and locations (such as Sussex Inlet Library options and others as relevant), estimated costs of these options, and information about the possibility of leaving the existing building where it is.

3. Accept this report as an update on MIN19.242, and agree no further action be taken regarding the P.C.Y.C in Sanctuary Point.

4. Accept this report as an update on MIN18.91 and defer community consultation at Sussex Inlet until the new District Library at Sanctuary Point project has progressed to funded and approved for delivery.

5. Receive a future report covering the cost of relocating the building to Sussex Inlet, potential site locations and feedback on the outcomes of the community consultation.

Council staff prioritised working on the new district library at Sanctuary Point and paused any further immediate work regarding the Sussex Inlet Library.

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 27 October 2020, a Notice of Motion was received and it was resolved that Council:

MIN20.805

1. Re-commence investigations and community consultation to secure a site for the Sussex Inlet Community Library, Tourism, and other services. Sites to be in or close to Sussex Inlet CBD, that may include previous sites researched such as the Community Church or Neighbourhood Centre.

2. Receive a report back, in a timely manner, of proposed sites and way forward.

The new Sanctuary Point Library is progressing and a Development Application was lodged on 9 February 2022. While the DA is being assessed Council staff and architects are progressing other aspects of the project and Council has recently submitted a grant application under the Building Better Regions Fund - Round 6 for $8.5 million grant funding to assist with the construction of this important community asset.

Since early 2021, Council’s Strategic Property staff have been following up with the relevant owners of the Jacobs Drive properties to investigate whether these are available or able to be purchased. In January 2022, NSW Health advised that they do not approve of the selling of the whole site and that they would also be giving the Sussex Inlet Foundation (who occupy the front building) notice to find alternative accommodation, at which time they would demolish the current building.

Council’s Strategic Property staff are still investigating the 175 Jacobs Drive option, which is owned by the Uniting Church, and met recently with Church representatives to discuss potential options, either lease or purchase, noting the preference to possibly acquire the property. As a result, a valuation of the site ‘as is’ (no additional development) is being procured to provide an estimate of the purchase cost should Council decide this course of action. This matter will be the subject of a separate more detailed future report to Council.

Current Library Service Provision

Currently the Sussex Inlet area is serviced by the Mobile Library which visits the towns of Sussex Inlet and Berrara on a fortnightly basis (alternate Thursdays):

· Berrara 10.00am – 10.30am

· Sussex Inlet South (Sussex Road) 10.45am - 12.00pm

· Sussex Inlet (River Road, near shops) 1.15pm – 2.00pm

· Sussex Inlet School / Sussex Inlet Early Learning 2.15pm – 3.00pm

The current provision of services via the Mobile Library allows changes in service provision and location depending on changing demographics and usage patterns. The usage of the library has remained constant over the past few years at Sussex Inlet with on average 900 customers accessing the Mobile Library on an annual basis with approximately 2,700 items borrowed each year. The Mobile Library also provides a library service to housebound and aged care residents.

The current population of Sussex Inlet is 4,678 and is forecast to be 4,970 in 2026 and 5,529 in 2036. The Sussex Inlet area is not situated near a physical library. It is approximately 27kms from Sanctuary Point Library and 41kms from the Ulladulla Library.

Council has not received any correspondence from community members since 2009 regarding the provision of a physical branch in the Sussex Inlet area.

Financial Implications

If the current Sanctuary Point Library demountable was relocated to Sussex Inlet costs would include building relocation and associated costs such as, but not limited to; Development Applications, disconnection/reconnection of services (Sanctuary Point and Sussex Inlet), traffic control and transport costs, site preparation including footings, piers and connection to services/utilities.

175 Jacobs Drive would require additional funding to purchase the land from the Uniting Church and subdivision to allow such a sale.

Should Council wish to build a new library, based on costs itemised in “Rawlinson’s Australian Construction Handbook” a library with a gross floor area of 320m² to 460m² would cost between $1.85M - $2.55M to build and fit out. Ongoing operational costs are estimated at approximately $300K per annum.