Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 28 August 2018

Page 0

CL18.193 Notice of Motion - Draft Medium Density Amendment - Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 - Post Exhibition Consideration and Finalisation

HPERM Ref: D18/286267

Submitted by: Clr Andrew Guile

Purpose / Summary

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

Recommendation

That Council

1. Adopt the draft Medium Density Amendment as exhibited and as per attachment 1, but with the following additional changes:

a. Delete any reference to 'Mandatory Controls' as such content would be contrary to Section 4.15 (3A) of the EPA Act 1979, which requires the council to be flexible in applying DCP provisions and allow reasonable alternative solutions that achieve the objects of those standards for dealing with an aspect of a proposed development. The current DCP if adopted would lead to breaches of the EPA Act if mandatory controls were contained within it. Any control currently noted as mandatory is to be re-written as an acceptable solution.

b. Delete iv from principle controls in Section 5.1

c. Delete reference to minimum lot size of 1000m2 for battle-axe lots in A1.1.

d. Amend A5.1 to remove note referring to increased setback for tandem parking.

e. Amend Figure 3 and table 2 such that a maximum setback to a secondary street is 5m for dual occupancy dwellings on corner lots for detached dual occupancies. Figure 3 and table 4 shall be amended to include a 3.5m setback to secondary streets for attached dual occupancy dwellings with the garages setback 5.5m

f. Amend Table 2 to remove reference to 4m rear setback to dwellings and replace with 3m (average) rear setback.

g. Amend Table 4 to remove reference to 4m rear setback to dwellings.

h. Amend A6.2 to read:

A6.2: In addition to the formal landscaping area required at A6.1, a further area of at least 20% of the site is to be provided, which:

· Has a minimum dimension of 1m in any direction.

· Is inclusive of 40% deep soil planting.

· Can Include landscaped area, decks, terraces, alfresco areas, swimming pools or other recreation areas / structures.

i. Amend A11.3 to add the words 'where practicable'.

j. Delete P12.4 & A12.4

k. Delete following dot point reference in A13.1 - "Retain adjacent trees by locating the driveway outside the drip line."

l. Delete Section 5.33 of the DCP in its entirety.

m. Delete Section 5.3.4 of the DCP in its entirety.

n. Amend Section 5.3.5 to delete item 1.

o. Delete Section 5.3.6 of the DCP in its entirety.

p. Amend A28.2 such that the setback required is only 5.5m and not 7.2m.

q. Amend Section 5.4.3 by:

r. Deleting reference to "Mandatory Controls"

s. Amending item 1 to read as follows:

All Class 1a and 2 developments, as defined in the Building Code of Australia, should provide accessible or adaptable housing at the following rate:

· Developments containing 3-10 dwelling - 1 dwelling.

· Developments containing 11 - 40 dwellings - 2 dwellings.

· Development containing 41 - 60 dwellings - 3 dwellings.

· Development containing 61 - 80 dwellings - 4 dwellings.

· Developments containing 81 - 100 dwellings - 5 dwellings.

t. Amend A34.1 to state:

The required proportion of new Class 1a or 2 dwellings, should be designed so the dwelling can be easily and affordably adaptable at a later date. In this regard the Silver Standard for accessibility as outlined in the 'Liveable Housing Design Guidelines'.

2. Notify the adoption of the Medium Density DCP Amendment in local newspapers in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations.

3. Rescind the following existing Shoalhaven Development Control 2014 chapters when the Medium Density Amendment is made effective:

a. Chapter G13: Dual Occupancy Development.

b. Chapter G14: Other Residential Development.

4. Advise key stakeholders, including relevant industry representatives, of this decision, and when the Medium Density Amendment will be made effective.

Note by the General Manager

This is a detailed Notice of Motion and it is considered that staff provide a comprehensive outline of the implications.

Each of the proposed additions to the original recommendation from the Development Committee, including those as part of the Notice of Motion, is discussed below. This includes commentary on the implications of the proposed changes.

Councillors could also refer to the detailed summary of the submissions, with a Council staff response to all comments raised, found at Attachment 3 to the 14 August 2018 Development Committee Report on this matter. Copies of the actual submissions were made available for review in the Councillor’s Room prior to the meeting.

Addition to Staff Recommendation

Discussion and Implications

1.a.

and

NOM

Delete any reference to ‘Mandatory Controls’ as such content would be contrary to Section 4.15 (3A) of the EPA Act 1979, which requires the council to be flexible in applying DCP provisions and allow reasonable alternative solutions that achieve the objects of those standards for dealing with an aspect of a proposed development. The current DCP if adopted would lead to breaches of the EPA Act if mandatory controls were contained within it.

Addition via NOM:

Any control currently noted as mandatory is to be re-written as an acceptable solution.

Number of submissions on this matter: 2

The mandatory controls within the DCP are not contrary to Section 4.15(3A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act).

Section 4.15 (formally section 79C) of the Act states that in relation to development control plans, the consent authority:

· Must not require more onerous standards with respect to that aspect of the development, than the standard set by the DCP (summary of section 4.15(3A)(a)).

· Is to be flexible in applying a provision where the development application does not comply with those standards. The consent authority is to allow reasonable solutions that achieve the objects of those standards (summary of section 4.15(3A)(b)).

· May only consider those provisions in connection with the assessment of that development application (summary of section 4.15(3A)(c)).

Shoalhaven DCP 2014 is essentially a performance based DCP model. This means that the document is predominantly structured with performance criteria (i.e. a standard). Accompanying the performance criteria are acceptable solutions, which are Council’s preferred solution for achieving the performance criteria. The DCP is clear in the Introduction Chapter that should an acceptable alternative solution be proposed, Council will consider this in conjunction with the relevant performance criteria, and objectives. This is consistent with section 4.15(3A)(b) of the Act.

The use of the term mandatory controls in the DCP introduce a prescriptive element, but they are also considered a standard just like a performance criteria. The Introduction Chapter of the DCP describes a mandatory control as “specific, prescriptive measures required for achieving the desired objectives”. The overall Shoalhaven DCP 2014 already includes a number of ‘mandatory provisions’ which were introduced when the single DCP came into force four years ago on 22 October 2014.

It should be noted that the majority of DCPs across the State are prescriptive (within the stipulations set by the Act) in nature including all the other Council’s in the Illawarra-Shoalhaven Region (Wollongong, Shellharbour and Kiama) as well as Bega Valley, Palarang-Queanbeyan, Wingecarribee, Sutherland, Wollondillyand Camden etc.

Eurobodalla’s DCP is a model very similar to Shoalhaven’s, with development controls (i.e. Shoalhaven’s mandatory controls), performance criteria and acceptable solutions.

As such, what Shoalhaven calls a ‘mandatory control’ is not considered to be inconsistent with section 4.15(3A)(b) of the Act, especially as Council will and does consider variations in this regard. An applicant would need to demonstrate that the objective of the section/subsection and the Chapter are being met and that the development would not have any additional adverse impacts as a result of the variation.

In relation to section 4.15(3A)(a), Council in its assessment of a development cannot and would not require an applicant to meet a standard more onerous than the mandatory control.

In relation to section 4.15(3A)(c), Council would only apply a mandatory control where it related to the development. For example, the mandatory control relating to communal open space areas would only be applied to multi dwelling housing development with 8 or more dwellings. It could not be applied to a different medium density development type, or to a multi dwelling housing development with 7 or less dwellings.

As such, it is clear that the use of ‘mandatory controls’ in the overall DCP are established practice and are not inconsistent with section 4.15(3A) of the Act. If the NoM change is resolved, clarification is needed on whether the intent relates to the whole DCP or just draft Chapter G13. If it is the whole DCP this will be a significant change that is outside the scope of the current amendment.

Implications:

Within Chapter G13, only four ‘mandatory controls’ are provided as follows:

· To specify that where lot consolidation to provide a good-sized parent lot is not feasible, a development application must provide written evidence to Council’s satisfaction to demonstrate that consolidation is not feasible. This seeks to ensure that development sites are appropriate, and land consolidated where possible to avoid multiple narrow lots that which often result in poor built form outcomes or even sterilisation of surrounding lots for purpose of medium density development.

· To specify that private open space must be located behind the front building line. This promotes private open space that is practical, with strong amenity qualities and also reinforces the streetscape, which was a key outcome of the Dual Occupancy Review.

· To ensure that communal open space, where required, is accessible to all, including people with a disability, the aged, parents with prams and so on. It is noted that this provision is strongly supported by Council’s Inclusion and Access Advisory Group.

· To identify a proportion of dwellings that must provide accessible or adaptable housing to ensure Shoalhaven is catering for all ages and abilities, now and into the future, particularly given the ageing population profile. It is noted that this provision is strongly supported by Council’s Inclusion and Access Advisory Group.

The intent of these provisions is to reinforce Council’s commitment to good built form outcomes, as well as high levels of amenity and liveability. The deletion of the content of all the mandatory controls based on the assertion that they are inconsistent with the Act would water down Council’s intent and outcomes in this regard.

In terms of rewriting the mandatory controls as acceptable solutions, this can be achieved and would be preferable to the deletion of the provisions completely, however suitable performance criteria would also need to be drafted in response. In some instances, it may be more appropriate for the mandatory controls to be rewritten as performance criteria due to the nature of the DCP.

Staff will require clear direction in this regard and also whether the change, if adopted, relates just to the chapter or the DCP as a whole.

NOM

Delete iv from principle controls in Section 5.1.

Number of submissions on this matter: 1

It is assumed that ‘iv’ means objective iv in Section 5.1.1 being:

Encourage high amenity streetscapes with wider street frontages.

This objective is linked to the mandatory controls and performance criteria within this Section which seek to encourage site consolidation where practical/appropriate to ensure the development site is of a sufficient size and shape to achieve required DCP provisions.

The wider street frontage relates to the parent lot, not any resulting lots following subdivision. This matter is addressed in other parts of the DCP.

The objective also seeks to achieve high amenity streetscapes.

Implications:

Removing the objective relating to wider street frontages would weaken the existing mandatory control (or acceptable solution if it is rewritten as such as per the NOM). There needs to be a tangible link between the objectives and standards.

It is recommended that the following wording be retained at the very least “Encourage high amenity streetscapes” as it has wider application in the Section, beyond the streetscape frontage issue. It is also fundamentally linked to the outcomes of the Dual Occupancy Review where improved presentation and design outcomes were identified as a needed outcome.

1.b.

and

NOM

Delete reference to minimum lot size of 1000m² for battle-axe lots in A1.1.

Addition via NOM:

Although this matter is referred to in the NOM, no changes are proposed to the above recommended addition.

Number of submissions on this matter: 1

This provision has been present in Shoalhaven DCP 2014 since 22 October 2014. It is generally acknowledged that a larger site area is required for dual occupancy development on a battle-axe lot, than required for a standard dwelling house, or a dual occupancy with street frontage.

A larger site area enables amenity, privacy, private open space and access/circulation requirements to be appropriately considered for any future development. 1000m² is considered to be the minimum area required to enable a well-considered dual occupancy development based on operational considerations and a cross section of applications with similar characteristics.

The following basic scenario demonstrates how a 1000m² minimum lot size for a dual occupancy on a battle-axe lot is appropriate:

Scenario:

Site area: 1000m²(excluding access handle)

Floor area: 500m² (based on FSR of 0.5:1 as per Section 5.1.2 of exhibited Chapter G13)

Landscaped area: 300m² (30% as per Section 5.1.2 of exhibited Chapter G13)

Hardstand areas: Driveway (excluding access handle), manoeuvring areas (acknowledging requirement to enter and exit in forward direction, at grade car parking (if proposed), paving, decking, pool etc – assume a conservative 20% = 200m²

Total = 1000m²

Dual occupancies on smaller lots often seek to trade off landscaping or other amenity characteristics for the required larger manoeuvring area and desired built form elements.

Such a lot fixing standard is not uncommon, with Kiama Municipal Council specifying a 1000m² minimum lot size for certain battle-axe lots where a dual occupancy is proposed.

It is noted that this matter is being considered as part of the proposed Subdivision Review Planning Proposal (LEP Amendment) which will be reported to Council in due course.

Implication of deletion:

Deletion of this provision would potentially result in dual occupancies on battle-axe lots which are generally too small to deliver appropriate built form and amenity outcomes. This becomes more and more the case as expectations for larger dwellings increase.

1.c.

and

NOM

Amend Figure 3 and Table 2 such that a maximum setback to a secondary street is 5m for dual occupancy dwellings on corner lots.

Addition via NOM:

The above applies to detached dual occupancies.

Figure 3 and table 4 shall be amended to include a 3.5m setback to secondary streets for attached dual occupancy dwellings with the garages setback 5.5m.

Number of submissions on this matter: 1

The front setback equation for the rear dwelling (secondary road frontage) is the average of the side setbacks of the front dual occupancy dwelling (A) and the adjacent dwellings (B):

X = A+B

The average setback provisions for a rear dual occupancy dwelling have been in effect since 2010.

The Building and Compliance Section have advised that the provision still works well, and results in good built form outcomes. It is important to have a transition between the front dual occupancy dwelling and the adjoining development to integrate the rear dwelling into the streetscape.

This was a key outcome of the Dual Occupancy Review undertaken prior to proceeding with the DCP Amendment.

The addition and NOM seeks to specify that the maximum front setback for the rear dwelling of a dual occupancy development should be capped at:

· Detached - 5m.

· Attached - 3.5m, garages 5.5m.

Implications:

In the rare case that the adjacent dwelling has an overly large setback, a capped 5m setback for a detached dual occupancy would look out of context and likely result in an awkward interface with the streetscape.

The maximum front setback in relation to an attached dual occupancy would also look out of context and most likely result in an awkward interface with the streetscape. This provision essentially seeks to apply a side setback in place of a front setback. Further, an additional 2m setback from the building line to the garage is quite pronounced and may look overstated.

The capped setbacks would most likely exaggerate the built form and, depending on the orientation and building design, could impact upon the amenity of adjacent development. This also conflicts with a number of the exhibited objectives in 5.1.3.

The proposed additions require much greater consideration in isolation and also in relation to the draft Chapter as a whole. It would be more appropriate to retain the well tested equation and consider variations on a case by case basis in the context of the development and unique characteristics of the site.

It is noted that any change to the front setbacks for dual occupancy development should be made to Table 2, and not Table 4. Table 4 does not apply to dual occupancy development.

1.d.

1.e.

And

NOM

Amend Table 2 to remove reference to 4m rear setback to dwellings and replace with 3m (average) rear setback.

Amend Table 4 to remove reference to 4m rear setback to dwellings.

Addition via NOM:

Although these matters are referred to in the NOM, no changes are proposed to the above recommended addition.

Number of submissions on this matter:

1.d. = 2,

1.e. = 1

The rear setback for medium density development has been set at 4m to enable substantial deep soil zones in the rear setback, the opportunity for vegetation corridors (i.e. along the rear of the site), and to consider amenity of surrounding development. The setback will also assist in the ability of the applicant to meet landscaping and private open space requirements for the dwelling at the rear. The general rear setback provision has been brought in line with the existing rear setback to a public reserve for consistency.

Implications:

The opportunity for vegetation corridors with connected deep soil zones at the rear of the site will potentially be diminished or lost. The wholistic approach to amenity, both within and external to the site would be impacted.

1.f.

and

NOM

Amend A6.2 to read:

In addition to the formal landscaping area required at A6.1, a further area of at least 20% of the site is to be provided, which:

· Has a minimum dimension of 1m in any direction.

· Is inclusive of 40% deep soil planting.

· Can Include landscaped area, decks, terraces, alfresco areas, swimming pools or other recreation areas / structures.

Addition via NOM:

Although this matter is referred to in the NOM, no changes are proposed to the above recommended addition.

Number of submissions on this matter: 2

The area described would more appropriately meet the definition of private open space area which is already considered in Section 5.3.5 of draft Chapter G13. Such a duplication is confusing and unnecessary.

A landscaped area of at least 30% is not uncommon in DCPs across the state.

The Standard Instrument LEP definition of landscaped area specifically excludes any building, structure or hard paved area to ensure that the area is used for growing plants, grasses and trees.

The recommended removal of this term represents the greatest implications for the provision.

Implications:

This outcome would only require 10% of the site to be landscaped plus the additional 8% deep soil zone area in acceptable solution A6.2, which would result in adverse amenity impacts and increased hardstand areas that do not facilitate onsite infiltration of stormwater runoff.

It is noted that the existing landscaped area requirement in Chapter G13: Dual Occupancy Development is 30% and Chapter G14: Other Residential Development is 35%. As such, the amendment represents a reduction in the actual numerical requirement for landscaping by 40% to 49%, depending on the type of medium density development.

1.g.

and

NOM

Amend A11.3 to add the words ‘where practicable’.

Addition via NOM:

Although this matter is referred to in the NOM, no changes are proposed to the above recommended addition.

Number of submissions on this matter: 1

This provision requires one dwelling in a dual occupancy development to address the primary frontage and the other dwelling to address the secondary frontage, where the site is located on a corner.

This acceptable solution is one way that the following related performance criteria can be achieved:

· The frontage, entries and habitable room windows of dwellings address the street.

· The design and orientation of the dwellings, enhance the streetscape, complement existing development in the vicinity, provide visual interest and allow casual surveillance of public or communal streets or public domain.

The acceptable solution caters for the vast majority of sites.

Implications:

The introduction of the words ‘where practical’ waters down the provision for the vast majority of corner lots. Instead, it is considered more appropriate to consider variations for exceptions on a case by case basis, as Council currently does.

NOM

Delete P12.4 & A12.4.

Number of submissions on this matter: 1 (deletion of acceptable solution A12.4 only, not the performance criteria)

Performance Criteria P12.4 requires vehicles to be able to enter and exist the site in a forward direction. A12.4 specifies that where a dual occupancy is proposed on a site with access to a local street or above, it will need to be able to enter and exit a site in a forward direction.

The provisions have been included to support existing acceptable solution A5.1 of DCP Chapter G21: Car Parking and Traffic, which applies to all development (including all medium density development types).

A5.1 of Chapter G21 specifies that:

Development must be designed so that vehicles enter and leave the premises in a forward direction.

A12.4 provides additional clarification that this provision should not apply to a dual occupancy development on an access street or laneway. P12.4 and A12.4 directly relates to objective iv of the Section which seeks safe vehicular and pedestrian access.

It is considered that access streets and laneways can better accommodate additional movements resulting from increased density as they are relatively low volume/speed, however roads above this status are not able to accommodate additional movements as easily. This will avoid vehicles reversing down long driveways and ensure that the road network is able to handle the additional vehicular and reversing movements.

If a development on a small site cannot accommodate turning areas to enable a vehicle to enter and exit the site in a forward direction, it may be an indication that the site is not appropriate for such development.

Implications:

Deletion of these provisions will not negate consideration of A5.1 in Chapter G21: Car Parking and Traffic as part of the development application. Dual occupancy development on any street will be required to enter and exit the site in a forward direction, as per existing requirements, which is more onerous than suggested in exhibited P12.4 and A12.4.

Safe access to and from the site should be an important consideration in the development assessment process.

NOM

Delete following dot point reference in A13.1 - "Retain adjacent trees by locating the driveway outside the drip line."

Number of submissions on this matter: 1

It is acknowledged that avoiding the drip line of all trees may not be practicable, however it is important that mature trees are retained where possible in line with industry standards and existing resolution MIN16.949(8):

“In any future review of DCP’s, Council consider the value of the contribution of mature trees’ to providing shade and reducing the heat island effect.”

Trees add significant value to our built environment as they can (not exclusively):

· Increase residential property values.

· Improve the climate by reducing the temperatures of the surfaces they shade by as much as 10-25 degrees Celsius.

· Reduce energy consumption by the direct shading of buildings and less reliance on air coolers.

· Improve air quality by absorbing pollution. Older larger trees can reduce pollution up to 60 times greater than a smaller tree.

It is noted that this provision only relates to siting of driveways, and not dwellings.

If a development proposes the driveway to be located within the drip line of a tree, consideration should first be given to the redesign the development footprint. If this cannot be achieved, an application could consider seeking a variation to this acceptable solution.

Implications:

Deleting this part of A13.1 will most likely result in the loss of mature trees (including established shrubs and vegetation), particularly those that could otherwise be retained through careful design consideration.

The deletion of the acceptable solution does not holistically consider the implications of the following objective in the Section:

ii. Encourage driveway design that minimises visual impact, stormwater runoff and retains established trees and vegetation.

It is unclear whether the rest of A13.1 dot point 4 is also to be deleted: “Established shrubs and vegetation shall also be retained wherever possible”.

Staff will require clear direction regarding this proposed change if ultimately resolved.

1.h.

and

NOM

Delete Section 5.3.3 of the DCP in its entirety.

Addition via NOM:

Although this matter is referred to in the NOM, no changes are proposed to the above recommended addition.

Number of submissions on this matter: 1

Ceiling height affects the amenity of a dwelling and the perception of space is directly linked to receiving sufficient natural ventilation and daylight access to habitable rooms.

The ceiling height controls suggested in the draft DCP present opportunities for better planning outcomes and improved amenity for residents. As unit/room sizes get smaller, increased ceiling height is important as it assists with the feeling of space. It is also likely that the increased ceiling height would add marginally to cost of development. Increased heights can also add visual interest when viewed from the public domain through variable approaches to elevation and configuration of the front façade which can contribute to the quality of the streetscape.

It is noted that this provision (ceiling height) is included in the NSW Governments Low Rise Medium Density Design Guide and is considered valuable as there is currently a policy gap in this regard.

Implications:

The deletion of provisions relating to ceiling heights may reduce long term liveability and amenity to the occupants of the medium density development. It is also likely that the proposed change in ceiling heights will have a negligible impact on development costs over the whole of the development.

1.i.

and

NOM

Delete Section 5.3.4 of the DCP in its entirety.

Addition via NOM:

Although this matter is referred to in the NOM, no changes are proposed to the above recommended addition.

Number of submissions on this matter: 1

It is noted that the majority of the content (Dwelling Size and Layout) within this Section is included in the NSW Government’s Low Rise Medium Density Design Guide and is considered valuable as there is currently a policy gap in this regard. The content is not word for word the same but offers a balance between the provisions of the different land uses in the Low Rise Medium Density Design Guide.

Generally, dwelling size is proportionate to the number of bedrooms. The provision of adequate living areas and other common spaces (kitchen, dining, bathroom, etc.) is also commensurate to the number of occupants, providing a higher standard of functionality and amenity for residents.

Implications:

This Section facilitates a range of dwelling sizes and types within larger developments (8 or more dwellings), which is a key consideration in affordability and diversity.

Minimum dwelling sizes and room dimensions are also set for all medium density development to protect the long-term amenity and liveability of residents. It is noted that the sizes detailed in Section 5.3.4 are already considered to be at the lower end of the scale for functionality.

The deletion of this provision will likely result in dwellings and rooms not being of a sufficient size to be functional.

NOM

Amend Section 5.3.5 to delete item 1.

Number of submissions on this matter: 0

It is assumed that ‘item 1’ means Mandatory Control 1, being:

Private open space must be located behind the front building line and not within the front setback of a dwelling.

This provision was included in the exhibited Draft Chapter G13 as private open space forward of the building line often results in poor streetscape outcomes, adverse amenity impacts and a reduction in passive surveillance. Existing Chapter G13 does not include any provisions relating to the location of private open space, however A3.3 in Chapter G14 requires private open space to be located to the rear of dwellings to avoid the need for high fences to the street. High fencing with limited or no transparency often results in a poor design outcome (see example at figure below), poor integration with the streetscape and safety concerns. Part of the Dual Occupancy Review work identified the need to improve the design of this form of development wherever possible.

A number of surrounding and comparable Council DCPs have identified that private open space located forward of the building line is generally not favoured (e.g. Eurobodalla, Kiama, Wollongong) and if private open space cannot be accommodated behind the front building line, the development is generally considered to be an overdevelopment of the site. Further, such an arrangement would only be considered on merit in exceptional circumstances.

This would be the same with Chapter G13, in that exceptional circumstances would be considered following the submission of a variation statement. A merit assessment would consider a range of criteria including streetscape amenity, security and the amenity of that dwelling.

Implications:

Private open space forward of the building line often result in poor streetscape outcomes, adverse amenity impacts and a reduction in passive surveillance. Deletion of this provision (if not rewritten as an acceptable solution as suggested by the NOM), would be contrary to the outcomes of the Dual Occupancy Review in relation to this matter and may continue to deliver poor design outcomes.

The implications of Council’s recommendation would also need to be considered in relation to fencing treatment for private open space forward of the building line.

1.j.

and

NOM

Delete Section 5.3.6 of the DCP in its entirety.

Addition via NOM:

Although this matter is referred to in the NOM, no changes are proposed to the above recommended addition.

Number of submissions on this matter: 2 (one supporting inclusive communal open space, one supporting deletion).

Communal open space is an important component of larger medium density developments as it provides outdoor recreation opportunities, connections to the natural environment, valuable ‘breathing space’ between dwellings, opportunities for casual social interaction among residents and increased amenity.

The provision of communal open space is a common and consistent requirement for medium density development across the state. A number of surrounding and comparable local government areas have communal open space provisions including Kiama, Wollongong, Eurobodalla, Palerang-Queanbeyan, Newcastle and Tweed, for example.

The provisions seek the creation of intentional communal open space within a development, where that development includes 8 or more dwellings.

Implications:

Whilst the communal open space provisions are a new addition to the DCP, they provide a significant opportunity for recreational opportunities within the site, interaction opportunities between residents and compensates for smaller private open space areas and larger concentrations of dwellings. The deletion of this Section will extinguish opportunities to facilitate liveable larger medium density development that provides long term communal amenity to residents.

1.k.

and

NOM

Amend A28.2 such that the setback required is only 5.5m and not 7.2m.

Addition via NOM:

Although this matter is referred to in the NOM, no changes are proposed to the above recommended addition.

Amend A5.1 to remove note referring to increased setback for tandem parking.

Number of submissions on this matter: 1

The visual and practical impact of vehicles parked in tandem forward of the building line in a dual occupancy development is an ongoing concern. Such an arrangement can result in:

· Pedestrian access issues – access to and from the dwellings can be obstructed.

· Obstructions forward of the street frontage – larger vehicles parked forward of the building line can extend into the verge impeding pedestrian access and reducing sight lines.

· Aesthetic considerations – tandem parking arrangements can dominate the street frontage and the streetscape.

These impacts can be alleviated by providing a greater setback to accommodate a tandem arrangement. To ensure that a vehicle parked in a tandem parking space will not impede access to an approved parking space for another occupancy, or result in an obstruction to the verge, a greater front setback is required. The setback needs to of a sufficient depth to:

· Accommodate a vehicle parked in the tandem parking space.

· Maintain sufficient room for pedestrian access between the vehicle and any part of the building.

· Allow for the vehicle to be parked so that it is no closer to the front property boundary than 1.2 metres. This provides a width to easily accommodate a wheelchair, pram, garbage bin and wheelbarrow, for example.

This means that the total depth required between the building and the property boundary should be an effective minimum of 7.2m (i.e. 5.5m car, 0.5m additional pedestrian access, 1.2m setback from property boundary).

Implications:

A reduction in the setback for a tandem parking space forward of the building line from 7.2m to 5.5m will only accommodate the vehicle and will not facilitate circulation or consider aesthetic considerations.

It is noted that current G13: Dual Occupancy Development requires all parking to be provided behind the building line, so this new provision offers flexibility in this regard.

It is noted that a setback of 5.5m to accommodate a parking space is inconsistent with other provisions draft Chapter G13. For example, Table 2 (setbacks for dual occupancy development in residential areas), requires a front setback of 5m or 6m, depending on the location. A5.3 requires that a garage must be setback a further 1m behind the front building line. As such, the setback to the garage would need to be at least 6m or 7m.

There should not be any inconsistences between provisions within the Chapter.

This provision (A28.2) only requires the garage to be set back an additional 0.2m or 1.2m, depending on the location, beyond the front setback. The provision only applies to dual occupancy development.

Should Council be of the mind to support a 5.5m setback for tandem parking, A28.2 should be deleted in its entirety, as well as the note at A5.1 and Figure 9. Draft Chapter G13 requires that the setback to the garage would need to be at least 6m or 7m depending on the location of the site, and as such, A28.2 becomes redundant.

1.l.

and

NOM

Amend Section 5.4.3 by:

· Deleting reference to “Mandatory Controls”

· Amending item 1 to read as follows:

Mandatory Controls:

All Class 1a and 2 developments, as defined in the Building Code of Australia, must provide accessible or adaptable housing at the following rate:

· Developments containing 3 –10 dwelling – 1 dwelling.

· Developments containing 11 – 40 dwellings – 2 dwellings.

· Development containing 41 – 60 dwellings – 3 dwellings.

· Development containing 61 – 80 dwellings – 4 dwellings.

· Developments containing 81 – 100 dwellings – 5 dwellings.

Addition via NOM:

Replacement of the word “must” with “should”.

Number of submissions on this matter: 2

The matter of the deletion of mandatory controls is addressed above in this table.

The proposed amendment essentially means that universal design provisions will not apply to dual occupancy development. It is noted that Council considers more applications for dual occupancy development than any other medium density type. Based on development application statistics between the 2014-15 and 2017-18 financial years, 410 medium density development applications were considered by Council. Of these, the majority related to dual occupancy development (75%).

Given that Shoalhaven has a significant aged population (which continues to increase) and 1 in 5 Australian’s have a disability, it is considered important that a high standard is applied and that a rate is applied to all medium density development. It is noted that Councils Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee is supportive of universal design provisions being applied to dual occupancy development.

The provisions require 1 of the 2 dwellings in a dual occupancy development to be accessible or adaptable. It is noted that existing Chapter G13 requires both dwellings to be accessible or adaptable. As such, the new provisions are already a relaxation of universal design provisions in this regard.

Implications:

Excluding dual occupancy development from the application of universal design provisions will result in the loss of a significant opportunity to support universal design and access in medium density development across Shoalhaven and does not represent good policy that responds to future needs.

It is noted that the replacement of the word “must” with “should” has no implications if the mandatory control is rewritten as an acceptable solution, as per the NOM. However if read literally it does imply a watering down or weakening of this provision.

1.m.

and

NOM

Amend A34.1 to state:

The required proportion of new Class 1a or 2 dwellings, should:

· Be designed so the dwelling can be easily and affordably adaptable at a later date.

Addition via NOM:

The following sentence is proposed to be added after the above - “In this regard the Silver Standard for accessibility as outlined in the 'Liveable Housing Design Guidelines'”.

Number of submissions on this matter: 3 (one supporting a silver standard for all except dual occupancies, one supporting a platinum standard and application to all medium density development, one supporting deletion of standard and exclusion of dual occupancies).

One of the referenced submissions was from the Shoalhaven Inclusion and Access Advisory Group supporting the platinum standard.

The provision as exhibited provides flexibility for the applicant to choose whether the dwelling is designed to be accessible or adaptable. It also sets a standard as a benchmark for assessment, being the gold standard under the ‘Livable Housing Design Guidelines’. It is noted that the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code also requires design to consider the ‘Livable Housing Design Guidelines’.

The ‘Livable Housing Design Guidelines’ were created by Livable Housing Australia to “provide a nationally consistent, inexpensive and practical set of guidelines to make homes safer, more comfortable and easier to access for people of all ages”^{^[1]}.

The amendment excludes the option of accessibility (i.e. a dwelling designed for people requiring higher level access from the outset), which is an option that an applicant may desire and should be seen as an acceptable solution to Council. The amendment also strips away the standards for ‘easily and affordably adaptable’, however it is noted that the NOM reintroduced a silver standard as outlined in the 'Liveable Housing Design Guidelines'.

Only two submissions were received regarding the standard for assessment. One submission suggested that the ‘silver’ standard be adopted based on affordability and practicality. The other submission suggested that the ‘platinum’ standard be adopted based on the need for whole of life consideration, and more specifically the rates of Australians with a disability and increasing aging population. As such, the exhibited gold standard was maintained in the post exhibition consideration report given that it is a mid-way standard between the two supported in submissions.

For convenience, the difference between the Silver, Gold and Platinum standards are outlined below:

Standard	Criteria
Silver	Focuses on the key structural and spatial elements that are critical to ensure future flexibility and adaptability of the home. Seven core livable housing design elements: 1. Dwelling Access - A safe continuous and step free path of travel from the street entrance and / or parking area to a dwelling entrance that is level. 2. Dwelling Entrance - At least one, level (step-free) entrance into the dwelling. 3. Internal doors and corridors - Facilitate comfortable and unimpeded movement between spaces. 4. Toilet - A toilet on the ground (or entry) level that provides easy access. 5. Shower - A bathroom that contains a hobless shower recess. 6. Reinforcement of bathroom & toilet walls - Reinforced walls around the toilet, shower and bath to support the safe installation of grabrails at a later date. 7. Internal stairways - Stairways are designed to reduce the likelihood of injury and also enable future adaptation.
Gold	Enhanced requirements for most of the core livable housing design elements (see elements 1-7 in Silver) plus additional 5 elements: 8. Kitchen space - The kitchen space is designed to support ease of movement between fixed benches and to support easy adaptation. 9. Laundry space - The laundry space is designed to support ease of movement between fixed benches and to support easy adaptation. 10. Ground (or entry level) bedroom space - There is a space on the ground (or entry) level that can be used as a bedroom. 11. Switches and power points - Light switches and power points are located at heights that are easy to reach for all home occupants. 12. Door and tap hardware - Home occupants are able to easily and independently open and close doors and safely use tap hardware. The gold level provides for more generous dimensions for most of the core livable housing design elements and introduces additional elements in areas such as the kitchen and bedroom.
Platinum	Some further enhanced requirements for the core livable housing design elements (see Silver and Gold above) plus an additional 3 elements: 13. Family/living room space - The family/living room features clear space to enable the home occupant to move in and around the room with ease. 14. Window sills - Windows sills are installed at a height that enables home occupants to view the outdoor space from either a seated or standing position. 15. Flooring - Floor coverings are slip resistant to reduce the likelihood of slips, trips and falls in the home. This level describes design elements that would better accommodate ageing in place and people with higher mobility needs. This level requires more generous dimensions for most of the core livable design elements and introduces additional elements for features such as the living room and flooring.
Note: For technical specifications, refer to the ‘Livable Housing Design Guidelines’.

Implications:

The amendment alone, by its wording, is not definable/quantifiable. There is no flexibility between adaptability and accessibility, and there is no standard set for assessment.

Without criteria to specify what standards an adaptable dwelling is required to meet, Council will not be able to achieve meaningful universal design outcomes that will benefit the needs of people requiring higher levels of access now, or into the future. It will also make it extremely difficult for staff to assess related development applications.

The NOM does suggest the silver standard as outlined in the 'Liveable Housing Design Guidelines', however it provides for less generous dimensions for most of the core liveable housing design elements and does not consider elements in areas such as the kitchen and bedroom.

It is also noted that the amendment will result in inconsistencies within the Section in relation to accessibility and the gold standard. Specifically, this can be seen within the mandatory control and P34.1 (and its associated note) as exhibited. The amendment is also inconsistent with the exhibited definition of ‘accessible’.

Should the Medium Density Amendment be re-exhibited?

Clause 21 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 specifies that after consideration of any submissions, the council may approve the plan with such alterations as the council thinks fit.

However, it is noted that convention normally requires a council to re-exhibit a draft DCP amendment if the amendments are seen to substantially change the substance of the exhibited Plan.

It is suggested that an amendment of the combined magnitude detailed above (both recommended and adjusted via the NOM) would require re-exhibition as the content is not substantially the same as exhibited.

It is noted that the exhibition process, including consideration of submissions, is time and resource intensive.

Council Staff also need to spend additional time considering the consequences of all the changes foreshadowed under both the recommendation and NoM and possibly redrafting other parts of the DCP not covered above so that the whole chapter operates correctly and there are not inconsistencies within it resulting from any resolved changes.

Implications of the amendments in relation to the Design Guide for DAs

Recent changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 require councils to consider the new Design Guide for DAs when it is assessing development applications for dual occupancy, manor house and multi dwelling housing (terraces) development, until development controls for these housing types are in place.

As such, until Council has appropriate controls in place in Shoalhaven DCP 2014 for dual occupancy, manor houses and multi dwelling housing (terraces), Council will be required to consider the Design Guide for DAs when assessing development applications for these development types.

It is considered that the exhibited draft Amendment includes appropriate controls for every medium type addressed by the Code and therefore Council would not need to rely on the Design Guide for DAs for development applications.

The amendment, however will see the removal of the following points of consideration addressed in the Design Guide for DAs: ceiling heights, dwelling size and layout and communal and open spaces. These provisions were included to address a policy gap in this regard and were considered to add value to the amenity and liveability of residents.

A number of additional matters for consideration within the Design Guide for DAs have also been watered down substantially as a result of the amendment (e.g. universal design, amenity, character and context of the streetscape).

The amended chapter would in basic terms address dual occupancy development, manor houses and multi dwelling housing (terraces), however Council would need to be satisfied, that the remaining provisions in Chapter G13:

· Adequately address dual occupancy, manor house and multi dwelling housing (terraces), and

· Are appropriate for Shoalhaven, and

· Deliver well-designed medium density development that provides good built form and amenity outcomes, and also fits into the local character of an area and immediate streetscape.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 28 August 2018

Page 0

CL18.202 Quarterly Budget Review Statement June 2018

HPERM Ref: D18/262069

Group: Finance Corporate & Community Services Group

Section: Finance

Attachments: 1. Quarterly Budget Review Statement June 2018 (under separate cover)

Purpose / Summary

In accordance with Regulation 203(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation (2005), the responsible accounting officer must prepare and submit to Council a budget review statement after the end of each quarter. This has been carried out for the fourth quarter of the 2017/18 financial year.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Receive and endorse the June Quarterly Budget Review Report and budget carry forwards (Works In Progress).

2. Adopt the adjustments, including movements to and from Reserves, as outlined in the June Quarterly Budget Review Statement, noting that the Review identifies a favourable variance in the net cost of services of $937K for 2017/18.

3. Adopt the Revotes (Committed), as recommended in the June Quarterly Budget Review document.

4. Adopt the Revotes (Uncommitted) or alternatively critically review these to determine which projects/programs are no longer required.

5. Allocate $400K of the favourable variance for 2017/18 as a provision for urgent detailed design works to have strategic infrastructure projects ‘shovel ready’ for current and pending grant opportunities.

6. Retain the $537K balance of the favourable variance in net cost of services to improve Council’s net cash position.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation.

Implications: Nil.

2. Adopt parts 1 to 4 of the recommendation and change part 5 to determine the unfunded projects to be included in the 2018/19 budget from the identified positive variance.

Implications: Staff will need to rework the quarterly budget review in accordance with the alternative resolution.

3. Not adopt the recommendation and make an alternative resolution.

Implications: Staff will need to rework the quarterly budget review in accordance with the alternative resolution.

Background

The budget review involves an analysis of Council’s annual budget for each Group to confirm the carry forward and revote of funds to 2018/19. This process has been undertaken for the period to 30 June 2018 and any changes have been reported in the Quarterly Budget Review document. This report also analyses the progress of each Group in achieving their financial objectives.

Projects requiring funding

The following Council resolutions and reports have been noted as priority items for consideration/inclusion in future budgets:

With regard to the proposed public toilets at Tomerong, there remains uncertainty about cost depending on:

• the ability to connect to the trustee’s water and effluent pump out;

• access from street level and the need for gradients for persons with disabilities to gain access; and

• impact on compliance with current building regulation by the trustee, if the public toilet is attached to the building and availability of compliant car parking for a person with a disability.

Should corrective action be required, then the cost could increase from an estimated $100,000 to $300,000. There is nothing in the Contributions Plan that would allow the use of Developer Contributions funds for this project. As investigations continue, updates will be provided to Council regarding the required works and cost.

Net cost of service is the difference between capital and operating revenue and expenditure in a financial year and is calculated to determine movement in accumulated funds for the year. The preliminary results for General Fund in 2017/18 show a favourable variance of $937K between budget and actual for net cost of service.

It is recommended that $400K of the favourable variance in net cost of services for 2017/18 be allocated a provision for urgent detailed design works for strategic infrastructure projects to have them ‘shovel ready’ for current and pending grant opportunities.

It is further recommended that the $537K balance of the favourable variance be retained to improve Council’s net cash position.

Council will need to decide whether to:

1. Retain the favourable variance of $937K to improve Council’s net cash position

2. Apply any, or all, of the favourable variance to currently unfunded projects.

Council can also consider if any of the unfunded projects above have a higher priority than the revote (uncommitted) projects, a full list of these projects is found in the Quarterly Budget Review document.

Capital Program

Council adopted a capital works program of $189.8M for 2017/18 and there were projects carried forward with a value of $40.3M. During the year, including previous quarterly budget reviews, this budget was reduced by $31.4M, due to project delays, and the funds were included in the 2018/19 capital program. The resulting final budget is $198.7M of which $152.1M has been spent. The following tables and graphs illustrate Council’s capital expenditure during 2017/18 and previous financial years (all amounts are in $’000s).

Capital Expenditure by Fund

Capital Expenditure by Group

Capital Expenditure by Fund – Previous four years

Carry Forwards

In this Quarterly Budget Review, three categories of Carry Forward are reported:

1. Works In Progress – projects where the works span more than one financial year and were substantially commenced in 2017/18. These projects do not require the budget to be revoted in 2018/19 and are rolled-over into 2018/19.

2. Revotes (Committed) - projects that have not been substantially commenced but there is a contractual obligation entered by Council. These projects are required to be voted by Council; however, due to contractual obligations, it is highly recommended to vote these funds into 2018/19

3. Revotes (Uncommitted) - projects have not been substantially commenced. No contractual obligation has been made but the works are still expected to be completed. These projects are required to be voted by Council. Council may consider if these projects are still a priority for 2018/19 or if any projects on the unfunded list above have a higher priority.

Below are summaries of the Carry Forwards by Council Groups (amounts are in $’000s):

Grants and contributions still anticipated that are a source of funding for these Capital and Operating Carry Forwards are summarised in the following table of Revenue Carry Forwards.

Some of the major projects classified as Works in Progress are:

Project	Works in Progress $	Comment
REMS 1B	$17.7M	Works ongoing – contract spans multiple years
Jerberra Estate Construction works	$2.5M	Works are at practical completion
Shoalhaven Indoor Sport Centre construction	$2.1M	Estimated completion Dec 18
Flinders Road full length widening	$1.2M	Estimated completion end Oct 18
Corporate Business Systems	$716K	Works ongoing –multiple modules
Chris Creek – Shared Path	$679K	Estimated completion March 19
Moona Moona Creek Bridge, Naval College Road	$657K	Official opening Q1 18/19
Jacobs Drive Streetscape	$533K	Completion estimated Q1 18/19
Landfill extension – West Nowra	$475K	Estimated completion Q4 18/19
Water main replacement between Burrill Lake and Lake Tabourie	$200K	Works nearing completion

Some of the major Revotes (Committed) projects are as follows:

Project	Revote (Committed) $	Comment
Verons Estate Construction works	$2.1M	Special rate funded on Veron’s residents. Delays due to environmental surveys in May 2018, requiring redesign (currently in progress).
Greenwell Point Marina	$1.1M	Grant funded project. Approvals being sought
Project	Revote (Committed) $	Comment
The Wool Road Old Erowal Bay	$1.1M	Contractor now appointed, additional funds in 18/19
Woollamia Regional Boat Ramp	$773K	Grant funded project, designs finalised July 18. Staged construction during 18/19.
Prince Edward Avenue Stage 2	$684K	Contractor now appointed

Council need to determine whether some of the major Revotes (Uncommitted) projects should proceed in 2018/19:

Project	Revotes (Uncommitted)		Comment
Project	Unrestricted	Restricted	Comment
Bay & Basin Community Hub: $807K	$211K	$251K Developer Contributions Recoupment $210K Developer Contributions $135K Developer Contributions matching funds	Project is funded by Developer Contributions. Should this not proceed, funds will be returned to Developer Contributions Reserve
Nowra Administration Building – Chiller Replacement: $427K	$377K	$50K Plant Replacement Reserve	Project has been designed. Intention is for replacement to proceed Q3 18/19 should funds be revoted
Nowra CBD Revitalisation Funds: $388K	$388K	$0	Whilst these funds are unspent, the intention is to combine with the new budget allocation of $500K in 18/19 in order to fund upgrades to Berry Street.
Shoalhaven Regional Gallery Climate Control System: $278K	$0	$278K Strategic Projects Reserve	Grant funds are currently being sought to supplement the project budget. This project is critical for ongoing Gallery operations and exhibitions
Voyager Memorial Park – Playground $249K	$249K		Currently on hold pending design of the park upgrade. Part of this funding is tied to future Federal Grant funding.
Skate Park Provision: $245K	$0	$245K Loans	It is proposed to use these funds for the skatepark at Bay & Basin per the planning & design requirement.

A full list of the projects being Carried Forward (Works in Progress, Revote (Committed) and Revote (Uncommitted)) can be found in the Quarterly Budget Review document.

2017/18 Preliminary Budget Results and Movements - Council’s Funds

General Fund

Summary of General Fund 2017/18 Budget Result

The budget adopted by Council for 2017/18 produced an operating surplus of $15.6M including capital grants and an operating deficit before Capital Grants and Contributions of $2.6M. The preliminary results at year-end are favourable with the operating result exceeding the June adjusted budget.

It is important to remember that the above figures are preliminary results only. Year-end adjustments relating to the discounting of employee leave entitlements, adjustments to provisions and other year-end reconciliations and movements will create the final results and the financial indicators for the 2017/18 financial year. These results will be audited and subsequently published in Council’s Annual Financial Statements.

Income

As at 30 June, General Fund achieved 97% of the June Adjusted Budget.

The key reason for the underperformance on income was a shortfall of $8.8M for grants and contributions. The shortfall in grants this year is expected to be received in the new year and the budget has been carried forward. Excluding grants and contributions, General Fund achieved 100% of the income budget.

The June Quarterly Budget Review Statement recommends a budget increase of $8.9M, largely due to the advance receipt of the first instalment of the Financial Assistance Grant. The major adjustments (offset by a corresponding adjustment in expenditure, unless otherwise stated) in the review are:

Category	Amount $’000	Reason
Rates & Annual Charges	62	· Additional rating income received from part-year rating +$63K · Reduction in Stormwater levy received (-$1K)
User Charges & Fees	834	· Waste receipts +$752K, offset to reserve · UOW Mind the Gap +$111K to match total of project funding agreement · Telecommunication tower, reduction offset to reserve ($23K) · Crematorium reserve – align per MIN07.229b – offset to reserve ($7K)
Interest & Investment Revenue	100	· Reduction to Waste services interest (-$18K), offset to reserve · Increase in Developer contributions interest +$118K, offset to reserve
Other Revenues	21	· Insurance receipts from claims +$67K, offset to reserve · Community Path contribution +$5K · Waste receipts decrease (-$51K), offset to reserve
Internal Revenue	1,081	· Business units contributions to insured events +$26K, offset to reserve · Waste services, increase of +$527K (predominantly for plant recoverables), offset to reserve · Plant & Fleet, increase of +$489K, offset to reserve · Telecommunication towers increase of +$62K, offset to reserve · Return of contribution to Shoalhaven Water (-$26K) for Sustainable Futures
Grants & Contributions - Operating	6,330	· Advance receipt of Financial Assistance Grant +$6.2M, offset to reserves · 2 new grants Economic Development +$75K · 3 new grants for biodiversity and flying foxes +$82K · 3 new grants Waste +$287K · Grant reductions x 2 (change of scope) (-$320K)
Grants & Contributions – Capital	530	· Reduction per MIN18.491 2a ($955K) · Reduction per MIN17.821 ($190K) · Developer contributions offset to reserve +$1.62M · Reclassification of grants between capital and operational +$40K

Operating Expenditure

General Fund ended the year at 98% of the June Adjusted Budget. The June Quarterly Budget Review Statement recommends a budget increase of $1.4M. This increase consists of:

Category	Amount $’000	Reason
Employee Benefits & Oncost	35	· Return of section 94 budget to reserves ($5K) · Fund expenditure Fleet Administration +$43K, offset by reserves
Materials & Contracts	(826)	· Waste services – return to reserves ($1.5M) · Buildings and Property – fund expenses +$262K · SEC – transfer to capital ($39K) · Arts centre – transfer to reserve +$6K · Economic Development +$124K – UOW +$112K increase, offset by revenue; +$12K increase to fund expenditure on Industrial Land, offset by reserve · Environmental Management +$57K increase · Transfers between capital and operational +$161K · Insurance costs +$3K, offset by reserve · Regulatory Services, increase +$102K for grants (Heritage, Biodiversity, Flying foxes)
Other Expenses	1,705	· Waste Levy increase +$1,693M · Transfers between capital and operational +$105K · Fleet management expenses, offset to reserve +$38K · Reductions in Insurance ($156K), offset to reserves
Internal Expenses	457	· Fleet management expenses +$239K, offset to reserves · Insurance expenses +$142K, offset to reserves · Waste services expenses +$132K, offset to reserves · Return to Shoalhaven Water for Sustainable futures ($26K) · Transfers between capital and operational ($30K)

Capital Expenditure

Capital expenditure as at 30 June 2018 is 72% of the June Adjusted Budget (excluding commitments). The June Quarterly Budget Review Statement recommends a budget decrease of $4.7M. This decrease consists of:

Program	Amount $’000	Reason
Buildings & Property	(399)	· Transfer ($350K) to operating to fund expenditure not being capitalised. · The remaining was unspent funds transferred to Bolong Road works, to fund works still to be completed.
Commercial Undertakings	39	· Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre – transfer from operational budgets for a range of capital improvements (carpeting, elevated work platform, new POS system)
Economic Development	(446)	· Align to new forecast of spend, full details in the report
Environmental Management	(397)	· Transferred to operating to fund expenditure not being capitalised.
Fire Protection and Emergency Services	107	· Transfer from unrestricted general fund for the SES hard stand
Internal Corporate Services	(1,069)	· Return ($973K) to plant replacement reserve for unspent funds · Transferred ($96K) to operating to fund expenditure not being capitalised
Land Use Planning	7	· From Developer Contributions reserve to fund set up of website.
Open Space, Sport and Recreation	85	· Transfer ($22K) to operating to fund expenditure not being capitalised · +$94K contribution received for lighting upgrades, project to continue into 2018/19 · +$32K received for a capital grant at Voyager Park, project to continue into 2018/19 · Completed Narang Road tennis lighting, ($23K) transferred to various projects requiring funding to be completed in 2018/19
Roads and Transport	(2,176)	· Reduction in Currarong Road for a reduced grant ($955K) · Return unspent fund on Greenwell Point Road to Plant Replacement Reserve ($370K) · Corrected budget for shared user path in Vincentia ($190K) · Return funds to Strategic Projects Reserve ($323K) as the Far North Collector Road is not Federally Funded and Turpentine Road is completed. · Waterways grants reduction in expenditure ($94K) · Return unspent funds to Developer Contributions reserve for Sussex Inlet Carparks ($73) · The remainder is transfers to operating expenditure for projects that are not able to be capitalised
Waste and Recycling Program	(492)	· Unspent funds returned to Waste Management Reserve

Asset Sales

Asset sales are at 100% of the June Adjusted Budget, with sales of industrial lands exceeding forecast, partly offset by less than expected asset sales associated with landfill and transfer station operations.

Reserve Movements

The June Quarterly Budget Review Statement recommends a budget increase of $12.5M in transfers to reserves. This increase consists of:

Reserve	Amount $’000	Reason
Arts Collection	6	· Unspent arts purchase, returned to reserve
Cemeteries	(7)	· Reduction in Cremator income and decreased transfer to the reserve.
Communication Towers	19	· Net increase in tower income received
Economic Projects	107	· Return unspent funds to reserve
Financial Assistance Grant	6,217	· Prepayment of 2018/19 Financial Assistance Grant received in June 2018
General Insurance	41	· Return unspent funds to reserve
Industrial Land	649	· Return unspent funds to reserve +$439K · Sale of industrial land +$210K
Land Decontamination	10	· Return unspent funds to reserve
Plant Replacement	1,533	· Return unspent funds to reserve +$1,075K · Additional revenue +$458K
Developer Contributions	1,761	· Developer contributions received offset to reserve +$1,743 · Return unspent fund to reserve +$18K
Self Insurance	69	· Additional income from Statewide distribution +$52K · Return unspent funds to reserve +$17K
Property Reserve	137	· Return unspent funds to reserve +$90K · Additional income received +$47K
Sporting Facilities	(9)	· Fund expenditure by Tennis Associations that contributed to the restricted account ($6K) · Reduction in income to reserve ($3K)
Strategic Projects	392	· Return unspent funds to reserve
Waste Disposal	1,616	· Return unspent funds to reserve +$349 · Additional income reserve to reserve +$1,267K

Water Fund

Summary of Water Fund 2017/18 Preliminary Budget Result

The original budget adopted by Council for 2017/18 produced an operating surplus of $2.1M and an operating surplus before Capital Grants and Contributions of $607K. The preliminary results at year-end are favourable, with the operating result exceeding the June adjusted budget.

The June Quarterly Budget Review Statement details the recommended budget adjustments with comments on these adjustments and any significant variances. Below is a summary of the adjustments and variances to date.

Income

As at 30 June, Water Fund has achieved 107% of the revised budget. The variance of $2.202M is mainly due to drier weather conditions resulting in increased water usage.

The June Quarterly Budget Review Statement recommends an increase of $981K. This adjustment mainly relates to Section 64 income and interest received exceeding forecasts in the last quarter.

Category	Amount $’000	Reason
User Charges & Fees	149	· Communication tower income received, offset to reserve.
Interest and Investment Revenue	237	· Interest income higher than expected due to reforecasting of some capital projects
Other Revenues	11	· Income from general fines and costs recovered higher than expected.
Internal Revenues	187	· Plant hire income received, offset to reserve
Grants & Contributions – Capital	397	· Section 64 contributions received, offset to reserve.

Operating Expenditure

Water Fund is on target with operating expenditure at 98% of the revised budget.

An adjustment of $98K is recommended for this review. This adjustment relates to the return of funds to reserves.

Category	Amount $’000	Reason
Employee Benefits & Oncost	(26)	· Unspent budget returned to reserve.
Materials and Contracts	(26)	· Unspent Communication Tower budget returned to reserve
Internal Expenses	150	· Transfer budget from fleet reserve.

Capital Expenditure

Capital expenditure, as at 30 June, is 79% of the June Adjusted Budget (excluding commitments). The variance of $1.2M (after carry forwards) is mainly due to a number of projects coming in under budget.

Program	Amount $’000	Reason
Water Services	(188)	· Unspent funds being returned to Water Fleet and Tower reserves

Asset Sales

Asset sales is at 100% of the revised budget. There is an adjustment of $49K recommended to the Water Fleet Reserve, as sales proceeds exceeded the forecast.

Sewer Fund

Summary of Sewer Fund 2017/18 Preliminary Budget Result

The budget adopted by Council produced an operating surplus of $11.9M and an operating surplus before Capital Grants and Contributions of $10.4M. The preliminary results at year-end are favourable with the operating result exceeding the June adjusted budget.

Income

As at 30 June, Sewer Fund has achieved 102% of the revised budget. This variance of $1.097M is mainly due to the following:

· Wastewater availability and usage increased due to new assessments

· Chargeable works increased

· Trade waste income increased with higher usage

· Effluent service charges increased

An increase of $743K is recommended for this review. This adjustment mainly relates to the increased number of Section 64 contributions received in the last quarter.

Category	Amount $’000	Reason
Interest and Investment Revenue	210	· Interest income higher than expected due to reforecasting of capital projects
Other Revenues	19	· Plant hire income received, offset to reserve
Internal Revenues	17	· Plant hire income received, offset to reserve
Grants & Contributions – Capital	497	· Section 64 contributions received, offset to reserve.

Operating Expenditure

Operating Expenditure as at 30 June is 96%. This variance of $1.585M is largely reflected in the operations and maintenance of mains, pumping stations and treatment works.

An adjustment of $10K is recommended for this review. The major adjustments include a transfer between water and sewer fund for shared business services

Category	Amount $’000	Reason
Internal Expenses	10	· Transfer budget from fleet reserve.

Capital Expenditure

The original sewer capital budget was $111M. This was revised during the year to $87.6M. The final expenditure for the financial year was $71.0M which represents 81% of the revised budget.

Program	Amount $’000	Reason
Sewer Services	(287)	· Unspent funds being returned to Sewer Fleet reserve

Asset Sales

Asset sales are at 99% of the revised budget. An adjustment of $34K is recommended, to the Sewer Fleet Reserve as sales proceeds exceeded the forecast.

Key Performance Indicators

The June Quarterly Budget results are preliminary only and year-end adjustments relating to the discounting of employee leave entitlements, adjustments to provisions and other year end reconciliations and movements will create the final results and the final key performance indicators for the 2017/18 financial year.

Council’s Groups

General Manager’s Group

The recommended budget changes, revised budget and result to date for the General Manager’s Group are summarised below, details of the adjustments and variances are included in the June Quarterly Budget Review Statement.

General Manager’s Comments:

The budget results are primarily on track. The variations and revote/carry forwards as noted in the attachments relate to grant funded projects: Mind the Gap, Ulladulla Harbour Berthing Facility and the Motorsports project investigations.

Finance, Corporate and Community Services

The recommended budget changes, revised budget and result to date for the Finance, Corporate and Community Services Group are summarised below, details of the adjustments and variances are included in the June Quarterly Budget Review Statement.

Group Director’s Comments:

The year-end results for Revenue and Operating Expenditure are in line with budget forecasts. After allowing for Operating Expenditure carry forwards as presented in the Quarterly Budget Review Statement, the savings relates to a range of operational functions within the HR, Governance & Finance departments.

Planning, Environment and Development Services

The recommended budget changes, revised budget and result to date for the Planning, Environment and Development Services Group are summarised below, details of the adjustments and variances are included in the June Quarterly Budget Review Statement.

Group Director’s Comments:

Considering all the unknown issues experienced in this quarter the budget is tracking well. There have been a number of unexpected costs, e.g., court matters. The proposed revotes essentially relate to ongoing projects that have been externally funded or relate to Council Minutes.

Small Lot Rural Subdivision

Nebraska Estate: $69,110 remains for progressing rezoning investigations.

Verons Estate: The $150,000 borrowed in 2006 to fund the rezoning investigations has been fully spent. A total of $25,000 has now been transferred from the Strategic Planning Consultants budget. This will need to be recouped from the landowners at a later date. $1,413 has also been transferred from road construction to rezoning investigations. Further transfer(s) may be necessary to complete the project.

Road investigations and construction: The balance of the roadwork design budget for Nebraska Estate for 2017/2018 is $10,646. The balance of the construction budgets for Jerberra, Verons and Nebraska Estates for 2017/2018 are $2.7M, $2.1M and $13,519 respectively.

Assets and Works

The recommended budget changes, revised budget and result to date for the Assets and Works Group are summarised below, details of the adjustments and variances are included in the June Quarterly Budget Review Statement.

Group Director’s Comments:

At the commencement of every year, the aim is to have zero funds in the revote uncommitted column. It is pleasing that at the end of the 2017/18 financial year, there are only three projects in this area:

1. The chiller replacement project for the administration building has been designed and is aimed to be implemented towards the end of the 2018/19 financial year.

2. Kids Korner Carpark is now DA approved and is ready to be commenced.

3. The Nowra CBD funds are planned to be combined with the 2018/19 budget allotment for upgrades to Berry Street.

These three projects represent 2.6% of the total capital works budget for Assets and Works and, it should be noted, are subject to Council approval for delivery to occur.

Stormwater Levy

Spending against the Stormwater Levy is 61% of budget.

Group Director’s Comments:

A number of projects have budgets that span two financial years. This allows for design work to commence, so that delivery can occur during the next financial year. This is the case with 6 projects.

The Park Drive Sanctuary Point & St Andrews Way Coolangatta haven’t significantly progressed, due to land matters.

Special Rate Variations

Spending against the Special Rate Variation from 2013/14 is 98% of budget.

Group Director’s Comments:

All projects have been completed with the exception of The Wool Road, which has experienced delays. This project has been carried forward into the 2018/19 financial year.

Spending against the Special Rate Variation from 2017/18 is 90% of budget.

Group Director’s Comments:

Jacobs Drive Streetscape works are well underway at the end of 2017/18. Delays with street furniture have meant that the practical completion has been revised to Q1 2018/19.

The unspent parks maintenance works are related to the removal of existing treated pine barriers that were at the end of their useful lives. Contractors were engaged to conduct replacement with new fencing and gates. Works will be completed Q1 2018/19.

Both projects have been carried forward into the new financial year.

Shoalhaven Water

The recommended budget changes, revised budget and result to date for the Shoalhaven Water (General Fund) Group are summarised below, details of the adjustments and variances are included in the June Quarterly Budget Review Statement.

Group Director’s Comments:

The Shoalhaven Water General Group is operating on target, with revenue at 106% of budget and operational expenditure at 97% of budget. The increase in operating income and operating expenditure relates mainly to the communication towers.

Water Fund

The recommended budget changes, revised budget and result to date for the Shoalhaven Water (Water Fund) Group are summarised below, details of the adjustments and variances are included in the June Quarterly Budget Review Statement.

Group Director’s Comments:

The Water Fund result was positive for Council, with the operational expenditure at 98% and revenue slightly higher than the projected year end result. The adjustment to revenue relates to Section 64 income tracking higher than expected with the increased developer activity and interest income higher due to the timing of capital expenditure. The variance in income of $2.202M is reflective of the increased water usage due to drier weather conditions this year. The capital program is at 78% of budget and requires an adjustment of $188K this quarter. This adjustment mainly relates to the transfer of funds to the plant reserve. A carry forward of $1.527M is required.

Sewer Fund

The recommended budget changes, revised budget and result to date for the Shoalhaven Water (Sewer Fund) Group are summarised below, details of the adjustments and variances are included in the June Quarterly Budget Review Statement.

Group Director’s Comments:

The Sewer Fund result was positive for Council, with operational expenditure at 96% of budget and revenue above the projected year end result. The adjustment to revenue relates mainly to Section 64 income tracking higher than expected with increased developer activity. The variance in income of $1.097M is mainly due to the increase in assessments resulting in higher usage, increased chargeable private works and increased effluent services income due to increased septic tank cleanouts. The capital program is at 81% of budget and requires an adjustment of $287K this quarter. This adjustment mainly relates to the transfer of funds to the Sewer Fund plant reserve. A carry forward of $17.992M is required.

Financial Implications

It is important to remember that the results presented above are preliminary only. Year-end adjustments will impact the results reported in Council’s financial statements for 2017/18.

Council’s pathway to financial sustainability is premised on continued fiscal constraint over the next three financial years.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 28 August 2018

Page 0

CL18.204 Exhibition Outcomes and Proposed Finalisation - Draft Planning Package - Moss Vale Road South Urban Release Area

HPERM Ref: D18/230848

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Strategic Planning

Attachments: 1. Summary of Submissions (under separate cover) ⇨

2. Summary of Changes to Draft Planning Package (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Submission - Illawarra-Shoalhaven Local Health District (under separate cover) ⇨

4. Submission 1 - NSW Roads & Maritime Service (under separate cover) ⇨

5. Submission 2 - NSW Roads & Maritime Service (under separate cover) ⇨

6. Submission - Council's Assets & Works Group (under separate cover) ⇨

Purpose / Summary

Report the public exhibition outcomes of the draft planning package of the Moss Vale Road South (MVRS) Urban Release Area (URA) for consideration and to enable the matter to proceed to finalisation with changes as summarised in this report and its attachments.

Note: this matter is being reported direct to Council given the priority of this key planning project and the need to finalise the package of plans.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Adopt Planning Proposal (PP024) Exception to Minimum Lot Size – Moss Vale Road South Urban Release Area, as exhibited, with the following changes:

a. Reduce the area of application to exclude the flood affected land on the western portion of the Urban Release Area.

2. Forward Planning Proposal (PP024) to the NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office to draft the required Amendment to the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014.

3. Make the resulting Amendment to Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 using the plan making delegations issued under Section 2.4 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

4. Adopt Shoalhaven Development Control Plan Amendment No. 19 and insert Chapter NB3: Moss Vale Road South Urban Release Area as exhibited, with changes identified in Attachment 2 of this report.

5. Adopt Shoalhaven Contributions Plan Amendment No. 9 as exhibited, with changes identified in Attachment 2 of this report.

6. Adopt the Tree Species List as exhibited, with changes identified in Attachment 2 of this report.

7. Advertise the adoption of the Shoalhaven Development Control Plan Amendment No. 19, and Shoalhaven Contributions Plan Amendment No. 9 in the newspaper within 28 days of Council’s decision.

8. Advise submitters, public authorities and NSW Department of Planning and Environment of the adoption of the Shoalhaven Development Control Plan Amendment No. 19, and Shoalhaven Contributions Plan Amendment No. 9.

9. Commence investigations to establish a Special Rate in Moss Vale Road South Urban Release Area, with a view to include Moss Vale Road North Urban Release Area once development has been completed.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation.

Implications: This is the preferred option as it will enable the finalisation of the draft planning package which will therefore satisfy Clause 6.3 of Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 by adopting a specific Development Control Plan (DCP) and Contributions Plan (CP) for the URA. Finalising the planning package would enable Council to determine existing and future Development Applications (DAs) within the URA, and formally release land for development.

2. Adopt an alternative recommendation. Alternatives which Council may consider, as detailed in the report, are:

a) Alternative Indicative Layout Plan (ILP) which does not include any additional small lots; and

b) Alternative Staging Plan which swaps Stages 2 and 3 to reflect the existing DAs.

Implications: Depending on what the alternative recommendation is, this might mean that the adoption of the draft planning package may be delayed. Any delay on the adoption of the draft planning package may further delay the determination of existing and future DAs in the URA and therefore the formal release of land for development.

If the alternative recommendation is to adopt Options a) or b), or both, Council must consider their individual implications. Option a) would result in a lower dwelling yield by approximately 14 dwellings, however given the nature of the Planning Proposal (PP), there is the ability to compensate for any additional dwelling yield loss. Option b) may reflect the DAs currently being considered by Council, however adopting this staging plan would be inconsistent with the advice of Council’s Traffic Unit and Shoalhaven Water and result in a less logical development of the URA and less efficient method of delivering infrastructure.

3. Do not proceed with adopting the draft planning package with the recommended changes.

Implications: This is not recommended as it will result in Clause 6.3 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 not being met. This will delay the adoption of the draft planning package, the determination of existing and future DAs in the URA and the formal release of land for development.

Background

Note: Councillors were briefed ahead of this report on this matter on 26 July2018.

Moss Vale Road South (MVRS) URA was first identified in the early 2000s as part of the Nowra-Bomaderry Structure Plan (NBSP). After the NBSP was endorsed by Council in 2006, and by NSW Department of Planning & Environment (DP&E) in 2008, Council rezoned the land as part of the change from Shoalhaven LEP 1985 to Shoalhaven LEP 2014 (see Figure 1). In addition to changing the zone from rural to residential, the changeover to Shoalhaven LEP 2014 also introduced requirements under Part 6 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 which stipulated pre-requisites for development of the URA. These include satisfactory arrangements for State Public Infrastructure and public utility infrastructure (i.e. Contribution Plan), and a site-specific DCP.

Figure 1 – MVRS URA

In May 2017, Council’s Development Committee resolved (MIN17.374) to commence the detailed planning work for MVRS URA as per Part 6 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 to enable its actual release/development, including:

• PP to potentially enable lots as small as 300m² in certain areas,

• Area-specific DCP Chapter; and

• Contributions Plan (CP).

In December 2017, Council’s Development Committee received a report seeking to proceed to publicly exhibit the draft planning package, which included a PP to enable small lot sizes in a nominated area, Area-specific DCP Chapter, CP Amendment, Integrated Water Cycle Assessment (IWCA), and Tree Species List. Council’s Development Committee resolved to proceed to public exhibition for a minimum period of 54 days (MIN17.1045).

Public Exhibition

As per the Council resolution, the draft planning package was ultimately exhibited for a period of 11 weeks from 20 December 2017 to 2 March 2018 (inclusive). A total of 27 submissions were received from the general community including landowners and interested parties; 1 submission from State Member on behalf of a landowner; and 5 submissions from public authorities (Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), Illawarra-Shoalhaven Local Health District (ISLHD), NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), and Council’s Assets & Works Group).

Copies of the actual submissions are available in the Councillor’s Room prior to the meeting. Attachment 1 to this report includes a summary of the individual submissions and Council staff comments. Attachment 2 details the proposed changes to the various documents in the draft planning package which seek to address the submissions received where required.

It is also noted that during the exhibition of the draft planning package, DAs for the proposed subdivision of Lot 1 Taylors Lane and 169 Taylors Lane were also publicly exhibited for the same period. Some of the submissions suggested that it was doubtful that the planning package would achieve the key development outcomes, given the lodgement of the DAs prior to the public exhibition of the draft planning package and its adoption.

Consultation with Public Authorities

As part of the Gateway determination received for the PP, consultation was required with OEH, Shoalhaven Water and Endeavour Energy. Responses were received from all three public authorities and were attached to the exhibited PP Report. The key issues raised in the submissions are summarised and responded to below.

OEH

The following matters were raised in the submission from OEH. They relate to not just the PP, but also the DCP and CP that are part of the draft planning package.

· Do not support changes to the minimum lot size applying to drainage corridors or areas containing significant native vegetation.

· Areas with significant / remnant vegetation is zoned R1 General Residential, this is at odds with some of the objectives of the URA to protect and enhance significant / remnant vegetation. Deferral of key technical issues (flora and fauna) will result in processes that do not assist in the efficient preparation of DAs.

· The Bomaderry Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan (FRMSP) did not consider post-development conditions. The zoning of flood prone land may not be appropriate in the post-development context. Council could utilise a cumulative impact assessment of post-development conditions to inform flood risk related decision making. Council should exclude drainage corridors from the minimum lot size exemption.

· The ILP identifies areas with significant / remnant vegetation as ‘recreation’.

· Staging is uncertain given the current DAs received.

· While an Aboriginal heritage assessment has not been done, the site is expected to contain Aboriginal sites. Early assessment of Aboriginal heritage values is recommended and must be done prior to any ground disturbance. OEH supports the controls relating to Aboriginal cultural heritage and notes the need to undertake consultation with the local Aboriginal community in implementing these controls. It is recommended that the DCP acknowledges OEH as the approval body under the relevant legislation, that Aboriginal objects are protected under the Act, and details / references are provided on the relevant OEH guidance documents.

· The CP identifies areas with significant and remnant vegetation as land for passive recreation. It is unclear how the CP will deal with the management of riparian and areas of natural value. Some of the open space and recreation land identified in the open space CP project is outside of the mapped URA, but included in the URA, this may have legal implications. It is preferable for all CP components to be identified spatially in the one final document.

Staff Comment

The submission raises issues that are outside the scope of this exercise, such as the zoning of the land, which is not part of the PP and was resolved actually resolved in 2014 as part of the Citywide LEP process. The PP does not propose to revisit the zoning of the land, rather it seeks to establish an exception to the current mapped minimum lot size of 500m² to potentially enable lots as small as 300m² in identified locations. To address OEHs concerns with respect to increasing the density over the flood affected land, it is recommended that the PP area be reduced to exclude the area to the west of Unnamed Creek. Figure 2 below identifies the original application area for the PP over land which is flood hazard area, and the proposed modification to the application area to address the concerns of OEH. Reducing the application area to exclude this area will also result in the exclusion of flood prone land from the exception clause. The areas containing significant native vegetation are generally avoided or are located in the designated open space areas.

Figure 2

Original PP subject land with flood overlay (left)

Proposed Revised PP subject land (right)

Amending the application area in the PP will also require the ILP to be amended. Changes to the ILP are demonstrated in Figure 3 below and offers two options. Option 1 removes the small lots on the western side of the ILP to ensure consistency with the amendment to the PP, and removes laneways directly connecting with the collector road. Option 2 includes the same changes as Option 1 plus identifies additional areas for small lots, consistent with the amendment to the PP. Option 2 is recommended.

Figure 3 – Amended ILP Option 1 (left); Amended ILP Option 2 (right)

The provision of a Flora and Fauna Assessment will be undertaken as part of the DA process, which might mean a site by site assessment is undertaken given the land fragmentation in the URA. However, an additional acceptable solution is proposed to be added to the DCP seeking to demonstrate impact mitigation and management measures to protect threatened species, including but not limited to, bats.

It is noted that the Bomaderry Creek FRMSP does not identify the URA for future growth. Despite this, Council’s DCP Chapter G9 in relation to development on flood prone land requires that post-development flow conditions do not differ to pre-development flow. In respect to determining management of overland flows, an Integrated Water Cycle Assessment (IWCA) was prepared for the URA to determine appropriate Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) measures to be implemented to appropriately drain stormwater / overland flow. The IWCA considered the impact of developing the URA and how that will modify overland flow, and as such has recommended various WSUD measures to store and treat stormwater. Section 7.11 of the Draft DCP Chapter includes controls relating to stormwater management and flood minimisation and is supplemented by the draft CP which specifies the drainage infrastructure to be delivered.

It is noted that the DA referenced in the OEH submission was prepared prior to the draft planning package being publicly exhibited. This has caused some reservation about the development outcome, particularly the order of the development, as per the staging plan. The staging is proposed to be amended to consolidate stage 2 and 4, and stage 3 and 5. The DA will need to justify how infrastructure delivery is not impeded because of the inconsistent staging.

The support for the draft DCP controls in relation to Aboriginal cultural heritage is noted. Additional notes are proposed to be added to the DCP to direct developers in relation to the consultation and assessment requirements for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessments, the OEH guidelines, and reference to OEH as the relevant approval body under the legislation.

The CP does not levy for management of land as it is not allowed under the legislation. There are no legal requirements to have land mapped as a URA for it to be incorporated into a CP, rather a nexus must be demonstrated.

Endeavour Energy

The following matters were raised:

· Is in the process of planning network supply strategies for the Nowra-Bomaderry area as identified in Council’s NBSP.

· The strategic area plan is due for completion in mid-2018 to set out the immediate, short, medium and ultimate long-term network requirements.

· Is currently working with proponents in the initial stages of the MVRS URA to have capacity available when required.

· Is committed to making provisions for proponents to connect to its network in a fair and equitable manner. Developers will be able to receive reimbursements for new 11kV infrastructure installed for new subdivisions in accordance with Endeavour Energy policies.

Staff Comment

Endeavour Energy have advised that they are able to provide public utility (electricity) infrastructure to service the development of the URA.

Shoalhaven Water

The matters raised in the submission from Shoalhaven Water were largely in relation to the PP and are follows:

· PP could increase lot yield from 840 to 1250 dwellings which would result in an upper limit increase of 49%;

· It is necessary to know the lot yield permitted to ensure the sizing of the planned water and sewerage infrastructure for the URA is carried out correctly.

· Other issues relating to small lot include the minimum width of easements to drain sewage being a minimum 2.4m which significantly increases to 4m on corner lots. Deep sewers may also impact properties and therefore increase construction costs.

Staff Comment

It is noted that the dwelling yield of the URA will most likely be higher than the minimum 840 dwellings. Given the amenity / location controls in the draft planning package, the area of open space, and now the reduction of the PP area, it is more likely that dwelling yield will be between 950 and 1000 dwellings as a result of the proposed PP provisions. Council staff will continue to work with Shoalhaven Water to finesse the dwelling yield.

The Draft DCP includes setbacks for dwellings on standard blocks and corner blocks to meet the minimum requirements for any potential easements required to drain sewerage.

Other public authorities

Council also notified ISLHD and RMS of the public exhibition period. A submission was received from both public authorities. ISLHD largely supported Council’s efforts in planning for a new release area that is built on healthy planning principles, a copy of the submission is provided as Attachment 3. Two submissions were received from RMS, and one other from Council’s Assets & Works Group. The RMS and Assets & Works submissions are summarised and commented on below.

RMS – Initial Submission

The first submission received from RMS on 27 March 2018 is provided as Attachment 4 and is summarised below:

· Understands that the PP has the potential to increase dwelling densities within the MVRS URA. RMS requests a copy of the updated modelling when completed.

· Is undertaking some preliminary design investigations for Moss Vale Road between the Princes Highway and Main Road.

· Is not in a position to issue a Section 198 Consent for works within the corridor until it is satisfied with the location and treatment of any new intersections with Moss Vale Road and are consistent with the long-term alignment.

· Draft DCP identifies connections to the State road network on the ILP and Pedestrian and Cycle Routes. As noted previously, RMS’ preliminary design investigations for Moss Vale Road have indicated some potential issues with the proposed upgrade of the intersection of Moss Vale Road with Main Road as well as the location of the proposed intersection to the southeast which provides connectivity between Moss Vale Road North and South land releases RMS has concerns that compliant treatments may not be constructible without significant alternations to Moss Vale Road and, in the case of the Main Road junction, property acquisitions.

· Draft CP is for local infrastructure only. Part 6 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 requires satisfactory arrangements for State public infrastructure. At this time a Special Infrastructure Contribution (SIC) is not in place, however RMS wishes to be actively involved in the preparation of a proposed SIC.

· No concerns in relation to the IWCA or Tree Species List.

Staff Comment

After receiving the initial submission from RMS, Council staff participated in several meetings and on-site inspections with RMS staff to determine the most appropriate location for a new intersection on Moss Vale Road. As part of these discussions, RMS indicated they had identified a possible superior location for the eastern intersection on Moss Vale Road, located approximately 150m to the east of the existing planned location and shown on Figure 3 below.

Figure 4 – Alternative Intersection Location (RMS)

As part of ongoing discussions with RMS between March and July 2018, one site inspection involved measuring the stopping sight distances and queuing data for both potential intersections locations.

RMS – Second Submission

The second submission from RMS was received on 10 July 2018 is provided at Attachment 5 and is summarised below:

· Refers to recent investigations, discussions and site meetings regarding the location of a proposed intersection on Moss Vale Road.

· Has considered two locations for the intersection. RMS’ assessment was based on the understanding that Council’s strategic planning has identified a roundabout to be the intersection treatment and considered the matters including but not limited to safe intersection and stopping sight distances, reaction times, queue lengths, topography, visibility.

· Advises it supports the Council preferred option subject to:

o The intersection being the combined/central access point that services both MVRS URA and the future Moss Vale Road North (MVRN) URA;

o The ultimate layout being determined by the updated strategic modelling currently being prepared by Council; and

o Any interim treatment, if not the ultimate treatment, is designed and constructed to provide a safe treatment for road users and is consistent with the long-term treatment of Moss Vale Road.

Staff Comment

Given the ultimate advice received from the RMS, Council can proceed to finalising the draft planning package with the eastern Moss Vale Road intersection as per the existing zoning. Future development of MVR Nort6h URA will need to initially be planned around the use of the intersection. Given Council are currently working collaboratively with the landowner group for the MVRN URA, Council staff will ensure that this occurs. In addition, Council staff will provide RMS with the updated modelling once completed.

Assets & Works Group

Council’s Assets & Works Group provided a submission on 10 July 2018. The submission largely refers to the provisions within the DCP and infrastructure delivery more generally and is summarised below.

Despite the exhibition period ending on 2 March 2018, the submission has been considered to ensure that matters that required attention were suitably addressed. In support of the submission, the Assets & Works Group provided a suggested revised ILP to illustrate the various suggestions / amendments as shown at Figure 5. A copy of the submission is provided at Attachment 6.

Figure 5 – Assets & Works Group Suggested Revised Indicative Layout Plan

The submission is summarised and commented on below:

· Moss Vale Road is shown as a two lane 20m road reserve on the ILP and this needs to reflect the ultimate road reserve required for four (4) lanes and shared pedestrian facilities. A wider road reserve should be shown, in the order of 50m.

· The ILP does not show (or refer to) the major connection to the FNCR Network and does not identify Taylors Lane as an Entry Collector.

· The Indicative Lot Layout Plan consists of a grid structure which does not represent road hierarchy best practice. This urban grid arrangement encourages “rat running”, high order and low order road intersections, excessive cross intersections, and the use of traffic calming devices rather than road environment to obtain a low speed traffic environment (traffic calming devices are supposed to be a retrofit solution not a green fields solution to lack of low speed conformance). A much better outcome will be achieved by reducing the number of roads shown on the Indicative Lot Layout Plan and only showing the higher order network as per the attached Revised ILP.

· Shared path connections heading towards Cambewarra Village and the wider shared pathway network are not shown.

· The location of bio-retention sites and wetland sites is important to the layout of the site, these should be shown as per the attached Revised ILP.

· The services corridors are restricted to one side of the road and all the services are in this narrow corridor including under concrete paths.

· The high order roads will service buses and the intersection nodes will need to cater for these buses and the pedestrian linkages.

· All road widths (including laneways) need to consider reconstruction issues such as vibration to houses and structures and operation of the road during reconstruction.

· The staging of the construction must be structured such that no access is provided to Taylors Lane until such time as it is upgraded as part of the FNCR Network project.

· Additional roundabouts are needed to treat four-way intersections.

Staff comment

Moss Vale Road is a State Road and falls outside the area covered by the DCP. RMS have the ability as a State Public Authority to formally advise Council to zone the land required for the widening of Moss Vale Road to SP2 Infrastructure and map as Land Reservation Acquisition. At this stage, this advice has not yet been received, however the draft DCP does not prevent this from being achieved and the existing LEP zones set development back from the road.

The ILP as initially prepared did not identify the FNCR Network. It is recommended that the ILP and Figure 9 Street Hierarchy and Network Plan be amended to identify the future connection to the FNCR Network and identify it as a Collector Road (Entry) treatment, to ensure that the construction of this future entry point is consistent with other entries into the URA.

It is not recommended that the ILP be amended as suggested to shorten the Collector Road and remove lower order streets including local streets and laneways. The ILP was prepared with this level of detail acknowledging the land ownership fragmentation and provide clarity on the likely development outcome of the URA. However, it is noted that it is indicative, as it may require modification in order to respond to site issues and matters such as biodiversity or Aboriginal cultural heritage considerations. The Collector Road has not been shortened as it would reduce the walkability of the neighbourhood and connectivity which the Collector Road offers. The Collector Road placement on the edge of the URA also ensures that a better and clear visual interface can be achieved between the urban development and the surrounding pastoral landscapes.

Encouraging broader connectivity outside of the URA is strongly supported. It is envisaged that the shared path network will provide opportunities for the new community of the URA to walk or cycle to surrounding areas including Moss Vale Road North URA and Cambewarra Village. It is recommended that Figure 18 Pedestrian and Cycle Routes be amended to include an additional shared path along Moss Vale Road, and reinforce connections through to MVRN URA, Cambewarra Village and Taylors Lane. This will support the achievement of the key development outcome for a connected movement network that encourages and improves connectivity and walkability of the URA with the broader area.

It needs to be acknowledged that the DCP is supported by other documents including the CP and does not standalone, which identify roundabouts, bio-retention basins and the like. An additional section with a new map would be a duplication of information. The CP indicates the location of traffic calming devices and other matters such as a shared path. Other figures within the DCP also have this level of detail and they are located within the relevant section of the DCP. It is recommended that Figure 9 Street Hierarchy and Network Plan identify the location of roundabouts, as per the CP.

Service allocations are required on both sides of the street. The figure in the DCP has been interpreted incorrectly. An additional advisory note has been added to clarify this.

It is acknowledged that Taylors Lane is not appropriate for use during construction or by vehicles associated with the future development of the area. It is recommended that Figure 3 Staging Plan be amended, and a supporting advisory note added to clarify that the construction of Taylors Lane is separate to the development of the URA and subject to the delivery of the FNCR Network project. Figure 9 Street Hierarchy and Network Plan will also be amended to restrict use of Taylors Lane to residents’ access only, until the FNCR Network project has been completed.

The Assets & Works Group revised ILP and submission suggests a reduction in four-way intersections, or where unavoidable, additional roundabouts should be provided. To address this concern, the road project in the CP is recommended to be amended to include an additional mountable roundabout on the southern tree-lined boulevard. Two (2) roundabouts are proposed to be relocated in accordance with the submission, being the roundabout on the northern tree-lined boulevard and the western collector road entry roundabout.

Other changes are recommended in respect to the DCP in response to this submission which to address minor anomalies.

Representations by Member for Kiama, Gareth Ward MP

A landowner within MVRS URA made representations to the State Member of Parliament Gareth Ward requesting that his property be acquired via compulsory acquisition under Land Acquisition (Just Terms) Act 1991. The submission did not raise any specific issues with the draft planning package or its content, other than its impact on the ability to sell the subject property.

The property in question is one of the smaller allotments within the URA and part of it is identified as part proposed future open space area. The remaining part is potentially able to be suddivided into smaller lots.

Staff comment

Council staff met with Gareth Ward MP and the landowner to discuss the issues raised in the submission. During the meeting, it was acknowledged that the planning package at that point in time was draft only and may be subject to change and considering compulsory acquisition would not occur at that point. It was noted that Council still needed to finalise its position on the matter.

Despite the draft nature of the planning package, Council supported the submission of an application to the NSW Government’s Low Cost Loan Initiative in June 2018. The application was specifically to seek $6.85M for the provision of open space infrastructure in MVRS URA, in order to have available funding for the early acquisition of open space. As such if the planning package is adopted and the Low Cost Loan is successful Council may then be in a position to acquire the property or part of it.

Submissions relating to PP

Submissions relating to the PP indicated both support and opposition to encouraging smaller lots. At least 13 of the submissions received related to the PP and the enabling of small lots, and raised the following points:

• Small lots are an afterthought;

• Proposal is inappropriate in a rural area / outside of the inner city;

• Provision of small lots will provide crammed living conditions which leads to poor social impacts;

• Will increase the number of rateable properties;

• Is not a solution for ageing in place or affordable housing;

• Will provide for affordable housing for young families or retirees; and

• Supported on the basis that amenity and location controls are met.

Staff comment

Incorporation of small lots was first identified in the NBSP which was endorsed by Council in 2006 and by the State Government in 2008. The NBSP sought to “offer a variety of housing options, characterised primarily by a mix of detached houses and some terrace / town house type dwellings (medium density housing)”. The PP seeks to help realise the objective of the NBSP.

The location of small lots will be within a new urban environment. It is acknowledged that this area currently has a rural character, however once the development of the URA progresses, this location will change and become urbanised. This urban environment is considered appropriate for small lots as it has the benefit of enabling the provision of diverse housing options. Small lots offer a lower-priced housing product and a product for those wishing to down-size, therefore addressing housing affordability and ageing in place.

The provision of small lots must first meet a criterion which includes ensuring they are in high amenity areas, such as the tree-lined boulevard or open space areas. By ensuring small lots are within the vicinity of these high-amenity areas, the amenity provided within the public domain compensates for the reduced lot sizes.

The URA will create new residential allotments which will be subject to Council rates. These rates in turn are used to provide and maintain local infrastructure which supports these new residential communities.

Submissions relating to DCP

Submissions relating to the DCP indicated both support and opposition to various draft controls. At least 16 of the submissions received related to the DCP, and raised the following:

· Staging Plan needs to be amended – suggestions were made for alternative staging which include avoiding Taylors Lane until the FNCR project is completed, the other followed the current DAs. Concerns were raised about the ability to enforce the staging, given the inconsistency between the DAs and the Staging Plan.

· Provision of larger lots on the edge of the URA are tokenistic. The URA is already buffered by E3 and RU1 zones which will provide a visual break to the development. Gradation of densities would be warranted if this was the extent of development, however the site is effectively infill in the strategic context and there is no need for it.

· The collector road should not be located on the perimeter of the URA, and several local roads can be removed as they are unnecessary. Amending the ILP to include these suggestions would enable increased dwelling yield.

· Controls relating to small lots are too prescriptive / need to be more prescriptive;

· Roads within the URA are too wide / too narrow; and

· Need to consider the inclusion of the Scenic Protection Area / E3 Environmental Management zone in the DCP provisions.

Staff comment

It is recommended that Figure 3 Staging Plan is amended to consolidate proposed stages 2 and 4 to stage 2 and consolidate stage 3 and 5 to stage 3. Because of the consolidation of previous stages, stage 6 has been revised to stage 4. The exhibited Staging Plan and proposed amended Staging Plan as recommended is shown at Figure 6 below. This results in generally a north to south development pattern and acknowledges that Taylors Lane is not appropriate for use during construction or after, in its current condition. Taylors Lane will be upgraded as part of the FNCR project. After the upgrade has been undertaken, Taylors Lane will be suitable for use as an access point in to the URA. This approach is consistent with advice from Council’s Assets & Works Group and Shoalhaven Water who have suggested that a north to south staging plan will result in a more coordinated and efficient method for infrastructure delivery. An alternative option would be to swap Stages 2 and 3 to reflect the current situation of DAs. This is not the preferred option as it is inconsistent with the direction and advice of Council’s Assets & Works Group and Shoalhaven Water in respect to coordinated and efficient infrastructure delivery. The planning of this new URA should also not be led by the DAs that have been lodged.

Figure 6 – Exhibited Staging Plan (left); Proposed Amended Staging Plan (right)

The “large lots” offer an alternative housing product whilst having due regard to the interface with the surrounding pastoral landscapes. It is unclear how this area is considered to be effectively infill development given its significant transformation from rural lifestyle and small farming lots through to residential allotments where the yield will increase by a significant amount. The large lots provide an appropriate transition from pastoral to urban landscape, where the road is not provided at the interface of the transitional area.

The design of the ILP is responsive to the site and is built on a grid pattern to encourage a legible and connected neighbourhood consistent with the Healthy Active by Design principles. The suggested relocation of the collector road to enable yield may be to the detriment of the amenity of the neighbourhood and the interface of the URA with the surrounding pastoral landscapes. The placement of the collector road on the perimeter of the URA will provide a superior urban design outcome in respect to the interface of the URA with the surrounding pastoral landscape. Ensuring that residential blocks do not back on to the Western Bypass corridor has the potential benefit to mitigate against future potential acoustic impacts resulting from the Bypass, and visual impacts resulting from any barriers from the Bypass.

The controls relating to the small lots are consistent with the objectives of the PP to enable the provision of lots as small as 300m². The intent is to ensure that all small lots are in high amenity areas, so that the reduced lot size and ultimately the reduced private open space areas, is compensated by provision of access to quality public domain areas.

The width of roads in the URA are generally wider than a number of new release areas in the Illawarra-Shoalhaven. No concerns were received from Council’s Waste Unit in respect to ability, or lack of, to perform waste collection.

It is acknowledged that the surrounding E3 Environmental Management / Scenic Protection Corridor offers significant opportunity for future visual buffering of the URA. It is recommended that Figure 1 Subject Lands Map be amended to include this area.

Other changes to the DCP are recommended in response to the various submissions, to address minor anomalies. These include:

· Indicating the width of kerbs in the street cross-sections;

· Reinforcing Taylors Lane as not appropriate for access until the FNCR project is completed;

· Additional notes to provide further advice / guidance to controls; and

· Rewording on controls to clarify intent.

Submissions relating to CP

Submissions relating to the CP indicated both support and opposition. At least 6 of the submissions received related to the CP, and raised the following:

· Open space area is excessive and as a result has a $10,000 contribution value. This results in a local contribution value that is too high, the amount of open space should be reduced.

· Given the land ownership fronting the southern Tree-lined boulevard, consider adding it to the Road project.

· The rate per square metre of $65/m² is considered to be half of the actual land value. The basis for the calculation of the acquisition rate is questioned.

Staff comment

All up the open space network is made up of 9.8 hectares (ha) of land which was considered necessary in order to provide high quality, multi-purpose open space for the URA. The area for open space includes locations for passive recreation, retention of significant and native vegetation, WSUD, and active transport routes. Placing these areas in public ownership rather than private enables Council to appropriately manage these spaces in perpetuity. As described above, the rate per square metre is based on market value and is on the basis of unimproved land.

The land acquisition rate used in the CP was determined based on similar acquisitions undertaken in the areas at a square metre rate. The acquisition of land is predominantly on the R1 General Residential zone, with some areas zoned E2 and E3. The square metre rate is based on an unimproved land value as the areas required for acquisition do not contain any improvements, i.e. dwelling houses. Council has had an independent land valuation undertaken which concluded that the market rate per square metre is $31.50/m² which is significantly less than what is in the CP, therefore the rate per square metre is considered appropriate. Future land acquisition will be undertaken in accordance with Land Acquisition (Just Terms) Compensation Act 1991.

Submissions relating to Supporting Documents – IWCA & Tree Species List

Submissions relating to the IWCA and Tree Species List indicated both support and opposition. At least 2 of the submissions received related to the IWCA and 3 submissions were in relation to the Tree Species List. The submissions specifically raised the following:

· The IWCA uses Australian Rainfall & Runoff 2016 (ARR2016) data, however it has not been adopted by Council.

· Some basin volumes could be optimised, and some basins could be combined to reduce ongoing maintenance costs.

· Location of basins in the IWCA should be flexible, as some do not appear to be end of line.

· There are no Gross Pollutants Traps proposed in the treatment train in the IWCA, without them there is a risk of rapid blockage of basins.

· Add specific list for open space and riparian corridors.

· Add additional species to the collector road, tree-lined boulevard, and local streets.

· Remove trees in laneways as they obstruct sight lines.

Staff Comment

It is acknowledged that ARR2016 has not been adopted by Council, however it has been used as it reflects more recent data and is current best-practice. Council’s most recent floodplain risk management studies are being prepared utilising this latest rainfall data.

Basin volumes could be optimised slightly, but the ultimate size will be dependent on the detailed design and outlet configuration. Volumes could change during detailed design, however given the IWCA is conceptual only, the volumes are adequate. The detail design will also determine whether basins could be merged, however they appear in the IWCA in multiple catchments to allow for staging.

In addition, flexibility with the location of stormwater management is enabled by Acceptable Solution 17.2 in the draft DCP which requires that where it differs from the IWCA, suitable topography; good access to WSUD / drainage infrastructure; Ability to be combined with an adjacent WSUD element; ensure that flow rates and water quality do not adversely impact the waterway reach from the site to the offsite WSUD element; and WSUD element is increased in size to cater for the additional catchment, is able to be demonstrated.

The treatment train as recommended in the IWCA is acceptable to Council’s Drainage Engineer and is in line with council’s existing maintenance regime.

A specific list within the Tree Species List has been developed for open space and riparian corridors, which includes both native and exotic species considered appropriate within the subject environment. The additional species suggested within the streets are included in the revised Tree Species List.

Trees in laneways have been maintained as they will provide visual softening of laneways. The species selected grow thin and tall and will avoid obstructing sight lines in laneways. An example of where this has been successfully implemented is in Renwick, a similar new development in the Wingecarribee Local Government Area.

General Submissions

At least 14 of the submissions received commented generally in relation to the development that will result from the draft planning package rather than the actual content of the draft planning package itself. Of the 14 submissions, 8 were similar in nature and could be considered as form letters. The submissions raise the following:

· Development of the URA will disturb the peace of the area.

· Infrastructure must be provided early, including roads, open space, electricity, schools, and the like.

· There was a lack of community consultation with Cambewarra CCB, particularly given the development will have the most amount of impact on Cambewarra Village.

· Tree-lined boulevards are not practical amenities.

· Infrastructure on Moss Vale Road and Princes Highway, particularly intersection treatments, must be upgraded to accommodate the growth of the area.

Staff comment

MVRS URA was initially identified as a new living area as part of the NBSP process in the early 2000s. It is acknowledged that this area will substantially change from its current rural character to an urbanised setting. To minimise impact of the development, the URA will be staged in at least four (4) stages. The ILP prepared for the URA proposes to integrate large areas of open spaces, and tree lined streets which take advantage of the view lines to the surrounding escarpment and pastoral landscapes, to ensure that the future development can capitalise on the existing peaceful nature of the area.

Local infrastructure including playgrounds, passive open space and footpaths are planned for within the draft DCP and the draft CP. The provision of this infrastructure by the developer will be either through monetary contributions or works-in-kind.

Consultation with the broader community started in the early 2000s. Consultation with the CCB occurred in 2006 as part of the NBSP, again in 2011 and 2013 when the zoning was proposed to change as part of the draft Shoalhaven LEP, and most recently, when the draft planning package was on public exhibition for 11 weeks between 20 December 2017 and 2 March 2018. It should be noted that the zoning of the area was modified in response to the Cambewarra Village CCB and community feedback. Concerns were raised about the two urban areas merging in the fullness of time, as such the edge of the URA was pulled back and an E3 Environmental Management zone established around the URA to act as a buffer for future development.

Tree-lined boulevards are not referred to as amenities, like public toilets. They are referred to establishing an amenity, i.e. the pleasantness or attractiveness of a place.

It is acknowledged that as the area grows, it will have an impact on the State Road network. Council has consulted with DP&E in relation to State public infrastructure and necessary upgrades to accommodate the future growth of the area. DP&E are currently preparing a SIC which will levy development in URAs for the upgrade / provision of State public infrastructure, which may include upgrades to Princes Highway and Moss Vale Road.

Community Engagement

The community have been consulted since the early 2000s with respect to the MVRS URA. The consultation started with the NBSP in its early development through to the formal exhibition period for a minimum of 8 weeks between 1 March and 19 May 2006. Subsequently, the changes to the zoning of the land were exhibited as part of the Citywide LEP process as part of the Draft Shoalhaven LEP 2009 for a minimum of 13 weeks between 18 July to 14 October 2011; and later, the Draft Shoalhaven LEP 2013 for minimum 5 weeks between 3 April to 10 May 2013.

During the preparation of the draft planning package, Council staff held meetings with the landowners of MVRS URA since late-2016 to discuss the planning work being undertaken. Over the last two years, Council staff have also met with consultants who act on behalf of some of the landowners and development interest groups wishing to develop and lodge / have lodged DAs in the MVRS URA.

Finally, the draft planning package was exhibited for a minimum of 11 weeks between 20 December 2017 to 2 March 2018. A total of 32 submissions were received from the public, landowners and public authorities. During this time, a project page on Councils ‘Get Involved’ community engagement portal was established to enable the current and future community of the Nowra-Bomaderry area to keep up to date as Council plans for actual growth and development in these areas. The page will remain live after the MVRS URA planning work is completed as it will be used as the platform to provide updates for planned growth areas in the Nowra-Bomaderry area such as MVRN URA, and subsequent Phases of the NBSP including Cabbage Tree Lane.

Policy Implications

The adoption of the draft planning package will result in amendments to Shoalhaven LEP 2014, Shoalhaven DCP 2014 and Shoalhaven CP 2010.

Financial Implications

The preparation, exhibition, and post-exhibition consideration of the draft planning package has been prepared within the existing Strategic Planning budget.

The delivery of infrastructure within the URA will be delivered via works in kind, payment of Section 7.11 Contributions and the Special Infrastructure Contribution.

As a result of the post-exhibition changes, the exhibited CP will be modified to include an additional mountable roundabout on the southern tree-lined boulevard. The addition of the roundabout to the road project will increase the contribution amount by $119.04 per Equivalent Tenement (ET). The additional contribution amount would result in a total increase in the area specific contributions to $18,811.53 per ET, with a total estimated contribution (including existing planning area and citywide projects) of $23,037.22 per ET.

Low Cost Loan Initiative Application

Council has submitted an application to the NSW Government’s Low-Cost Loan Initiative for the provision of open space in the MVRS URA. The application was made on 29 July 2018 in accordance with Council’s resolution MIN18.519.

Should Council be successful in the initiative, the loan will enable Council to undertake early land acquisition for the provision of open space, rather than it being delayed until later in the development stages.

Housing Acceleration Fund

Council have been nominated for DP&E Housing Acceleration Fund (HAF) which seeks to provide 100% financial assistance for the delivery of critical infrastructure to enable accelerated housing supply. Council’s nomination under the HAF is for the new intersection on Moss Vale Road, Water Supply Infrastructure and Sewer Infrastructure equating to approximately $19M.

DP&E are yet to advise of the outcome of the HAF, however, should Council be successful in receiving 100% financial assistance of these infrastructure projects, this would have a positive effect as monetary savings to developers and potentially to future prospective buyers within the URA.

Ongoing maintenance – potential Special Rate Variation

Given the significant amount of open space and the level of drainage infrastructure in the form of WSUD, Council must consider how it will manage these lands in perpetuity, given the level of infrastructure provided in MVRS URA is approximately 150% more than other greenfield subdivisions in the area (i.e. Green Orchid). This will have the effect of increasing the rate base for Shoalhaven.

Recent subdivisions where WSUD was proposed, resulted in significant upfront costs for Council in the maintenance of the open space and WSUD. This was the case with Bayswood development at Vincentia.

To equitably distribute the rate base as a result of the development of the MVRS URA, Council should investigate a Special Rate which would only apply to the resulting residential lots within the URA. The application of the Special Rate could also apply to the resulting residential lots in MVRN URA given the vision for this URA also intends to include extensive open space and WSUD.

Investigating a Special Rate for the MVRS URA could be undertaken in two ways:

1. The first option could look at applying for a Special Rate Variation with IPART once the development of MVRS URA is completed in approximately 2022/23. Council could then seek to expand the application of the Special Rate to MVRN URA once the development is completed in approximately 2028/29. It should be noted that these development timeframes are estimates only, and Council may be required to apply for a variation to IPART sooner.

2. The second option could look at applying for a Special Rate Variation with IPART once the development of both MVRS and MVRN URA is completed in approximately 2028/29.

This will be separately reported to Council as needed.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 28 August 2018

Page 0

CL18.205 NSW Heritage Grants 2018-2019 - Shoalhaven Local Heritage Assistance Fund

HPERM Ref: D18/251335

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Strategic Planning

Purpose / Summary

· Present the applications received for the Shoalhaven Local Heritage Assistance Fund for the 2018-2019 financial year and seek endorsement to allocate funding to eligible applicants; and

· Provide an update on the NSW Heritage Grants 2018-2019 program.

Recommendation

That Council endorse the allocation of Shoalhaven Local Heritage Assistance Funds for the 2018-2019 program as listed in Table 1 within this report.

Options

1. Endorse the proposed allocation of Shoalhaven Local Heritage Assistance Funds for the 2018-2019 program as listed in Table 1 in this report.

Implications: This will see the allocated budget amount being delivered to appropriate local heritage projects in accordance with the established process.

2. Adopt an alternate recommendation.

Implications: This option is not preferred as it would not be in keeping with the established process for these grants, which involves seeking applications from interested owners.

Background

Council has a long-term commitment to local heritage, demonstrated through the ongoing support of the NSW Heritage Grants. The grant funding provided by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) assists Council to employ a Heritage Advisor and to run an annual Local Heritage Assistance Fund to provide grants of up to $5,000 for a wide range of small heritage projects including general maintenance, adaptive reuse, or sympathetic alterations/additions for heritage items.

The conservation of Shoalhaven’s cultural heritage by its owners is clearly beneficial to the broader community and visitors to the area. These grants, although small, show that Council and the NSW State Government are committed to helping owners to conserve and enhance their properties for future generations. These heritage projects demonstrate Council’s commitment to heritage conservation management and promoting cultural sustainability, heritage tourism and the Community Strategic Plan.

NSW Heritage Grants Program 2018-19

NSW Heritage Grant funding was accepted under the following streams:

· Local Heritage Places (Shoalhaven Local Heritage Assistance Fund) – Council accepted a grant of up to $7,500 per annum (ex GST) for both the 2017-18 and 2018-19 financial years, with a funding formula for both years of $1: $1 (OEH: Council).

· Local Government Heritage Advisors – Council accepted a grant of up to $8,000 per annum (ex GST) for both the 2017-18 and 2018-19 financial years towards providing a Heritage Advisor Service for Shoalhaven.

A grant application under NSW Heritage Grants Program – Local Government Heritage Planning Studies Stream 2018-19 for ‘Berry historic township – community driven heritage study’ was submitted on 18 August 2017. Whilst the project had merit and was considered eligible, Council was notified by OEH on 18 July 2018 that it was not successful due to a large volume of applications and a lack of State Funding. This project and the options to move it forward will be reported separately to Council in due course.

Shoalhaven Local Heritage Assistance Fund - Process

An advertisement was placed in local newspapers and on social media on 20 June 2018, calling for applications from owners of heritage items to participate in the 2018-2019 Shoalhaven Local Heritage Assistance Fund Grant Program.

Council also wrote to potential applicants who had previously expressed an interest in the program to inform them of the call for applications. It is noted that successful applicants are required to match the grant amount offered by Council on a ‘dollar-for-dollar’ basis and to complete the required works by 29 March 2019.

At the close of the application period on 20 July 2018, eleven (11) applications were received. The applications were assessed by Council’s Heritage Advisor in accordance with OEH guidelines. The Heritage Advisor inspected the heritage items being considered for funding, to ensure that the works proposed are appropriate heritage works and a priority for that site. Funding is used to assist heritage listed items in Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 as a priority, over non-listed heritage items.

Council’s Heritage Advisor has deemed that ten (10) of the eleven (11) applications qualified for grant funding, with the successful applications having a total estimated value of $129,462.00 ex GST. Details of the recommended successful applications together with the recommended grant amounts (total of $22,500 ex GST) are shown in Table 1. The one (1) unsuccessful application was considered ineligible as it was a new addition to a building which required development consent and would therefore not meet the project timeframe of requiring completion by end of March 2019.

The priorities for allocation of funding are based on the assessment criteria noted on the grant application. A grant assessment matrix is also used by Council’s Heritage Advisor to score applications, based on their merit. For the current round, grant applications are welcomed from across Shoalhaven. Given that OEH recommends Councils consider short term and longer-term funding priorities for the local heritage fund, in future, Council could consider a more targeted approach for particular area/s of strategic importance for heritage grant applications. This approach could support wider strategic planning projects.

Table 1: Shoalhaven Local Heritage Assistance Fund Program – Proposed Grant Allocation – 2018-2019

Project Location	Heritage Item	Description of Project	Project Cost	Suggested Grant Amount
1180 Bolong Road, Coolangatta	Former Berry Estate brick schoolmaster’s residence including garden and former weatherboard Berry Estate school	Restoration of Old Coolangatta School	$18,160	$5,000
“Coolooli”, 137 Princes Highway, Milton	Federation weatherboard residence and garden	Garden restoration	$9,091	$2,000
91 Osborne Street, Nowra	Victorian Georgian rendered masonry residence	Re-roof and new guttering	$16,590	$4,000
110 Berry Street, Nowra	“Hampden Villa”—Victorian weatherboard residence including stables and garden	Paint exterior of house	$17,272	$3,000
22-24 Jervis Street, Nowra	Victorian Italianate residence and garden	Conservation of the garden based upon Conservation Management Plan	$7,617	$1,500
“Thistlebank”, 85 Ryans Lane, Pyree	“Thistlebank”—Dairy Farm Complex	Reinstate original front verandah	$23,860	$3,000
3 Pulman Street, Berry	Colonial weatherboard cottage (former curate’s cottage)	Painting front of house	$12,227	$1,000
“Woodside Park”, 94B Tannery Road, Berry	“Woodside Park”—dairy farm complex and gatehouse	Repair glazing and repaint windows	$8,436	$1,000
31 Worrigee Street, Nowra	Inter-war Californian Bungalow	Exterior painting	$9,860	$1,000
“Somerset” 117 Pyree Lane, Pyree	“Somerset House”— Federation weatherboard farmhouse and trees	Repairs to front verandah	$6,349	$1,000
TOTAL			$129,462 ex GST	$22,500 ex GST

Community Engagement

The Shoalhaven Local Heritage Fund Program 2018-2019 was advertised in local newspapers and on social media on 20 June 2018. A link was provided to Council’s website for relevant information on eligibility and assessment criteria. Direct advice was also provided to people who had previously expressed an interest in the program.

Policy Implications

As part of the funding agreement for Local Government Heritage Advisors Grant, and to claim re-imbursement, a Heritage Strategy covering 2017-19 is required. The Shoalhaven Heritage Strategy 2018-2021 was adopted by Council on 8 May 2018 (MIN18.339).

Financial Implications

Shoalhaven Local Heritage Assistance Fund (Local Heritage Places Grant)

The funding offer from OEH for 2018-19 is up to $7,500 (ex GST) per annum, with a funding formula of $1:$1 (OEH: Council). This means that Council needs to spend $15,000 to claim the maximum grant amount. OEH requires Council to spend the money first, and then claim reimbursement of the grant.

For the 2018-19 financial year, the recommended amount of funding for the Shoalhaven Local Heritage Assistance Fund is $22,500 and Council’s budget allocation is $21,000. This means initially there will be a shortfall of $1500 which will need to be allocated to this budget. This will be managed within the Strategic Planning budget and will be recouped when OEH reimburse the grant funding to Council.

Council should also ensure that a similar level of funding is provided in the 2019-20 and 2020-21 financial years to cover Council’s required financial commitment for that period.

Shoalhaven Heritage Advisory Services (Local Government Heritage Advisors Grant)

The funding offer from OEH for 2018-19 is up to $8,000 ex GST, with a funding formula of $1:$1 (OEH: Council). Therefore, Council needs to spend at least $16,000 during the 2018-19 financial year, to claim back the maximum grant amount for reimbursement. Strategic Planning manage the OEH grant application and reimbursement process, however this budget is managed by Development Services.

There is $12,000 allocated for 2018-19. Council should also ensure that the required level of funding is provided in the 2019-20 and 2020-21 financial years to cover Council’s required financial commitment for that period.

Total Cash and Investments	-$6,784,042
Unrestricted General Fund	+$2,456,524
Sewer Fund	-$8,138,983	Spending on REMS
Strategic Projects Reserve	-$757,822	Spending on projects
Commitment to capital works	-$1,159,920	Spending on projects
Property Reserve	-$1,576,459	Property purchases
Grant Reserve	-$2,640,404	Spending on projects
Waste Disposal	+$3,733,702	Timing of contract payments

Tenderer	Location
Avi John Contracting	Smeaton Grange
Bitupave Ltd (Boral)	Greystanes
Borthwick Pengilly Asphalt	Penrith
Downer EDI Works	Mogo
Fulton Hogan	Kembla Grange
Roadworx Group	Unanderra
State Asphalt Services	Prestons