Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - 26 November 2019

Ordinary Meeting

Meeting Date: Tuesday, 26 November, 2019

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

Time: 5.00pm

Membership (Quorum - 7)

All Councillors

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

Agenda

1. Acknowledgement of Traditional Custodians

2. Opening Prayer

3. Australian National Anthem

4. Apologies / Leave of Absence

5. Confirmation of Minutes

· Ordinary Meeting - 29 October 2019

6. Declarations of Interest

7. Call Over of the Business Paper

8. Presentation of Petitions

9. Mayoral Minute

Mayoral Minute

MM19.19..... Mayoral Minute - Catastrophic Tuesday - 12 November 2019...................... 1

MM19.20..... Mayoral Minute - Request to waive tipping fees for house fire at Shoalhaven Heads........................................................................................................................ 3

MM19.21..... Mayoral Minute - Country Universities Centre - Establishment of an Interim Board........................................................................................................................ 4

10. Deputations and Presentations

11. Notices of Motion / Questions on Notice

Notices of Motion / Questions on Notice

CL19.326..... Notice of Motion - Proposed Dredging of Shoalhaven River at Shoalhaven Heads........................................................................................................................ 6

CL19.327..... Notice of Motion - Jerry Bailey Oval, Shoalhaven Heads - Provision of Amenities........................................................................................................................ 8

CL19.328..... Rescission Motion - CL19.310 Funding and Advertising in The Bush Telegraph 9

CL19.329..... Notice of Motion - CL19.310 Funding and Advertising in The Bush Telegraph 10

CL19.330..... Notice of Motion - Hazard Reduction - Council Managed and Other Lands 11

CL19.331..... Notice of Motion - Chinaman’s Island Lake Conjola.................................... 13

CL19.332..... Notice of Motion - Development Application Fees - 148 Island Point Road, St Georges Basin............................................................................................................. 15

CL19.333..... Notice of Motion - Solar Roof Panels - Efficiency Policy............................. 17

CL19.334..... Notice of Motion - Community Organisations - Council Directed Projects - Workshop...................................................................................................................... 18

CL19.335..... Notice of Motion - Investment Policy Review............................................... 19

CL19.336..... Notice of Motion - Congratulations Bronte Trew.......................................... 30

CL19.337..... Question on Notice - New Bush Telegraph - Advertising............................ 34

CL19.338..... Question on Notice - Review of Tabourie Lake Entrance Management Plan – DE19.122 (5 November 2019)..................................................................... 35

CL19.339..... Question on Notice - Climate Change Risk to Australia's Built Environment Report...................................................................................................................... 37

12. Committee Reports

CL19.340..... Report of the Strategy & Assets Committee - 12 November 2019.............. 38

SA19.176.... Ulladulla Boat Launching Ramp – Urgent Maintenance Funding

SA19.179.... Local Government Road Safety Program 2019/2020 - Approved Projects - Thank RMS for Funding Assistance.

SA19.183.... Classification of Land - Lot 86 DP 29970 - Unnamed Road Nowra Hill

SA19.184.... Classification of Land - Lot 21 DP 2886 Sec 25 - 48 Coomea St Bomaderry

SA19.194.... Acquisition of Easement for Water Supply - Commonwealth land at Nowra Hill

CL19.341..... Report of the Inclusion & Access Advisory Group - 4 November 2019....... 40

IA19.52........ Additional Item - Noah's Challenge - Support - Investigate - promote purpose

IA19.53........ Additional item - Investigate Improving Beach Access at Tilbury Cove and Ocean Street, Culburra

IA19.54........ Additional item - Plantation Point Playground Proposal

IA19.55........ Additional Item - (IA19.33) - Disabled car space at the Mollymook Cemetery

IA19.42........ Membership Application - Inclusion and Access Advisory Group

CL19.342..... Report of the Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Committee - 6 November 2019...................................................................................................................... 41

CBD19.43... Appointment of Members

CL19.343..... Report of the Aboriginal Advisory Committee - 11 November 2019............ 42

AA19.25...... Additional Item - Cullunghutti Plan of Management - Damage to the track - Bigfoot Compliance - Clearing Private Land - Acknowledge significance - Budget Bid

AA19.27...... Additional Item - Huskisson Church Site - Development - Consultation

AA19.20...... Membership Resignation - Janaya Hennessey and Membership Application - Kyle Lachlan

AA19.22...... Notification - Council Resolution - Re-establishment of Aboriginal Advisory Committee

CL19.344..... Report of the Shoalhaven Traffic Committee - 12 November 2019............ 44

TC19.57...... Corks Lane, MILTON - Lot 35 - DP 262647 - Residential Subdivision (PN 3562)

TC19.58...... 30 Degree On Street Parking Formalisation - McIntosh St, SHOALHAVEN HEADS (PN 3567)

TC19.59...... Modifications to Seamans Beach Carpark - Cyrus St - Hyams Beach (PN 3568)

13. Reports

CEO Group

CL19.345..... Code of Conduct Complaints - Annual Statistics Report - 1 September 2018 to 31 August 2019.................................................................................................. 51

CL19.346..... Update - Code of Conduct - Penalties available to Councils for Breaches by Councillors.................................................................................................... 57

CL19.347..... Community Participation Plan- Exhibition Outcomes and Request for Adoption 61

CL19.348..... Southern Phone Company Limited - Sale of Council Shares...................... 67

Finance Corporate & Community Services

CL19.349..... Presentation of Annual Financial Statements 30 June 2019....................... 72

CL19.350..... Investment Report - October 2019............................................................... 85

CL19.351..... Ward Boundary Adjustments - Outcome of Public Exhibition..................... 91

CL19.352..... 2020 Local Government Election Cost Estimates....................................... 98

Assets & Works

CL19.353..... Tenders - Waste and Recycling Collection Services................................. 104

Planning Environment & Development

CL19.354..... Development Application – Clause 4.6 Variation of Development Standard – 170 Riversdale Road, Illaroo - Lot 101 DP 751273.......................................... 106

CL19.355..... Boat Harbour (Bendalong) Master Plan - Operations Actions................... 122

Councillor Conference Report

CL19.356..... 28th NSW Coastal Conference.................................................................. 142

14. Confidential Reports

Committee Reports

CCL19.19.... Report of the Strategy & Assets Committee - 12 November 2019

CSA19.17.... Proposed Purchase of Vacant Land - Sanctuary Point

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

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

Reports

CCL19.20.... Tenders – Confidential: Waste and Recycling Collection Services

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

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 26 November 2019

Page 0

MM19.21 Mayoral Minute - Country Universities Centre - Establishment of an Interim Board

HPERM Ref: D19/407758

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Undertake an election by secret ballot to select Council’s representative to fulfil the position of Director on the interim Ulladulla CUC Board as follows:

a. Should more than one expression of interest be received conduct a secret ballot to determine the representative

b. Councillors shall e-mail the Public Officer with their nominations prior to 5pm on Thursday 28 November 2019

c. The Public Officer will conduct a ballot electronically to conclude at 5pm on Tuesday 3 December 2019

d. The CEO (Public Officer) will delegated the authority by Council to declare the successful candidate and advise the interim Ulladulla CUC Board of the representative

2. Deem as Council Business attendance at the meetings and associated duties for the interim Ulladulla CUC Board.

Details

The Country Universities Centre (CUC) is a not-for-profit organisation, established to make higher education more accessible for communities in regional and remote areas. The model creates a physical presence in regional locations and facilitates delivery of supported learning from over 30 participating universities, providing students with access to campus level technology, facilities, tutors, supportive administrative and academic staff and a network of fellow students. The Central CUC entity has a funding agreement with the NSW State Government to support establishment and 2 years of operating costs for up to 5 new regional centres operated under an affiliate agreement.

A stakeholder Steering Committee comprising representatives from private sector and government employers; local and state government; community groups, tertiary education providers and the Local Aboriginal Land Council was established in early 2019 to assess the options for a Country Universities Centre based at Ulladulla. The Mayor and Acting Director Finance, Corporate and Community Services were on the stakeholder Steering Committee supported by relevant staff. In late October the Committee completed and submitted a business case to the central Country Universities Centre entity, recommending an affiliate centre be established at Ulladulla.

CUC Central have accepted the business case which confirms a CUC located at Ulladulla is supported by the community, financially viable and can be housed in suitable premises. Under a funding agreement between CUC Central and the NSW State Government there is in principle support for $1.3 million of funding to fit out premises and support 2 years of operating costs for a CUC affiliate located at Ulladulla. The Steering Committee is also working with CUC Central to prepare a grant application to the Federal Government’s 2019 Regional University Centres Program for additional funds to support the Ulladulla Centre.

To apply for the Federal grant and negotiate a Funding and Affiliate agreement with CUC Central requires the establishment of an incorporated not-for-profit company limited by guarantee. To incorporate the entity requires the appointment of an interim board of at least 4 people who can satisfy the necessary ‘fit and proper person’ requirements.

Once the entity is established the interim board will be tasked with leading the process to recruit and select a permanent, skills-based board. Establishing an interim board ASAP is necessary because of:

a) Timing of the Federal grant, which closes in early December, and requires the applicant be a community owned incorporated entity,

b) CUC Central can only enter into a Funding and Affiliate agreement with an incorporated not-for-profit entity.

This affiliate model provides a governance and legal structure to align with the Country Universities Centre’s strategic purpose. Through this model the Ulladulla CUC can adopt consistent branding and business models and can utilise the Central Country Universities Centre’s university and governmental partnerships and arrangements. The Ulladulla CUC affiliate will be autonomous and locally governed. The local Board will administer funds, including government grants, and run the local CUC as agents for the Central CUC which is responsible for strategy and operations.

The role of Interim Director is an unpaid position. It is anticipated that meetings will be held monthly, or more frequently if determined by the interim Board whilst in the establishment stage. The meetings will be held in Ulladulla with the option to participate via use of technology, hence face to face attendance is not always necessary. Meeting duration will be for approximately 2 hours. There are likely to be tasks that the Board Directors would do outside the meetings, including:

· Reviewing funding agreements

· Liaising with government and non-government entities to facilitate pro-bono support for key projects such as the design and implementation of the Board recruitment and selection process

· Liaising with government and non-government entities to progress key initiatives such as concept plans for the new centre

· Possibly also recruitment of the Centre Manager – a paid staff role

The Mayoral Minute recommendation sets out the election process to identify Council’s representative on the interim Ulladulla CUC Board.

Attendance at the interim Ulladulla CUC Board meetings will deemed business of Council in accordance with Council Member Payment of Expenses and Facilities Policy.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 26 November 2019

Page 0

CL19.347 Community Participation Plan- Exhibition Outcomes and Request for Adoption

HPERM Ref: D19/403116

Section: Executive Strategy

Approver: Stephen Dunshea, Chief Executive Officer

Attachments: 1. Community Participation Plan (under separate cover) ⇨

Reason for Report

To provide Council with the feedback and requested changes that have resulted from the exhibition of the Community Participation Plan (CPP).

Seek Council’s adoption of the CPP to enable the document to be submitted to the Department of Planning by the required 1 December 2019 timeframe.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Adopt the Community Participation Plan (CPP) presented as Attachment 1 with the changes that have resulted from the exhibition process, including editorial changes and additions to provide further clarity to readers, including the addition of a glossary of terms, to support understanding of the document.

2. Submit the CPP to the Department of Planning portal by the 1 December 2019

3. Commence a review of the DA notification process and other required consultation details, contained in Council’s Community Consultation Policy for Development Applications (Including Subdivision) and the Formulation of Development Guidelines and Policies, which can provide further clarity and improvements to Council’s CPP.

4. Receive a report on the outcome of this review for consideration in early 2020

Options

1. Adopt the CPP with proposed changes

Implications: This will enable Council to meet the legislative requirements that have been set for us by the State Government, ensuring that the CPP can be loaded on the Planning Portal by 1 December 2019.

2. Make further changes or alternative changes to the CPP prior to adoption

Implications: This will impact on Council’s ability to meet the required timeframes that have been set by the State Government.

3. Do not adopt the CPP

Implications: If Council does not adopt the CPP, it will mean that the CPP cannot be submitted to the Department of Planning by 1 December 2019. This will have significant impacts on Council’s ability to process DA’s in a timely manner.

Background

As part of the recent planning reforms the State Government has introduced the requirement for all councils in NSW to have a Community Participation Plan. A CPP will outline how and when planning authorities engage the community across their planning functions. The purpose of the CPP is to provide a single document that the community can access, that sets out all of Council’s community participation requirements under the planning legislation, including all minimum mandatory exhibition timeframes.

All applicable NSW planning authorities (including councils) will be required to have the final version of their first CPP published on the NSW Planning Portal by 1 December 2019.

On 8 October 2019 Council resolved to:

1. Make necessary changes to the working draft Community Participation Plan (CPP) prior to exhibition in accordance with feedback received from key stakeholders

2. Once changes have been made proceed to exhibit the draft CPP for a period of 28 days, as soon as possible, following finalisation of feedback in order to meet the 1 December 2019 timeframe.

3. Report the outcome of the exhibition and the final CPP to Council for adoption at the November 2019 Ordinary Meeting

4. Consult with the community in accordance with the Community Engagement Plan detailed within the report.

Exhibition Method

The CPP was formally exhibited from the 21 October 2019 to the 18 November 2019 inclusive.

The following engagement methods to inform the community were used during the exhibition process:

· Get Involved Page

· Media releases

· E-news items

· Email to all CCBs

· Email to all business chambers and key stakeholders

· Social media engagement

· Discussions with stakeholders

Exhibition Outcomes

During the exhibition period a total 372 visits were made to the Get Involved Page with a total of 116 informed participants. At the end of the exhibition period a total of 12 submissions were received from external stakeholders.

The key issues raised via submissions and the proposed changes resulting to the document are summarised in the following Table 1 below.

Table 1 – Summary of Community Submission Topics and Staff Comments

Issue	Specific Details	Total No.	Staff Comment
Meaningful Engagement	Question whether any engagement conducted will be meaningful or simply a tick box exercise	1	Council does aim to provide meaningful engagement opportunities for residents and the community. Further improvements to the methods utilised and engagement outcomes are consistently being undertaken and refined.
Digital Accessible Feedback	Additional focus in the plan on digital accessible feedback and forms. Suggestion of provision of apps and other online options	2	The Get Involved Platform provides a digital option that has been used for a number of planning projects and documents. There is further work needed on the digitalisation of the DA process and feedback options however Council does provide email and other digital forms for the provision of feedback. Changes have been made to the draft CPP to reflect these options.
Role of CCBs	Community involvement, consultation and engagement should not rely solely on CCB's to collate and disperse information. Representativeness of CCBs and whether they represent the broader community.	2	Council utilises a range of engagement methods and techniques to reach as many of the community as possible. CCBs are part of our engagement methods and opportunities however there are many other groups, stakeholders and engagement forums that are also used by Council.
Compliance with zoning and DCPs	Council should not accept DAs that do not comply with existing zoning and DCP's. The ability to lodge non- complying DAs is being used by developers within the Shoalhaven and leaving the community with no certainty or security.	1	The assessment of DAs is undertaken after receipt of the application. There are criteria that need to be met prior to lodgement and applicants are encouraged to meet with staff to discuss variations and non-compliance. Assessments are undertaken via a merit-based process and as such can not be rejected at the counter without consideration by planning staff. Noncomplying DAs are often refused by staff following the assessment process.
Notification Radius and consultation time frames	A change in notification regarding DA's should extend beyond the 25m radius to include homes just outside this area that are directly affected by the DA specifications. A number of other submissions also referred to the need for a review of notification boundaries and process. Two CCBs have specifically requested that a change is made to Council policy to ensure that when any change is made to an approved DA it will require that neighbours, general public and the CCB are notified. CCBs have also requested extensions to time frames particularly controversial DA’s.	5	A change to the notification radius would be a change to the overall policy of Council in relation to DA’s. Given the timeframe required for delivery of the CPP no specific changes to the approach adopted by Council were included. The feedback received has shown that there is a need to review the notification radius and the times when notification to neighbours are provided. This will require further detailed work and additional engagement with stakeholders. This is proposed to occur over the next few months in order to create a detailed appendix to the CPP to support decision making processes and engagement procedures. A balance between the need to notify and inform the community and the ability to adequately and efficiently process DA’s requires further analysis and discussion prior to any change occurring.
Issue	Specific Details	Total No.	Staff Comment
Plan Goals	The plan and purpose of engagement are supported but do not agree that the goals stated in the document are met with the strategies proposed	1	It is intended that a review of Council’s Community Engagement Policy is to be undertaken and a new engagement framework and strategy developed for all Council projects. This will include further strategies and actions to align to the goals.
IAP2 Values	Would like more emphasis and alignment with the IAP2 values		These values and emphasis on them will be applied in the future review of Council’s engagement policy. This document specifically relates to DA’s and to planning functions only. As such there are limitations set by legislation which do not apply to other Council projects.
Format	Positive comments about the new format and guidelines were received outlining that the new plan was clearer for the public to understand	1	Further refinements have been made to the document during exhibition to enhance the layout and imagery. Continued improvements to all of Council’s corporate documents are being made to provide a clearer format for our customers. It is pleasing that this is being noticed by our community and assisting in their understanding of Council and Council processes.
Exhibition during December and January	Submission period calculation excludes 20 December to 10 January. Fully endorsed. That makes sense, as many are engaged in holidays, are elsewhere or at least distracted, and many businesses are overloaded (then possibly close for some days).	2	Further clarification is to be added to the document to assist in understanding and alignment with legislative requirements.
Lackersteen Incident	Seeking to ensure this situation does not eventuate again. The submission suggested some specifics within the CPP to assist which will require further investigation.	1	Some changes have been made as suggested. Further detail will need to be investigated to ensure that future content of the is reflective or these concerns and balanced with the practicalities of Council process and legislative requirements.
Prince Alfred Street Berry DA example	Comments relate to the notification area and who was notified of the application	1	Some changes have been made to the document to further enhance the details and content to support notification specifics. There is further work to be done to refine requirements around notification. This would require a potential change to existing policy and procedures. Further engagement will need to occur with stakeholders in this review and would form part of an appendix to this document if accepted by Council.
Level of engagement and resource allocation	Seek a plan and details for the full spectrum of engagement to be used, alternative methods and additional resources applied to Community engagement in the organisation	1	It is intended for methods, alternative types of engagement and options for additional involvement in Council’s process and projects to be outlined within the overarching community engagement framework which is currently in development.
Issue	Specific Details	Total No.	Staff Comment
General Feedback	Holding Council’s annual budget and information night in Bay and Basin Expand information on Council’s website about works and services including schedules of works Run drop in sessions at local communities where attendees can assist questions and find out about different topics Look at making Shoalhaven presentable and in peak tourist times.	3	Council rotates the location of the information nights to provide opportunities for our residents and community. It is likely that next year an information night will be held in the Bay and Basin area, if this method is continued next year. Council is currently undertaking a website project which will significantly enhance the delivery and quality of information for our customers. Drop in sessions are a good option for reaching our community and will continue to be suggested as an option to be utilised for engagement projects. Ongoing works to improve the appearance of our towns and villages is occurring and does occur during peak tourist periods.
Editorial Changes	Suggestions relating to specific statements within the document, seeking clarification or additional detail	3	A number of changes have been made to the document to assist in clarification or specifications relating to discretion and beneficiaries. Additional work will occur in the review of the CPP to refine details and provide specifics which will be provided as a future appendix to the document (and be provided to the community for comment as part of development)
Evaluation	There is no evaluation process specified within the document and would like additional detail to be provided on how Council will monitor and evaluate performance	1	Work is occurring as part of the review and refinement of Council’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework to include additional monitoring, evaluation methods and measures. This will also include measures related to engagement and consultation.

Planning NSW Submission

A submission was received from the Department of Planning. In this submission it was outlined that:

“A CPP is intended to make it easier for the community to understand how to participate in planning matters in NSW. Your document is comprehensive, high level and should provide the community with an understanding on how they will be consulted by Council in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).”

Some suggested changes were provided as follows:

Suggested Change	Staff Comment
Section 7 Appendix 1 (pg. 22) – reference is made to a ‘second-hand dwelling’. It is unclear what this is referring and may just be an error.	Change made to document to remove reference.
To avoid any inconsistencies between Council’s CPP and the Department’s requirements over time, it is recommended that the draft Community Participation Plan only include planning functions that are applicable to Council;	The Department’s planning functions have been removed from the CPP.
The document should clearly identify what are mandatory timeframes and what timeframes are a discretionary choice by Council. Reference is made to non-mandatory timeframes in the CPP; however, it is unclear what these are;	Additional detail has been provided within the document.
The finalised CPP is be required to be placed on the NSW Planning Portal by 1 December 2019.	Noted – Will be uploaded to the planning portal once adopted by Council. Staff are liaising with the Department about the portal as there are several issues to be rectified by the Department prior to access being granted for Council.

Other Comments- Bomaderry Community Inc.

A request was received from a new community group located in Bomaderry (Bomaderry Community Inc). The request was made for a community meeting to be held to discuss the CPP and the Local Strategic Planning statements.

The date set for the meeting by the group was after the exhibition process had ended. The request included an extension of time for the exhibition.

Given the requirement for submission to the Department of Planning by 1 December an extension was not possible in this instance. It was also noted that the LSPS is not currently out for community engagement, as further work is being undertaken on this project. A specific response has been sent to this group to explain the situation and an offer to meet with them will also be extended.

Development Assessment Team Review

A review of the document was undertaken as part of the exhibition process by the Development Assessment team. A number of editorial changes and clarifications were provided to aid in ensuring the accuracy and relevancy of the document. These changes have been incorporated into the document attached. The changes reflect existing Council policy and have been added to assist in the understanding of the document and of the existing process undertaken.

Conclusion

The Community Participation Plan provides a clearer and more concise representation of Council’s policy and engagement processes for decisions related to Planning and Development Assessment. It is an improvement on existing documentation and goes some way to assisting the community understand, what is often a complex and detailed process.

Further work and refinement will need to occur on the document, particularly related to notification processes and radius of notification. This would require changes and review of existing Council Policy which requires further analysis and discussion with the community. Given the timeframe for delivery of the document to the Department of Planning and the promise made as part of the consultation process that the document reflected existing policy, this review if proposed to occur following adoption of the CPP.

Any future changes can then be added to the document at a later stage or provided as a more detailed appendix or alternative option.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 26 November 2019

Page 0

CL19.348 Southern Phone Company Limited - Sale of Council Shares

HPERM Ref: D19/407297

Section: Economic Development

Approver: Stephen Dunshea, Chief Executive Officer

Attachments: 1. Share Sale Agreement (councillors information folder) ⇨

Reason for Report

The Board of Southern Phone Company Limited has made a recommendation to Shareholders to sell the company to AGL Energy.

Recommendation

That Shoalhaven City Council:

1. Agree to the sale of its Southern Phone shares to AGL Energy in line with the share sale agreement (contained in the Councillor’s Information Folder); and

2. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer (Economic Development Manager) to execute any relevant documentation necessary.

3. Receive a further report in the matter following the Extraordinary Meeting of shareholders to be held on 2 December

Options

1. To accept the resolution as printed.

Implications: This would convey to both Southern Phone Company Limited and AGL Energy that Council will sell its shares in accordance with the Board recommendation.

2. To not accept the resolution by the required date, or to defer the making of the resolution

Implications: This would not allow the Authorised Delegate to inform Southern Phone Limited by the designated date required to commit to the AGL Energy sale

3. To reject the application i.e. “not to sell”.

Implications: This would place Shoalhaven Council’s shares as not for sale and the following provisions would then apply

· The Shoalhaven’s vote at the Extra Ordinary General meeting would be in the negative and the provisions of the Southern Phone Limited Constitution would then be brought into play (whether a 75% majority would be achieved- most likely, yes)

· Should Shoalhaven’s shares, along with any other shares not being offered for sale formed less than 10% of the shareholding, then the provisions for compulsory acquisition of the shares by AGL Energy would apply.

Background

The Southern Phone Company Limited grew out of a desire by Shoalhaven and Eurobodalla Councils wanting to offer low cost voice and data services in the south east of NSW.

A Company Constitution was prepared by legal firm Minter Ellison, and approval for Councils to form the company and take shares was received from the NSW Minister for Local Government on 31 January 2001. In the Ministerial consent sent to Eurobodalla Shire Council General Manager, it was stated: “…that the Minister be advised if there are any changes to the corporate structure, such as the forming of subsidiaries or becoming part of another corporation.”

Council has sought clarification of this matter and specifically the clause from the OLG and the following general information was provided:

It would appear that the conditions imposed by the Minister in granting consent to form Southern Telephone Company Limited (STCL) do not prohibit a sale of that company to AGL Limited.

If, in order to facilitate the proposed sale, changes are made to the corporate structure of STCL one of the member councils, or STCL itself, must notify the Minister accordingly. This can be done after the change is made. Once the sale is complete, the Minister should be formally advised by one of the former member councils that all the councils have divested themselves of the shares in STCL and no longer have any interest in it, if that is the case.

If Council is unsure about any legal issues in relation to the matter it should seek and be guided by its own legal advice.

Under the Company Constitution shareholders in the company was to be limited to NSW local government authorities. No individuals or corporations were permitted to own shares.

The operations of the Board and the Company were to be governed by the Corporations Act 2001 and all relevant federal and state legislation. The Company was formed on 13 June, 2001

Two shares were offered to NSW Councils for the nominal sum of $1 each. All shareholders hold an A Class share. This share entitles each shareholding Council to an equal share of 20% of the profits being distributed. So, a small rural Council would get exactly the same A Class dividend as a major regional Council.

Each shareholder will receive one B to ZZ Class Share. The remaining 80% of profits being distributed would be given to each shareholder in proportion to the amount of business billed by Southern Phone to customers within the Local Government Area, determined by postcode. Shoalhaven did represent the largest recipient from this distribution pool and through the Economic Development Office actively promotes Southern Phone as a regional alternative to business and personal subscribers.

At the commencement Southern Phone Company was fully funded. Grants totalling $4,773,000 had been made by the federal government’s Networking the Nation program. There were to be no call on Councils for funds.

In establishing the company structure advice was sought from Pricewaterhouse Coopers Legal and Minter Ellison on the best structure to ensure there would be no risk to Councils or their ratepayers. Both firms concurred the best structure was the formation of a company limited by shares, as outlined above. This structure was to ensure the liability of each shareholder was to be limited to the value of their shares - in this case two shares per Council valued at $1 each. Should the venture fail there can be no call on shareholders for funds.

Shoalhaven Council was one of the original 22 Councils to buy its shares, with the number growing to 35 by the commencement of trading. This number has since been reduced owing to Council amalgamations.

Dividends to Council

Southern Phone declared a dividend in each of 11 years from 2007 to 2018. Shoalhaven’s total dividend amounted to $2,288,651 or an 11 year average of approximately $208,000.

Over this same period all other Councils received dividends between that of Shoalhaven and that of Carrathool Shire with $88,801 over the 11 years

Current situation

In 2017/18 Southern Phone declared a profit of $246,845 and is posting a loss of ($5,759,998) for 2018/19.

In light of the narrowing margins in telephony and data product services above the wholesale rate, combined with the entry of many players into the market, to sustain a viable profit margin there needs to be an injection of capital into the company from shareholders. Whilst the major beneficiaries may have been to provide the capital, this would have been beyond most shareholders given their turnover and the potential rate of return that could be achieved.

The Board has received an offer to buy the entire company from AGL Energy. The purchase price will entitle each A class shareholder to a purchase figure of $785,714. In addition, the “surplus cash” at the handing over of the company will be distributed in accordance with the formula that applies to those B class shares. This should mean approximately another $175,000 to Shoalhaven Council.

To enable the offer by AGL Energy to be accepted, certain actions need to take place. Firstly, the Constitution needs to be changed to allow the shares to be sold to a corporation. On checking the original consent of the Minister for Local Government this amendment to the constitution is not prohibited, nor does it require the Minister’s consent. The only requirement is that the Department be notified of the action to do so.

To enable the change in the constitution, a 75% majority of shareholders needs to approve this change at the Extraordinary Meeting to be held on 2 December. This means that if 8 or more shareholders do not vote in favour, the sale deal is off, as only Councils can own shares.

Prior to that, each Council will need to resolve to sell its shares to AGL Energy. If this is not unanimous then AGL Energy can withdraw their offer and no sale will take place.

The provision is there under the Corporations Act that if 10% of shareholders or less refuse to sell, then AGL Energy can invoke the compulsory acquisition provisions and acquire those shares.

In Summary

· The trading position of Southern Phone Company Limited has become more marginal in a cluttered market which offers only small margins.

· To increase the size and turnover of Southern Phone Company, there is an injection of capital required, as it is most unlikely that exiting shareholders would be prepared to invest.

· The Board has negotiated a sale deal with AGL Energy which will return to Shoalhaven Council approximately $950,000.

· Council needs to commit to sell its shares to AGL Energy and if doing so, to agree to the amendments to the constitution of the Southern Phone Company and to sign/execute the necessary documents to bring this about.

· To oppose the sale, this Council would be frustrating the wishes of the majority of smaller Councils that would regard a sale price of $785,714 as a positive windfall.

· The original outcomes that this Council, and others, sought to be delivered by the founders of the Southern Phone Company have been delivered “in spades”. The cost of data and voice services are no longer determined by distance and the base rates have fallen dramatically.

Community Engagement

This matter has primarily been presented to the shareholders. The Board has indicated that AGL Energy is a new entrant into the telecommunications market and will continue to trade the Southern Phone Company brand and to increase the subscriber base by bundling to its wider customer base.

Policy Implications

This was a bold initiative by local government, backed by the Department of Local Government. It does demonstrate that a joint business undertaking can yield a return to local government. Opportunities like this should be closely examined by Councils as a means to diversify their income streams.

Financial Implications

Council’s Economic Development Office has been involved in the project from the time that the initial concept was thought about. The project was seen as a means to fund economic development projects within this City and by other councils. This Council’s dividends have been utilised for investigations into projects such as marine infrastructure, motor sports, blue biotech, Defence initiatives, trade show participation, business development programs and the current investigations into another trading entity under a PPP.

Future commitments through the Economic Development Reserve for contributions to the above requirements were dependent on a continued dividend stream form Southern Phone. The proceeds from the sale will provide the income to continue these projects.

Risk Implications

No known risks are anticipated with the sale of the Council shares. However reputational damage would accrue to this Council if it proposes and takes a different course of action to the majority of shareholders and jeopardises the sale and “windfall” to other, smaller Councils.

The minimalist risk position would be to go with the majority and sell.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 26 November 2019

Page 0

CL19.349 Presentation of Annual Financial Statements 30 June 2019

HPERM Ref: D19/386515

Section: Finance

Approver: Jane Lewis, Acting Director Finance Corporate & Community Services

Attachments: 1. Annual Financial Statements - 2018 / 2019 (under separate cover) ⇨

Reason for Report

Council must present its audited financial reports, together with the auditor’s reports, at a meeting of the Council not more than five weeks after receiving the Auditor's Report.

Recommendation

That:

1. The audited Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2019, together with the Auditor’s Report, be presented to the public at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 26 November 2019.

2. Council note the attendance of Dominika Ryan, Director of Financial Audit Services at the Audit Office, and that she be thanked for her presentation in relation to the Annual Financial Statements.

Options

1. The audited Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2019 are presented to the public

Implications: Council meets its statutory requirements in relation to reporting the Financial Statements to Council and the public.

2. Further information regarding the Annual Financial Statements be requested.

Implications: Staff will need to prepare a further report to provide any information that is required.

Background

Council resolved on 29 October 2019 that the audited Financial Statements and the Auditor’s Report be presented to the public at this Council meeting. Public Notice of the presentation of the audited Financial Statements at this meeting was given in The South Coast Register on 13 November 2019. The public notice was in accordance with Section 418 of the Local Government Act 1993. Copies of the audited Annual Financial Statements are available for inspection by members of the public at Council’s Administration Buildings in Nowra and Ulladulla, at Council's Library Branches in Nowra and Sanctuary Point and available on Council's website. Any person can make written submissions to the Chief Executive Officer with respect to the Statements within the next seven (7) day period.

The audit reports were received on 1 November from the Audit Office. Council is required to present its Financial Statements to the public within five weeks of receiving the Audit Reports.

Dominika Ryan, Director of Financial Audit Services at the Audit Office, has audited the financial statements for the financial year ending 30 June 2019 and has provided the Audit Reports and the Audit Conduct Report, and these have been included in the Annual Financial Statements.

Ms Ryan will be attending the Ordinary Meeting to discuss the performance audit program of the audit office and to answer any questions concerning the Audit of the 2018/19 financial statements.

The Conduct of the Audit Report states that:

“I expressed an unmodified opinion on the Council’s general purpose financial statements.”

The report also states that:

“my audit procedures did not identify any instances of non-compliance with legislative requirements or a material deficiency in the Council’s accounting records or financial reports.”

Key Financial Results

General Purpose Financial Statements

Income Statement

Income

Council's revenue increased by $3.25M; a breakdown of the key variances is shown below:

Category	Change	Major Factors
Rates and Annual Charges	+$6.7	· +$2M special rate variation · +$1.6M rate peg · +$541K additional assessments · +$917K domestic waste services · +$1.7M sewerage services
User Charges and Fees	-$2.3M	· +$1.3M tourist parks · +$602K communication charges · -$2.3M private works (this is offset by reduced expenditure) · -$900K water supply user fees · -$440K planning and building regulation · -$208K sewer user fees · -$259K cemeteries fees · -$68K swimming and leisure centres
Interest and Investment Revenue	+$722K	· +$503K interest on investments · +$193 fair value adjustments
Other Revenue	+$325K	· Minor movement across all line items
Grants and Contributions for Operating Purposes	+$1.7M	· Increase in operating grants
Grants and Contributions for Capital Purposes	-$4.0M	· Mainly a reduction in developer contributions received

Financial Assistance Grant

During 2018/19, Council received a $6.3M advance payment of its 2019/20 Financial Assistance Grant. This also occurred in 2016/17 and 2017/18, with Council receiving a $6.2M and $5.9M advance payments.

If, or when, the Federal Government stops the advance payment, this will have a large impact on the results for that year. This has occurred previously with the 2010 advance, starting in the 2009 financial year and the last advance being for 2014 received in the 2013 year.

The advance payment has been placed in an internal restricted reserve and is moved to the general unrestricted cash every quarter in line with the normal receipt of the grant.

Special Purpose Grants

As in previous years, Council accrues grant income for specific purpose grants on projects according to the progress of the project. Given the nature of the deliverables funded by specific purpose grants, the transaction is more akin to a ‘fee for service’ arrangement and, therefore, a reciprocal transfer.

Where the work is completed but outstanding grant payments have not been received, the payments are included in revenue and as a receivable on the Statement of Financial Position. This treatment of special purpose grants comprised $4.3M.

Last financial year, Council recognised grants received in advance as a liability. This was noted by the Audit Office as an uncorrected misstatement. It was reversed in due course on the 1July 2018, but it is also noted as a misstatement in this year, as grant income is now overstated by the reversal. This process of recognising grants received in advance was not followed in 2019. There are two new accounting standards concerning the recognition of income that will come into effect in 2019/20. This will mainly affect the recognition of grant income, the impacts of the two new accounting standards has been explored and is disclosed in Note 1.

Expenditure

Council's Operating Expenditure increased by $22.65M; a breakdown of the key variances is shown below:

Category	Change	Major Factors
Employee Benefits and On-Costs	+$5.98M	· +$2M local government award increase. · +$1.2M additional staff employed due to special rate variation. · +$2.4M reduction in discounting rate applied to leave entitlement provisions.
Borrowing Costs	+$1.17M	· Additional interest due to the second loan for REMS being drawn down in June 2018.
Materials and Contracts	+$7.95M	· +$2.15M Jerberra Estate electricity infrastructure construction (not a Council asset) · +$2.29M Shoalhaven River flood levee repairs · +$1.5M Water and Sewer operations · $1M increase in Domestic Waste & Recycling contract · +$440K managing Wondalga Farm · +$340K Milton croquet
Depreciation	+$4.18M	· +$1.2M Specialised buildings valued at $20M were added to the asset register in 2017/18, this resulted in additional depreciation during 2018/19 · +924K roads valued at $22M were constructed during 2017/18 · +$763K water and sewer depreciation
Other Expenses	+$684k	· Minor movement across all line items
Net Losses from the Disposal of Assets	+$1.11M	· Disposal of infrastructure assets
Revaluation Decrement/ Impairment of IPPE	+$1.57M	· $1.57M Change in valuation methodology for Land Under Roads

Net Operating Result

Council's Net Operating Result has decreased in 2018/19, due to additional income being less than the expenses for the year.

Statement of Financial Position

There have been various corrections to assets (explained in the Infrastructure, Property & Plant Assets section below), these are also disclosed in Note 15 of the Annual Financial Statements. The 2017 and 2018 figures have been restated in the Assets table below to represent the comparative figure

Asset Values

Council's assets increased by $92.3M. A breakdown of the key variances is shown below:

Category	Change	Major Factors
Cash and Investments	-$10.9M	· -$25M sewer fund · +$3.4M unexpended general fund loans · +$5.5M water fund · +$2.9M domestic waste services · +$2M special rate variation · +$1.5M unrestricted cash
Receivables	-$2.2M	· -$1.9M government grant accruals
Inventories	+$1.82M	· $1.8M increase in industrial land for sale due to the construction of Stage 5 at Woollamia Industrial Estate
Investment Property	+$135K	· Annual fair valuation adjustment
Other Assets	+$263K	· Increase in prepayments
Intangible Assets	+$2.6M	· Corporate software expenditure
Infrastructure, Property, Plant and Equipment	+$102M	· $104M additional · -$4M disposals · -$64M depreciation · $65M revaluation

Infrastructure, Property and Plant – Assets

Revaluation - Buildings

Council engaged APV to value its buildings in 2018/19, this resulted in an additional asset value of $54.4M. This increase is mainly due to a more detailed breakdown in building components and longer remaining useful lives due to the good condition the assets were in at the time of the inspection.

Recognised Buildings

During the process of obtaining the full list of buildings, it was identified that there were nine buildings not recorded in Council’s asset register. These buildings were smaller sheds that were constructed in previous financial years and have been recognised through retained earnings and disclosed as a correction of an error relating to a prior period; the valuation of these buildings is $503K.

Revaluation – Land Under Roads

The revaluation of land under roads resulted in a decrement of $1.5M, due to the revaluation reserve not having a balance for this asset category, the decrement was recognised in the income statement.

Recognised Land

There were two parcels of land identified in 2018/19 during the reconciliation between GIS and the asset register, $385K

Water and Sewer Assets

Data Cleansing

Shoalhaven Water has continued the detailed data cleansing process it started in 2017/18. The data cleansing process was instigated by the need to improve the accuracy of the asset register, thereby improving the reporting of assets in the financial statements. In addition, the Geographic Information System (GIS) and Asset Management System (AMS) are both in the process of being upgraded and, therefore, accurate and clean data is required prior to migration.

The cleansing process required adjustments to be recorded against retained earnings and recorded as a correction of a prior period error. Below is a list of the adjustments:

In 2018/19, the water and sewer asset values were indexed according to the NSW Water Supply and Sewerage Construction Cost Indices, at the rate for 2018/19 was 1.6%. This resulted in an increase of $5M for water and $6.7M for sewer infrastructure assets.

RFS Assets

Council’s position on the recording of the RFS plant and equipment remains the same, where we believe that Council does not have any control over these assets, and they are not recognised in the asset register.

Liabilities

Total liabilities decreased by $3.97M, a breakdown of the key variances is shown below:

Category	Change	Major Factors
Payables	-$5.5M	· -$400K decrease in security bonds and deposits · -$5.2M decrease in general payables, due to large constructions projects at the June 2018 year end.
Income Received in Advance	-$1.75M	· -$2.6M Special purpose grant received but not yet spent. · +$310K Rates/Water/Sewer accounts in credit · +$451K Holiday Haven deposit payments
Borrowings	-$2.3M	· No new borrowings for Sewer fund, the repayments on existing loans was more than the new loans taken
Provisions	$5.5M	· +$3.2M leave provisions due to discounting factors ($2.4M) and award increase on previous balances and additional provisions. · +$2.3M tip remediation provision

Equity

Council's equity increased by $96.3M, retained earnings increased by the consolidated profit made during the year $30.5M and the revaluation reserves increased by $66.2M. Other reserves have decreased by $393K.

Statement of Cash Flows

The above items in the Statement of Cashflows include a decrease of $97.0M, a breakdown of the key variances is below:

Category	Change	Major Factors
Purchase of Infrastructure, Property, Plant and Equipment	-$50.3M	· Reduction in major capital works expenditure
Proceeds from Borrowings	-$49.4M	· Reduced loans taken in 2018/19, 2017/18 included large borrowings for REMs
Repayment of Borrowings	+$2.7M	· Repayments of REMs loan taken in 2017/18

Note 26 - Statement of Performance Measures

General Fund

Operating Performance Ratio - there was a decline in this ratio with a result of -4.36%; this is now below the benchmark of 0%, the major contribution factors are the recognition of the Jerberra Estate electricity infrastructure works as an operating expense rather than capital, and the increased cost of the Shoalhaven River flood levee repairs as reported to Council in the year-end budget review.

Own Source Revenue - there is a small increase in this ratio and the result of 79.45% remains above the benchmark of 60%.

Unrestricted Current Ratio - there was a slight improvement in this ratio to 2.48, and it is still above the benchmark of 1.5.

Debt Service Cover Ratio - this ratio decreased from 5.455 to 4.32 and is still above the benchmark of 2. General Fund has sufficient operating funds to cover the cost of borrowing.

Rates, Annual Charges, Interest and Extra Charges Outstanding - the ratio has worsened slightly with a result of 6.51%. It remains below the benchmark of 10%.

Cash Expense Cover Ratio - this has decreased to 7.15 months and is still above the minimum benchmark of 3 months. General Fund has enough cash to fund 7.15 months of operating expenditure.

Water Fund

Operating Performance Ratio - there was a reduction of this ratio with a result of 6.7%; this is above the benchmark of 0%

Own Source Revenue – This ratio remains strong at 90.64%, a slight increase on last year and it is well above the benchmark of 60%.

Unrestricted Current Ratio - there was an increase from 16.70 to 25.20. The result is well above the benchmark of 1.5.

Debt Service Cover Ratio – due to Water now having no debt, this ratio is now zero.

Rates, Annual Charges, Interest and Extra Charges Outstanding - the ratio is unfavourably above the benchmark of 10%. The reason for this unfavourable result is due to the timing of invoicing, that is, accounts invoiced in June are outstanding but are not due as at 30 June. This ratio has, however, dropped from 13.87% to 11.48%.

Cash Expense Cover Ratio – while this ratio has reduced, it is well above the minimum benchmark of 3 months, Water Fund has enough cash to fund 23.48 months of operating expenditure.

Sewer Fund

Operating Performance Ratio - there was a small decrease with a result of 24.58%. This is a strong result, being above the minimum of 0%.

Own Source Revenue - there is a further increase in this ratio (result 93.28%) and is well above the target of 60%.

Unrestricted Current Ratio - there was an increase in this ratio from 1.99 to 2.32 which is above the benchmark of 1.5.

Debt Service Cover Ratio - this ratio decreased from 2.98 to 2.48 and is above the benchmark of 2. This decrease is due to new loans being taken out.

Rates, Annual Charges, Interest and Extra Charges Outstanding - the ratio has decreased slightly from 12.10% to 11.05% - but is still unfavourably above the benchmark of 10%. This is due to the timing of the invoicing for the sewer availability.

Cash Expense Cover Ratio - this has improved and is still above the minimum benchmark of 3 months, Sewer Fund has enough cash to fund 10.39 months of operating expenditure.

Note 25 - Financial Result and Financial Position by Fund

All of Council's funds produced a positive operating result after capital grants and contributions. The general fund has a negative result before capital grants and contributions, this is due to some large one-off expenditure lines mentioned above and the reduced user fees received.

The balance sheets for all three funds are healthy with sufficient assets to cover the liabilities.

Special Schedules

Special Schedule 7 - Report on Infrastructure Assets - Performance Indicators

Building and Infrastructure Renewals Ratio – this shows as a decline primarily due to the significance of the 2017/18 capital works program which included a much larger program of grant funded works. Council is committed to asset renewal and this ratio is expected to improve in future years based on the currently adopted Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) which includes the Special Rate Variation for 2020/2021 and assumes this is maintained and further increases are in line with the Rate Peg.

Infrastructure Backlog Ratio – whilst this remains below benchmark for General Fund, there has been a slight improvement.

Asset Maintenance Ratio – this ratio has remained the same at 0.9 for the consolidated accounts but is still below the benchmark of 1.

Cost to Bring assets to agreed service level – this ratio has improved slightly overall.

Fit for the Future (FFtF) – Performance Comparison against Benchmark and Submission

Below is a comparison of Council’s Fit for the Future submission and the historical results (2013/14 to 2018/19) including the 2019/20 LTFP budgeted figures. The indicators below are only for Council’s General Fund.

Operating Performance Ratio – the 2016/17 year saw a significant improvement against the submission due to this being the initial year where Council received the financial assistance grant in advance. The years after 2018/19 in the Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP) present as behind the FFtF submission result due to a lower Special Rate Variation (SRV) than the submission.

Own Source Revenue – this ratio is on track with the FFtF submission.

Building and Infrastructure Asset Renewal Ratio – the actual results and LTFP results are below the FFtF submission result due a lower SRV than in the submission.

Infrastructure Backlog Ratio – the actual and LTFP results are behind the FFtF submission due to a review of the asset condition occurring in 2014/15, resulting in more assets being assessed at a lower condition than previously estimated.

Asset Maintenance Ratio – this ratio is tracking slightly behind the FFtF submission.

Debt Service Ratio – the actual results are higher than the submission due to additional borrowings taken out for the small lot estates and the open space acquisition on Moss Vale Road. The LTFP has lower borrowings than the FFtF submission.

Real Operating Expenditure per Capita – the actual result for 2018/19 increased due to the additional expenditure incurred during the year as mentioned above.

Community Engagement

The presentation of the Financial Statements has been advertised, inviting the community to attend and write a submission.

Financial Implications

The 2018/19 financial year has seen mixed outcomes in the financial results, position and performance measures and is falling behind the trajectory set by Council to be financially sustainable.

Council needs to be mindful when setting the rates for 2020/21 to ensure that the path to financial sustainability is still on track.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 26 November 2019

Page 0

CL19.350 Investment Report - October 2019

HPERM Ref: D19/390932

Section: Finance

Approver: Jane Lewis, Acting Director Finance Corporate & Community Services

Attachments: 1. Monthly Investment Report -Shoalhaven City Council - October 2019 (under separate cover) ⇨

Reason for Report

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

Recommendation

That:

1. The report of the Chief Executive Officer (Finance, Corporate & Community Services Group) on the Record of Investments for the period to 31 October 2019 be received for information.

2. Council note Council’s investment portfolio returned a solid 2.22% for the month of October 2019, exceeding the benchmark AusBond Bank Bill Index (0.95% pa) by 127 basis points (1.27%)

Options

1. The report on the Record of Investments for the period to 31 October 2019 be received for information.

Implications: Nil

2. Further information regarding the Record of Investments for the period to 31 October 2019 be requested.

Implications: Nil

3. The report of the Record of Investments for the period to 31 October 2019 be received for information, with any changes requested for the Record of Investments to be reflected in the report for the period to 30 November 2019.

Implications: Nil

Background

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

In the August and September reports, CPG Investment Advisors noted Council was above the compliance for investing in BBB Institutions. This was due to the downgrading of AMP from A to BBB by the rating agency, Standard and Poor’s. Council has acted upon CPG’s recommendation and taken steps to draw down on the funds invested in the 31-day notice account with AMP. These funds have been received by Council and re-invested in October in A-rated institutions. The portfolio is again compliant.

Councillors will recall a Councillor Briefing with Andrew Vallner, Managing Director CPG, was held on 20 June 2019 that identified options for Council to consider when it revises its Investment Policy. An evaluation of the options presented by Mr Vallner has been undertaken and it is proposed to have a follow-up Councillor Briefing with Mr Vallner prior to presenting a report to the December Strategy and Assets Committee on a revised Investment Policy.

Portfolio Return

Council’s investment portfolio returned a solid 2.22% for the month of October 2019, exceeding the benchmark AusBond Bank Bill Index (0.95% pa) by 127 basis points (1.27%).

The following graph shows the performance of Council’s investment portfolio against the benchmark on a rolling twelve (12) month basis. As can be seen, performance has consistently exceeded the benchmark due to the mix of Council’s investment portfolio.

Interest Earned – October 2019

The following table shows the interest earned for the month of October 2019. The interest earned for the month of October was $386,081; which was $322 above the current budget.

Interest Earned - Year to Date

The following table shows how the interest earned year to date actual dollars against the total budget forecast dollars is performing with 34% of the year passed - the interest earned to the month of October was $1,638,695, 36.08% of the current full year budget.

Appropriate budget adjustments are being recommended as part of the September quarterly budget review.

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

Restricted Asset Movements

The table below lists the major movements in Restricted Assets:

Total Cash

-$8,747,584

Waste Disposal

-$2,386,136

Expenditure on projects

Unrestricted Cash

-$3,031,456

October wasn’t a Rates instalment month with normal expenditure on operations and projects

Financial Implications

It is important for Council to be informed about its investments on a regular basis. Revenue from interest forms a vital part of Council’s revenue stream.

I hereby certify that the investments listed in the attached report have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005 and Council’s Investments Policy POL18/57.

Vanessa Phelan

Acting Chief Financial Officer

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 26 November 2019

Page 0

CL19.351 Ward Boundary Adjustments - Outcome of Public Exhibition

HPERM Ref: D19/397523

Section: Human Resources, Governance & Risk

Approver: Jane Lewis, Acting Director Finance Corporate & Community Services

Attachments: 1. Existing and Proposed 2020 Wards ⇩

2. Submissions - Ward Boundary Adjustment ⇩

Reason for Report

To provide Council with the outcome of the public exhibition on proposed Ward Boundary adjustments and seek determination to proceed to advise the NSW Electoral Commission of Council’s endorsed wards for the 2020 Election.

Recommendation

That Council

1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 211 of the Local Government Act 1993, adopt the variations to its current wards as exhibited and outlined in the draft Ward Boundary Plan outlined as Attachment 1 to the report.

2. Ensure that the Ward Boundary adjustments are clearly communicated to electors in the lead-up to the 2020 Local Government Elections.

Options

1. As recommended in the report.

Implications: The Council previously endorsed the proposed boundaries for advertisement on 27 August 2019. This will allow the submission to the NSW Electoral Commission by the due date of 9 December 2019.

2. Alternate Ward Boundary Adjustment

Implications: In order to check that any newly proposed boundaries reflect legislative requirements, any proposal for alternate adjustments should include a deferral of the decision to allow a further report back to the Council and determination prior to (9 December 2019).

Background

A report was provided to the Ordinary Meeting on 27 August 2019 which outlined that a Ward Boundary Adjustment was required as there is now a greater than allowable variance in Elector Numbers across wards. The report outlined a proposed model which

· aligned Council’s Wards with the ABS Census Collector Districts;

· reduce the variance to meet requirements; and

· ensure that the boundaries do not split suburbs as has previously been the case.

In considering the report the Council resolved (MIN19.601)

“That Council:

1. Notes the proposed alterations to the draft Ward Boundary Plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 211 of the Local Government Act 1993;

2. Forward the draft Ward Boundary Plan to the Electoral Commissioner and Australian Statistician for comment;

3. Exhibit the proposed draft Ward Boundary Plan subject to the concurrence of the Electoral Commission for a period of 42 days inviting public submissions; and

4. Receive a further report at the completion of the exhibition period in order to consider all submissions received and make a final determination.”

As outlined in Step 3 of the process above, under Section 210A of the Local Government Act, the plan must be exhibited for 28 days and submissions on the proposal must be permitted for a 42-day period.

Following the Council resolution, the following has occurred:

· In accordance with the Council Resolution, a Ward Boundary adjustment report was lodged with the NSW Electoral Commission (NSWEC) and the ABS on 6 September 2019.

· The ABS advised Council on 9 September 2019 that it acknowledges that the legislation governing local government in NSW requires that councils notify the ABS about these changes. However, the ABS currently has no role or mandate to approve (or otherwise) ward boundaries as they relate to Local Government elections. We recommend ward boundaries align with the Australian Statistical Geography Standard as closely as possible in order to maximise the availability of Census data for ward areas.

· The NSW Electoral Commission replied on 13 September 2019 and advised that some minor mapping adjustments were required to align the outer boundaries of the Shoalhaven with the LGA Boundaries. These were made and a further submission was made to NSWEC on 23 September 2019. The NSW Electoral Commissioner wrote to Council on 2 October 2019 and advised that our further submission had been were consistent with requirements and the plan could be exhibited.

· Public Exhibition period commenced on 11 October 2019 and closed on 22 November 2019 - total 42 days. Public Exhibition included:

o Get Involved Webpage (including Webpage banner advertising)

o Letters sent to residents living in properties affected by the proposed amendments

o Notification to CCBs

o Facebook posts

The adjustments were also discussed in the local media and by local radio outlets.

The Ward Adjustment Proposal

In summary the adjustments:

· Reflect the new SA1 Statistical areas and align with the request made by the Council to ensure that no suburbs or towns are split between wards. This means that it will be clearer to individuals which ward they are in as there will be no ‘split’ suburbs.

· Achieve a variance of 4.17% which will allow for elector number fluctuations in the next 12-month period before the 2020 Local Government elections.

· Have been altered slightly after consultation with the NSWEC – these amendments are slight only and will not be apparent unless viewed in detail.

The complete suburbs in each proposed ward (Refer Attachment 1) are as follows:

Ward 1 – (Shown in pink in the Proposed Boundary Map), comprises the following suburbs:

Back Forest, Budderoo (part), Budgong, Budderoo, Bundewallah, Bangalee, Barrengarry, Barren Grounds (part), Beaumont, Bellawongarah, Berry, Berry Mountain, Bolong, Bomaderry, Brogers Creek (part), Broughton, Broughton Vale, Broughton Village (part), Browns Mountain, Buangla, Cambewarra, Cambewarra Village, Coolangatta, Far Meadow, Illaroo, Jaspers Brush, Kangaroo Valley, Meroo Meadow, Moollattoo, Mundamia, North Nowra, Nowra, Red Rocks, Shoalhaven Heads, Tapitallee, Upper Kangaroo River, Watersleigh, Wattamolla, West Nowra, and Woodhill.

Ward 2 – (Shown in green in the Proposed Boundary Map), comprises the following suburbs:

Bamarang, Barringella, Beecroft Peninsula, Bream Beach, Brundee, Bulee, Burrier, , Callala Bay, Callala Beach, Comberton, Comerong Island, Culburra Beach, Currarong, Erowal Bay, Ettrema, Falls Creek, Greenwell Point, Huskisson, Hyams Beach, Kinghorne, Longreach, Mayfield, Nowra Hill, Myola, Numbaa, Old Erowal Bay, Orient Point, Parma, Pyree, Quiera, Sanctuary Point, South Nowra, Tallowal, Terara, Tolwong, Touga, Vincentia, Wollumboola, Woollamia, Worrigee, Worrowing Heights, Wrights Beach, Yalwal, and Yerriyong.

Ward 3 – (Shown in yellow in the Proposed Boundary Map), comprises the following suburbs:

Basin View, Bawley Point, Bendalong, Berrara, Berringer Lake, Bewong, Boolijah, Brooman, Budawang (Part), Bulee, Burrill Lake, Cockwhy, Conjola, Conjola Park, Coolumburra, Croobyar, Cudmirrah, Cunjurong Point, Currowan (part), Depot Beach, Dolphin Point, Durras North, East Lynne, Endrick, Fishermans Paradise, Jerrawangala, Kings Point, Kioloa, Lake Conjola, Lake Tabourie, Little Forest, Manyana, Milton, Mogood, Mollymook, Mollymook Beach, Mondayong, Morton, Mount Kingiman, , Narrawallee, Pebbly Beach, Pointer Mountain, Porters Creek, Pretty Beach, Sassafras, St George, St Georges Basin, Sussex Inlet, Swanhaven, Termeil, Tianjara, Tomerong, Tullarwalla, Twelve Mile Peg, Ulladulla, Wandandian, Woodburn, Woodstock, Yadboro, and Yatte Yattah.

Feedback from the public exhibition process

During the submission period seven (7) submissions were received. Six (6) were lodged via the Council ‘Get Involved’ Page and the other was lodged by email. A summary of those submissions and responding comments is outlined as Attachment 2 to this report.

Five (5) of the submissions supported the proposal, the remaining two (2) submissions refer to the splitting of the ‘Bay and Basin’ area across different wards. Councillors will be aware that removing this split was a goal of the adjustment process, and while the proposal was able to bring all of Sanctuary Point together in Ward 2, a number of ways were attempted to adjust the boundaries to fit St Georges Basin and Sanctuary Point into the same ward without success. This is partly due to the distribution of the population in particular pockets along the coast, where there are much greater elector numbers than the inland areas and the fact that growth in elector numbers in Ward 3 has been the reason why adjustment is needed (it is currently 14.7% greater than Ward 1). It is considered that there may be opportunity for adjustment prior to the 2024 election to bring together Sanctuary Point and St Georges Basin together given planned development in Wards 1 and 2.

It is not considered that there is sufficient opposition to the proposal or alternative suggestions to warrant reconsideration or re-mapping of the boundaries. Council is therefore recommended that the Council endorse the proposed model for final submission to the NSWEC.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 26 November 2019

Page 0

CL19.352 2020 Local Government Election Cost Estimates

HPERM Ref: D19/383614

Section: Human Resources, Governance & Risk

Approver: Jane Lewis, Acting Director Finance Corporate & Community Services

Attachments: 1. 2020 Election Cost Estimate ⇩

Reason for Report

This report provides Council with cost estimates for the 2020 Elections which have been received from the Electoral Commission NSW (NSWEC).

Recommendation

That Council

1. Note the Cost estimate of $663,032 (excluding GST) for the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct the 2020 Local Government Election.

2. Increase the Election Budget in future budget reviews to accommodate for the estimated election management costs and internal costs.

3. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer (Group Director- Finance, Corporate and Community Services) to finalise contractual arrangements with the NSW Electoral Commission.

Options

1. As recommended. The Council has previously resolved to engage the NSW Electoral Commission to undertake the Election.

Implications: The election contractual arrangements will proceed.

2. Alternative resolution

Implications: Council was required under Legislation to make a decision by 1 October 2019 on its electoral provider. Alternate resolutions would be restricted from rescinding this decision on election provision.

Background

Council has previously considered three (3) reports in relation to the arrangement for the 2020 Election during 2019.

At the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 26 February 2019, Council considered report CL19.39 entitled “2020 Local Government (Council) Elections” and resolved (MIN19.97):

“That

1. Pursuant to s.296(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) (“the Act”) that an election arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all elections of the Council.

2. Pursuant to s.296(2) and (3) of the Act, as applied and modified by s.18, that a Council poll arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all Council polls of the Council.

3. Pursuant to s.296(2) and (3) of the Act, as applied and modified by s.18, that a constitutional referendum arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all constitutional referenda of the Council.

4. The contract be finalised by 11 June 2019 (15 months before the scheduled election) subject to:

a. The cost estimate from Electoral Commission NSW being presented to, and accepted by the Council, and

b. Any alternative requirements enacted by legislation passed or directives from the Office of Local Government received before that time (as foreshadowed in Office of Local Government Circular 19-02).”

The situation at the time of the February Report was that a review of IPART had been called on Election Costs; however, there had not been legislative change required to alleviate the requirement to engage a provider by 11 June 2019 and the NSWEC had advised that they were unable to provide a cost estimate until the IPART review was concluded.

On 25 July 2019 the Ordinary Meeting considered and noted a report (CL19.186) which outlined the Local Government Amendment Act 2019 which was assented to on 24 June 2019 and several provisions came into effect on 25 June 2019.

With respect to the Local Government Elections, the amendments resulted in:

i. extending the “cut-off date” for councils to decide on the administration of elections in 2020 (to 1 October 2019), and;

ii. removing the ability for the General Manager of the Council to conduct elections, and thereby requiring councils that do not enter into an arrangement with the Electoral Commissioner to engage an alternate electoral services provider to administer elections.

iii. Councils engaging the Electoral Commissioner are required to enter into contracts by 1 January 2020.

A further report was presented to the Extraordinary Meeting of the Council held on 20 September 2019, CL19.228 entitled “2020 Local Government Election Arrangements -Update” at which time it was resolved (MIN19.708)

‘That Council:

1. Note the information provided in the report

2. Confirm its previous resolution (MIN19.97) of February 2019 to engage the NSW Electoral Commission to conduct the 2020 Shoalhaven City Local Government Election

3. Receive a further report which outlines the estimated costs for the 2020 Local Government Election when received from the NSW Electoral Commission

4. Enter into contractual arrangements with the NSW Electoral Commission prior to the required date of 1 January 2020 as outlined in Section 296 (5A) b of the Local Government Act, 1993.’

This report outlined the result of the IPART review of local government election costs and the resolution ensured that the Council had met the requirements under s296(5A) (a) of the Local Government Act to appoint an election provider prior to the revised date of 1 October 2019. A cost estimate had not yet been received from the NSW Electoral Commission.

Council received the cost estimate for the Election from the NSW Electoral Commission on 26 September 2019. The estimate is provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

The cost estimate provided to Council is for $663,032 excluding GST. The table below provides comparison to the previous election and the recommendations of the IPART Report, taking into account the NSW Government Subsidy which was announced in September 2019.

Table 1.

Shoalhaven City Council - Election Cost Summary
Description	2016	2020	Variance 2016 Election to 2020
Council Election Costs	$516,000	$663,000*	$147,000	28%
Council Election Costs- CPI Estimate (as at June '19)	$541,000	$663,000	$122,000	23%
Electors	78,000	81,000	3,000	14%
Cost per Elector	$ 6.62	$ 8.19*	$ 1.57	24%
IPART Final Report recommended cost (less NSW Subsidy)	516	$580,000	$64,000	12%


Variance Between IPART Final Report and NSWEC Estimate			$83,000	14%

*Cost estimate.

After receipt of the cost estimate the Chief Executive Officer wrote to the NSW Electoral Commission on 30 October 2019 to clarify several points. The questions and responses from the NSW Electoral Commission received on 1 November 2019 are outlined below for the information of Councillors:

Q1. Does the estimate include the Poll for the Popular Election of the Mayor?

A: As the basis of the estimate was the service provision for the 2016 election where Council also had a poll for the election of the Mayor, yes it does.

Q2. The cost estimate you have forwarded is $83,000 higher than the estimate for Shoalhaven indicated in the Final Report of the IPART on Election Costs – Can you outline why there is a 14% difference?

A: The IPART report was written by IPART. Even though we provided IPART with a full dataset of services and costs to conduct the elections, we did not provide estimated costs for each council. We have no idea how IPART derived its costs and IPART has chosen not to provide any explanation to us.

Q3. In reviewing the cost estimate I note that compared to the 2016 actual election costs there is a significant increase in the following areas. Can you please outline the rationale for these increases?

(a) Call Centre costs are estimated at $36,277. This is an increase of $25,994 or 253%

A: The call centre has previously been based at our Riverwood warehouse. The warehouse was subsidised by the State government, hence the full cost of the call centre was never passed onto councils. After the 2017 elections the lease wasn’t renewed on the warehouse and all the functions managed from there were relocated. For the State general election we leased premises for the call centre and completely built the telephony system and centre infrastructure from scratch. After the election it was broken down and the property re-leased. We again have to build a call centre for the 2020 LG elections. As we did for the 2019 state election, we will explore all of the options, but none of them will be as cost-effective as the Riverwood centre.

(b) Event Staffing is estimated at $327, 603. This is an increase of $110,542 or 51%

A: We have consistently been the second lowest paying electoral commission in the country (in fact, we were paying below the minimum wage). We therefore obtained an independent determination on the pay rates for election staff (election day staff in particular) and have adjusted our rates accordingly. We have also made a number of other adjustments, including adding a deputy polling place manager to every polling place, reducing table loadings to enable election day staff to have their legislated breaks and capping the hours election day staff will work, to fall in line with work health and safety requirements. All of the above have caused an increase in the staffing costs.

The comments and information above outlines that the outcome of the IPART review of local government election costs did not achieve the decrease in election costs that was hoped to be achieved. The Council, is, however required to enter into arrangements with the NSW Electoral Commission as no other alternative exists at this time.

Financial Implications

As outlined in the above table the estimated cost for the 2020 election will be approximately $147,000 or allowing for CPI adjustment $122,000 greater than that which was paid for the 2016 election (ex GST).

The Council budget proposed for the 2020 election was $600,000 distributed across two financial years as follows:

2018/2019 Financial Year – $155,000 – Including pre-election costs such as ward boundary adjustments, advertising, venue procurement etc.

Proposed 2020/2021 Financial Year - $445,000

Adjustments will be required in a future quarterly budget review for FY 2019/20 and to the 2020/2021 budget to reflect the service and costs estimate received from the NSW Electoral Commission and for estimated internal costs.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 26 November 2019

Page 0

CL19.354 Development Application – Clause 4.6 Variation of Development Standard – 170 Riversdale Road, Illaroo - Lot 101 DP 751273

DA. No: DA19/1134/4

HPERM Ref: D19/404571

Section: Development Services

Approver: Phil Costello, Director Planning Environment & Development Group

Attachments: 1. Clause 4.6 Request - Vary Height - 170 Riverside Rd, Illaroo ⇩

Description of Development: Additions and Expansion of Existing Facilities at the Boyd Education Centre (Riversdale) comprising a new gallery building, new building for creative learning, café, workshop and accommodation (bridge building)

Owner: Bundanon Trust

Applicant: Locale Consulting

Notification Dates: 27/3/19 – 26/4/19

No. of Submissions: Nine (9)

Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council

To seek direction from Council on a policy variation relating to the 11m height of buildings standard in Clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings) of Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (SLEP 2014). The extent of the variation is such that staff do not have delegation to deal with the matter.

Where a development standard is more that 10%, the variation must be determined by the elected Council.

Council is able to assume the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment for Clause 4.6 variations to vary a development standard.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Confirm that it supports, pursuant to Clause 4.6 (exceptions to development standards) of SLEP2014, the request to vary Clause 4.3 building height limit of 11m to a maximum of 15.5m.

2. Refer the application (DA19/1134) back to staff for determination

Options

1. Resolve to support the requested variation to the maximum height of buildings requirement.

Implications: This will permit the application to proceed in its current form.

2. Resolve not to support the proposed variation to the maximum height of buildings requirement.

Implications: This would result in the applicant needing to reconsider the design of the proposal.

3. Resolve to modify the recommendations contained in this report.

Implications: This would require the Council to provide direction to staff.

Figure 1 - Location Map

Figure 2 – Showing existing development on the site

Background

Proposed Development

A development application has been lodged with Council seeking approval for an ‘information and education facility’ at the Riversdale site on the Shoalhaven River. The following is an outline of the proposed development:

o A new gallery building which incorporates:

- The proposed Boyd Art Gallery;

- Collection management space; and

- Administration space for the Bundanon Trust's operations.

o A new ‘bridge’ building which incorporates:

- Accommodation rooms - 32 in total, each with an en-suite bathroom;

- Workshop and dining room space;

- Café with associated catering kitchen; and

- Associated circulation, break out spaces, breezeways and decks.

o Associated site infrastructure including:

- New access road from the existing creek crossing on the site, through to the arrival court space; and

- Parking areas including:

· Visitor parking on the northern and south-eastern side of the existing creek line (71 total);

· Staff parking on the new access road (14 total); and

· Vehicle forecourt area (including 2 accessible spaces).

- Footbridge and pedestrian access pathways from car parking areas to buildings/ pedestrian forecourt; and

- Site services upgrades and associated landscaping.

The application has been amended twice since lodgement to include Lot 5315 DP 1166783 to include an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) over a portion of the land (29/8/19) and to include a jetty to enable legal access to the property (14/10/19).

Figure 3 – Site Plan

Subject Land

The development is proposed over two large rural properties known as Riversdale (Lot 101 and Lot 227 DP 7511273) with a small portion of adjoining Lot 5315 DP 1166783 required for APZ purposes.

Site & Context

The development site:

· Is located approximately 10km west of Nowra commercial area;

· Currently has vehicular access from Riversdale Road (to the north of the site), through two (2) parcels of privately owned land via a right of access and across crown land (subject of a granted Aboriginal Land Claim);

· Is partially zoned RU1 – Primary Production (central portion), E2 – Environmental Conservation (north western and eastern portions) and E3 – Environmental Management (western portion) under the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (SLEP 2014);

· Is part of a rural property known as ‘Riversdale’ and currently contains a weatherboard building that is used as offices (Riversdale homestead), a weatherboard building that is used as a library and meeting and conference room (Mordant library), a timber clad studio building that is used as offices (Boyd’s first studio), a multipurpose building containing multipurpose area, accommodation, kitchen, storerooms and amenities (Boyd Education Centre), a storage/maintenance shed and formalised car parking for 40 cars;

· Has large cleared areas along with patches of remnant natural vegetation;

· Slopes upwards from the east to the west;

· Is serviced by electrical infrastructure, however it is not serviced by reticulated water or sewerage infrastructure;

· Is identified as being bushfire prone land and containing flood prone land; and

· Has a number of creeks that traverse the site.

Issues

The development application seeks a variation to Clause 4.3 (building height) for the ‘bridge’ building in accordance with Clause 4.6 of SLEP 2014.

Development Standard to be Varied

Clause 4.3 stipulates the objective and development standard for the height of buildings. Relevantly Clause 4.3(2) & (2A) state as follows:

(2) The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map.

(2A) If the Height of Buildings Map does not show a maximum height for any land, the height of a building on the land is not to exceed 11 metres.

The Height of Building Map does not show a maximum height for the land and therefore the maximum building height defaults to 11 metres.

Extent of the Variation

The maximum height of the ‘bridge’ building above natural ground level varies along the length of the building due to the undulating ground beneath it. The maximum building height is 15.5m, which is a variation of 50% from the 11m height limit. The bridge building is approximately 165m long with the height exceedance over 88.8m in length occurring around the middle of the building due to the land form.

Figure 4: Bridge building east elevation showing building height variation

Figure 5: 3D Image showing ‘bridge’ building height exceedance

Figure 6: Looking west towards ‘bridge’ building

Written Request provided by the Applicant

The applicant has submitted a variation report to justify the contravention of the development standard pursuant to the requirements of Clause 4.6 of SLEP 2014.

Council is required to consider subclauses (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 4.6.

Clauses 4.6(3) - (5) are reproduced below:

(3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

(4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

(i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

(ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(b) the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

(5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Secretary must consider:

(a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and

(c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Secretary before granting concurrence.”

Council must be satisfied that Clause 4.6(4)(a)(i) and (ii) have been addressed prior to the grant of development consent.

The first step in satisfying Clause 4.6(4)(a)(i), is to consider whether the applicant’s written request seeking to justify the contravention of the development standard has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6(3). Subclause (3) requires the following two matters to be addressed:

1. That compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case (cl 4.6(3)(a)); and

2. That there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard (cl 4.6(3)(b)). The written request needs to demonstrate both matters.

Clause 4.6(3)(a) – Compliance with the Development Standard is Unreasonable or Unnecessary in the Circumstances of the Case

To assess whether compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary the Courts have provided guidance in the required assessment, with particular reference to the accepted "5 Part Test" for the assessment established by the NSW Land and Environment Court (NSWLEC) in various court cases. The “5-part Test” is outlined as follows:

1. The objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding noncompliance with the standard.

2. The underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

3. The underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

4. The development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own decisions in granting development consents that depart from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable.

5. The zoning of the particular land on which the development is proposed to be carried out was unreasonable or inappropriate so that the development standard, which was appropriate for that zoning, was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land and that compliance with the standard in the circumstances of the case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary.

Applicant’s response to the “5 part test” test

Test 1. The objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding noncompliance with the standard.

The ‘bridge’ building is considered compatible with the bulk and scale of the rural character of the locality and has minimal visual impact, therefore satisfying the relevant aims of the clause in the context of the site location. The environmental (E2 & E3) and rural (RU1) zonings of the site and surrounds epitomises the character of the area, where the bulk and scale of built form is large, separated structures amongst both an open and treed natural form.

The height exceedance creates no impacts on any buildings on surrounding properties such as view loss, considering its setting in the rural context and distance from adjoining properties. Nor will the building be prominent from any other location except for within the site itself, and at certain intervals along the river.

The height exceedance has no impact on solar access to existing development.

The roof of the ‘bridge’ building is of flat design and muted colour to reduce visual impact and enhance energy efficiency.

Test 2. The underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

Through the flexibility afforded by Clause 4.6 of SLEP 2014 compliance with the 11 metre height limit is unnecessary due to the topographic response to the siting of the ‘bridge’ building, optimum design approach, minimised impact on the environment (through reduced excavation, improved gully treatment and energy efficiency) and appropriate visual impact (including bulk and scale) within the rural setting.

Test 3. The underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

Not relied upon by the applicant.

Test 4. The development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own decisions in granting development consents that depart from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable.

Not relied upon by the applicant.

Test 5. The zoning of the particular land on which the development is proposed to be carried out was unreasonable or inappropriate so that the development standard, which was appropriate for that zoning, was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land and that compliance with the standard in the circumstances of the case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary.

Not relied upon by the applicant.

Consideration of the written request relating to Clause 4.6(3)(a)

Council must form the positive opinion of satisfaction that the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed those matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6(3)(a).

The applicant has provided an assessment of the proposed development that the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

The applicant has principally sought to argue that the ‘the objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard’. The justification that the application meets the objectives of the development standard has been provided and includes the following justifications:

· The 'bridge' building (creative learning centre) is a single storey structure that has been set above a gully to ensure optimum ecological outcome in terms of not impeding overland flow and supporting the revegetation of the degraded gully along with a design response that enables the highest levels of equitable access - the building being entirely on the same level throughout.

· The design is also a less invasive response to the sloping topography of the site, avoiding the need for excessive cut and fill. The restriction in earthworks result in a well-defined gully and doesn’t diminish the overall landscape character, noting the cut would be used to form road grades and level car parking areas on site.

It is considered that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

· The objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

· The proposal’s physical impacts on surrounding development are capable of being acceptable.

· The development will not disrupt views, result in unacceptable privacy or solar impacts.

· The development will not conflict with objective (c) of Clause 4.3 in relation to the height of the building having regard to the heritage significance of heritage items in the vicinity of the development.

Clause 4.6(3)(b) – Are there Sufficient Environmental Planning Grounds to Justify Contravening the Development Standard?

Council must form the positive opinion that the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed those matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6(3)(b).

The environmental planning grounds relied on must be “sufficient” (Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118. In the judgment, Preston CJ outlined the two methods for demonstrating that a Clause 4.6 is “sufficient” as follows:

First, the environmental planning grounds advanced in the written request must be sufficient “to justify contravening the development standard”. The focus of cl 4.6(3)(b) is on the aspect or element of the development that contravenes the development standard, not on the development as a whole, and why that contravention is justified on environmental planning grounds. The environmental planning grounds advanced in the written request must justify the contravention of the development standard, not simply promote the benefits of carrying out the development as a whole. Second, the written request must demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard so as to enable the consent authority to be satisfied under cl 4.6(4)(a)(i) that the written request has adequately addressed this matter: see Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 at [31].

The applicant has provided the following additional points to justify that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

· Section 1.3 of the EP&A Act contains the following objects relevant to the aspect of the proposed development that contravenes Clause 4.6:

“(e) to protect the environment, including the conservation of threatened and other species of native animals and plants, ecological communities and their habitats,

(f) to promote the sustainable management of built and cultural heritage (including Aboriginal cultural heritage),

(g) to promote good design and amenity of the built environment,”

· The aspect of the development that contravenes Clause 4.6 of SLEP 2014 relates to height (Clause 4.3 in SLEP 2014 sets an 11m maximum height). In this case the contravention is acceptable because:

o The proposed building remains as a single storey in the landscape.

o The proposed height above 11m is over a component of the building, not the entire building.

o The proposed contravention is the result of positioning the building in a location that decreases impact on other natural environment elements including: topography, flooding and vegetation. In this case, impact on the natural, undulating landform is reduced, the building is outside of the flood prone component of the site and vegetation removal is minimised, all due to the location of the building and therefore the resultant height contravention.

· There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard because:

o The application has demonstrated that the proposal and the height contravention remain consistent with the objectives (where relevant) of the subject RU1 zone, specifically the height contravention does not create conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones, despite the numerical non-compliance.

o The proposed height contravention does not compromise the local land use planning framework that applies to the site.

o The height contravention does not result in any unreasonable visual impacts, in the rural setting.

o The height contravention does not result in any unreasonable overshadowing impacts, largely due to its context in the rural setting and single storey nature.

o The height contravention is due to the location of the building on the site, and this location supports an important visual relationship with the existing heritage buildings and Boyd Education Centre (BEC) also known as the Glenn Murcutt building.

o The height contravention assists with achieving a good design outcome and increased amenity for users of the building, which can exist on a single level internally, providing all-inclusive accessibility (due to the height contravention).

· Further, the variation is in the public interest as it will provide for a development outcome that is:

o Consistent with the objectives of the zone and local land use planning framework.

o Able to provide for further public access to an important regional facility.

o Not unreasonable considering the rural context and setting, and respectful positioning of the building in the context of the existing built and natural environment.

o The result of a detailed design exercise.

Consideration of the written request relating to Clause 4.6(3)(b)

The applicant’s written request adequately addresses those matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6(3)(b). The applicant’s written request demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard for the following reasons:

Council can be satisfied that the written request has adequately addressed those matters required to be demonstrated by Clause 4.6(3)(b). The requirement to demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravention has been met.

Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) – Will the Proposed Development be in the Public Interest Because it is Consistent with the Objectives of the Particular Standard and Objectives for Development within the Zone in Which the Development is Proposed to be Carried Out?

Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) states that development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

Pursuant to the provisions of the SLEP 2014, the land where the bridge building is located is RU1 zoned land. The objectives of this zone are as follows:

· To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base.

· To encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises and systems appropriate for the area.

· To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands.

· To minimise the conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

· To conserve and maintain prime crop and pasture land.

· To conserve and maintain economic potential of the land within this zone for extractive industries.

Consideration of the written request relating to Clause 4.6(4)(a)

The proposal is associated with and consistent with the existing approved use as a significant education and art centre and the relevant objectives of the zone. The proposal is in the public interest as the development is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the land use objectives of the RU1 zone.

Consequently, the applicant’s written submission under Clause 4.6 is in the public interest under Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) and is supported.

Clause 4.6 (b) – Concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained

Council may assume concurrence. In this instance.

Clause 4.6 (5) – Decision to grant concurrence

In deciding to grant concurrence the following clauses must be considered.

Clause 4.6(5)(a) – Would Non-Compliance Raise any Matter of Significance for State or Regional Planning?

The non-compliance with the maximum building height development standard will not raise any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

Clause 4.6(5)(b) – Is There a Public Benefit of Maintaining the Planning Control Standard?

In the judgement of Ex Gratia P/L v Dungog Council [2015] (NSWLEC 148), Commissioner Brown of the NSW LEC outlined that the question that needs to be answered in relation to the application of Clause 4.6(5)(b) is “whether the public advantages of the proposed development outweigh the public disadvantages of the proposed development”.

The applicant has demonstrated that a better planning outcome and public advantage will be achieved through the variation to the height standard as opposed to strict compliance.

Clause 4.6(5)(c) – Are there any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Secretary before granting concurrence?

There no other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Secretary before granting concurrence.

Consultation and Community Engagement:

Nine (9) public submissions were received in relation to Council’s notification of the development. Eight (8) were objections to the development. The notification was made in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy. The notification was for a two-week period.

The objections pre-dominantly relate to the ‘bridge’ building and the key issues raised as a result of the notification are provided below.

Issue

· The proposed ‘bridge’ building dwarfs the Boyd Centre buildings, dominates the landscape and is an overdevelopment of the site.

· The ‘bridge’ building conceptualised as a piece of “infrastructure” would be more at home in Broken Hill rather than a beautiful native forest environment.

· The ‘bridge’ building is oversized, dominates the entry to the site and is out of character with the environment.

· The ‘bridge’ building will stand in the foreground of the Glenn Murcutt designed building and visually dominate everything and disrespect this world-famous building.

· The ‘bridge’ building is aggressive, inaccessible, disconnect form the ground, alien to the site and landscape and does not form the function of a bridge by being a connecting element.

Applicants response to submissions

“Following Shoalhaven City Councils approval of a site masterplan for Riversdale in 2016, the Bundanon Trust ran an architectural design competition with an esteemed jury including leading Architects and Landscape Architects, to select an architect to design the facilities proposed by the masterplan. The design team lead by KTA were chosen based on their understanding and approach to the site and its cultural legacy.

This initial approach has since been developed from extensive site and brief analysis, research and an intensive process of user group consultation to meet the broader project objectives and operational requirements. KTA are a multi award winning architectural practice respected for their capacity to sensitively integrate architecture and landscape and for their considered and refined response to unique briefs, especially within sites of natural and built heritage significance.

KTA are thoroughly aware of the cultural, environmental and architectural significance of this site. Together with a range of complex site opportunities and constraints including access, flooding, bushfire, operational demands and the availability of utilities, KTA’s proposal respectfully builds on the legacy of the existing buildings at Riversdale.

Developed in collaboration with landscape architects Wraight Associates and environmental engineers Atelier 10 the proposal is for an integrated suite of buildings, landscapes and infrastructure that work with the environmental and ecological characteristics of the Riversdale site towards providing an array of new visitor experiences complimentary to those existing.”

Legal Implications

If the requested variation is not supported and the application subsequently assessed and refused, or if the applicant is dissatisfied with Council’s determination, the applicant has the right of a review and / or appeal to the Land and Environment Court.

Summary and Conclusion

The applicant’s submission has provided sufficient justification to demonstrate that due to specific circumstances of the case, the 11m height limit is unreasonable, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravention of the height requirement and that the proposal is in the public interest and should be supported.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 26 November 2019

Page 0

CL19.355 Boat Harbour (Bendalong) Master Plan - Operations Actions

HPERM Ref: D19/409696

Section: Environmental Services

Approver: Phil Costello, Director Planning Environment & Development Group

Attachments: 1. Bendalong Boat Harbour - Storm Water Plan Stage 1 ⇩

2. Bendalong Boat Harbour - Storm Water Plan Stage 2 ⇩

3. Final Coastal Erosion Report - Bendalong Boat Harbour - Advisian (under separate cover) ⇨

4. Final Report - Bendalong Boat Harbour - Coastal Protection -Technical Advice - Advisian (under separate cover) ⇨

5. Email to Red Head Villagers Association - 09/07/2019 ⇩

6. Draft Boat Harbour - Bendalong - Master Plan Operation Actions ⇩

Reason for Report

To provide Council with an update on the Bendalong - Boat Harbour Master Plan - Operational Actions and seek adoption of the Master Plan.

Recommendation

That Council adopt the Boat Harbour Master Plan – Operational Actions package pending receipt of the Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit, to be issued by NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE).

Options

1. As per the recommendation

Implications: Works identified in the Master Plan – Operations Actions, outside the AHIP area, can be undertaken. Works inside the AHIP area can be designed, programmed and implemented following receipt of the AHIP

2. Wait until the AHIP is finalised before adopting the Bendalong Boat Harbour Master Plan package

Implications: Implementation of all operational activities will be delayed pending receipt of the AHIP, at which time a further report will be prepared for Council.

3. Seek further advice from NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) on approval pathways for the trial coastal rock protection works, as per part two of MIN19.128, currently been managed by Asset & Works, at the eastern end of the beach.

Implications: NSW DPIE Coastal regional staff have advised Council that the proposed coastal protection works may require development consent. The Coastal Zone Management Plan currently has implementation of the Master Plan as a local area action, however the local Emergency Sub – Action does not identify new coastal protection works as an emergency response action.

4. Do not adopt the Bendalong Boat Harbour Master Plan and seek clarification or further changes

Implications: The implications of this recommendation would depend on changes and clarification required.

5. Alternative recommendation

Implications: Would depend on the recommendation.

Background

On 12 March 2019 Council resolved the following in relation to stormwater and coastal erosion control measures for the Boat Harbour Beach/Reserve (MIN19.128):

That Council adopt the following measures to address stormwater and coastal erosion at the Bendalong Boat Harbour and include these measures in the Draft Bendalong Boat Harbour Masterplan for consideration at a future date:

1. As outlined in the report by MI Engineers (Stormwater Infrastructure Upgrade Report 18 January 2018):

a. Divert as much stormwater as possible away from the catchment that discharges to the beach. Strategic location of the optimum number of swails be part of the diversion solution. Estimated to cost ($140,000);

b. Address erosion in the major draining channels within the catchment by lining the channels with rock protection. Estimated to cost ($130,000);

c. Convert the piped outlets onto the beach to surcharge/soak-away pits thus allowing rock protection arrangements to be continuous along the beach. Estimated to cost ($140,000);

d. Convert the piped inlets to pit inlets and line the roadside drain with rocks to provide scour protection. Estimated to cost ($80,000)

e. Longer Term – When the time comes to reconstruct the road (say 5 to 10 years), provide a causeway crossing and thus eliminate the pipe crossings altogether. Estimated to cost ($160,000).

2. As outlined in the Bendalong Draft Coastal Hazard/Erosion Technical Advice Report – April 2018 – prepared by Advisian, sort existing rock at the eastern end of the beach and place on the eroded sections of the beach to interlock and provide protection for wave attack up to 0.7m. Estimated to cost $30,000. Select a trial location as per the Read Head Villages Association assertion, using large prismical rocks and using grass to bind them

3. Council monitor the effectiveness of the storm water diversion management through annual monitoring

The Bendalong Boat Harbour Master Plan – Operational Actions was initiated by Council staff following concerns raised by the Red Head Villagers Association and other residents of Bendalong, about the impact of coastal erosion on the beach caused by the June 2016 East Coast Low (ECL). The erosion impacted the beach amenity, stability and public assets.

Concerns have also been raised with Council about the impact of increased visitation at Boat Harbour Beach during the peak tourist season and the additional strain being placed on the public assets that service this recreational area.

The June 2016 ECL was an unusual coastal storm event, in that it came from a north, north east direction. Previously beaches such as Bendalong Boat Harbour, which face north, had been protected from an ECL, which predominately come from a south east direction. As a result, Council engaged an expert consultant to undertake coastal hazard mapping at Boat Harbour beach.

Is was at this time that Council officers meet with the community and asset custodians and started the development of the draft Bendalong Boat Harbour Master Plan – Operational Actions. The draft Bendalong Boat Harbour Master Plan – Operational Actions Plan outlines actions to be undertaken for the future management of public assets on the reserve.

The key issues identified during the consultation and investigations were as follows:

1. Coastal erosion from ocean storm waves, and the impact coastal hazards have on beach amenity and public assets

2. Erosion of the beach and foreshore from surrounding stormwater and surface runoff;

3. The impact of large volumes of visitors to the beach in a constrained site;

4. Impact of increased visitors on public assets;

5. Aging public assets, nearing the end of their life; and

6. Need for a plan that outlines the future management actions for the reserve

Coastal Hazards

In 2017 Council engaged Advisian–Worley Parsons to prepare a coastal hazard study and mapping to identify and assess the future coastal hazards impacting Boat Harbour for the planning periods of 2030, 2050 and 2100. The report identified the short and long-term erosion impacting the beach and the management options for addressing the coastal erosion.

The report recommended the following to address coastal erosion at Boat Harbour:

· Beach Scraping – Following large coastal storms, using beach scraping to push sand from the swash zone up to the incipient dune to aid beach recovery;

· Use of existing rock cobble on the eastern end of the beach (east of the boat ramp), to restore coastal protection rock revetment, in areas not affected by the Aboriginal midden deposits.

· For the area west of the boat ramp provide erosion protection and energy dissipation to the stormwater outlets as per standard Council stormwater engineering designs

· Sand from the beach to line the incipient dune, below the midden height to add additional protection.

Following the recommendations of the Bendalong Boat Harbour Coastal Hazard report, Council sought a further technical report from the Coastal Engineers, Advisian – Worley Parsons, detailing the methodology for using existing rock to provide coastal protection on the eastern end of the beach.

Advisian – Worley Parsons, were also requested to undertake a detailed assessment of the impact of larger coastal protection works on the beach. The report outlined the “end effects” of constructing larger scale rock protection (see attachment 4).

This was undertaken following a direct request from representatives of the Red Head Villagers Association, who expressed that they were not satisfied that the rock protection outlined by Advisian in the coastal hazard report was adequate and subsequent part two of the Council resolution (MIN19.128), which states.

“Select a trial location as per the Read Head Villages Association assertion, using large prismical rocks and using grass to bind them”.

Currently Council’s Southern Asset and Works Maintenance Team are developing a project plan to undertake coastal protection rock works on the eastern end of Boat Harbour Beach, in direct response to community request and the above resolution. A Review of Environmental Factors has been prepared for these works.

These works will involve bringing in additional rock to undertake repairs to the existing rock protection works on-site. The CZMP does have as a local area action for Bendalong, Manyana and Cunjurong Point area, to prepare and implement the Boat Harbour Master Plan, which has this upgrade to the coastal protection works identified as an operational action. Thus, with the adoption of the Master Plan, the proposed works will fall under the adopted CZMP.

Stormwater Management

The community have consistently raised concerns regarding the impact of stormwater, from the surrounding catchment, on beach erosion. In order to address this, as part of the Bendalong Boat Harbour Masterplan – Operational Actions, Council engaged MI Engineering to prepare a stormwater management plan/design. This plan was to cover the whole Bendalong Boat Harbour beach catchment, which is primarily managed by Holiday Haven Tourist Park.

The aim of the stormwater plan was to reduce the impact of stormwater and surface water flows on the Boat Harbour beach erosion. The majority of the Boat Harbour Stormwater Plan/Design, concentrated on managing the surface water flows from the Bendalong Holiday Haven Tourist Park, which consists of 90% of the catchment area.

The actions used to address the storm water impacts, in the storm water plan consisted of the following:

· Rock check dams

· Storm water diversion mounds

· Swales to divert surface water

· Detention structures

· Erosion control devices at storm water outlets

Following the Council resolution (MIN19.128), Council has reviewed the MI Engineers – Stormwater Management Plan/Design. Considering the plan is an integral part of the Bendalong Boat Harbour Master Plan - Operational Actions, minor changes to the stormwater design plan have been made.

These changes relate to size of the rock scour/embankment protection at the three stormwater outlets that empty onto the beach. The adopted stormwater plan had large volumes and mass of scour/embankment rock protection at each of the three stormwater outlets and adjacent to the western boat ramp (see figure 1). Council received engineering advice, from MI Engineers, that the large volumes and mass was not required to address stormwater scouring of the beach.

As the rock scour/embankment also encroached onto the beach it would heavily impact on the visual amenity of the beach and increase public risk for beach users.

The original stormwater scour protection works also impacted on the revised Aboriginal Cultural Heritage areas around the western boat ramp and western storm water outlets due to the larger disturbance footprint of the original adopted stormwater plan.

Figure1: Changes to stormwater scour/embankment protection – Bendalong Boat Harbour Stormwater plan

stormwater rock scour protection as per adopted Stormwater design/plan – April 2018

Stormwater rock scour protection as per amended Masterplan – June 2019

It is important to note that the foreshore areas east of the boat ramps have been identified for coastal protection as per part two of resolution (MIN19.128) on 12 March 2019 and as identified in the Bendalong Draft Coastal Hazard/Erosion Technical Advice Report – April 2018 – prepared by Advisian.

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Large parts of the foreshore area of Boat Harbour area have Aboriginal shell middens located on the beach front. This encompasses mainly central and western sections of Boat Harbour Beach.

As per the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, Council is required to undertake an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment (ACHAR), in accordance with the NSW Due Diligence Code, to assess exactly what Aboriginal cultural heritage exist at the site. This was undertaken by Council (attachment 6), which forms the basis of an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) in order to carry out the actions identified in the Master Plan.

Application for an AHIP was made to DPIE in October 2017. In November 2017, Council received a ‘Notice to supply further information’. The information was supplied in early December 2017.

In May 2018, the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment ‘stopped’ the statutory clock so that the 60-day time limited period for the provision of an AHIP wasn’t exceeded. If this didn’t occur, Council would have had to start the AHIP process again and pay the fee again. The clock was stopped, due to delays in preparing the Master Plan.

Council and NSW DPIE officers met on 13 May 2019, with the purpose to review all proposed works at Boat Harbour. During the site meeting, NSW DPIE officers found an Aboriginal artefact in a location outside of the original AHIP areas, as defined by Council’s consultant archaeologist, Sue Feary, who prepared the ACHAR.

Accordingly, an addendum to the ACHAR is required to be submitted to NSW DPIE before the AHIP application can be processed. The addendum to the ACHAR was prepared and submitted to DPIE on 18 October 2019.

NSW DPIE have since advised that the plan shown in the ‘revised operational masterplan actions’ (attachment 6) is acceptable. This plan shows one single AHIP area, combining the original two areas, and includes the area where the artefact was discovered on May 13, 2019. The accompanying notes explain the various actions identified and numbered on the plan.

Draft Boat Harbour Master Plan

The Boat Harbour Master Plan – Operational Actions consists of a package of three components, plus the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (ACHAR). The first two components of which have been adopted by Council,

1. A storm water remediation design (MI Engineers) adopted by Council on 12/03/2019 - MIN19.128;

2. Coastal erosion protection work (Advisian) also adopted by Council on 12/03/2019 – MIN19.128; and

3. The Bendalong Boat Harbour Master Operational Actions Plan – with accompanying notes and revised AHIP area.

Community Engagement

In July 2017 Council exhibited the draft Bendalong Boat Harbour Master Plan for community consultation, via the “Get Involved” web portal and sought public comment via on-line submission. Council received 26 submissions via the Get Involved forum.

Council staff have meet with representatives of the Red Head Villagers Association three times over 2017/18 during the development of the Coastal Hazard Reports, Stormwater Management Plan and the Master Plan.

Councillors, Staff and the Red Head Villagers Association also attended a briefing with Advisian – Worley Parson, and MI Engineering on 18 September 2018, to outline the coastal hazard and storm water advice provided in the reports/plans.

The Red Head Villages Association were emailed on 9 July 2019 with a progress report and provided with the Master Plan package as attached to this report.

Councils Director of Asset and Works met with two representatives of the Red Head Villages Association on 5 June 2019 and 5 July 2019.

Council officers also meet with representatives of the Red Head Villages Association on 17 September 2019 and provided a briefing on the changes to the Bendalong Boat Harbour Stormwater Plan. At this meeting staff also outlined the contents of the Master Plan and sought any last changes, prior to sending the plan to Council for adoption

The Red Head Villages Association requested the following changes to the Master Plan:

a) Requested that Council undertake further investigations and costings for the construction of a public viewing facility on the eastern end of reserve, adjacent to the turning cul-de-sac (see attached for details). This has been included.

b) Inclusion of a picnic shelter on the eastern end of the reserve, on the foreshore, near the far eastern boat ramp. This has been included.

c) Create a de-rigging area west of the first boat ramp. This has been identified only when the road is replaced or major repairs to the road are undertaken.

Acknowledgement that the far western shared access pathway should be linked up with the villager’s masterplan historic walk, along Washerwomen’s Beach. This has been included.

Policy Implications

The Shoalhaven Coastal Zone Management Plan, for the Shoalhaven open coastline, identifies as a local area action for Bendalong, to prepare and implement the Boat Harbour Masterplan and the Stormwater Upgrade Plan.

The Shoalhaven CZMP’s Emergency Action Sub-Plan (Figure 2) identifies the emergency response actions that are available to Council in response to coastal hazards as follows.

“Beach scraping, with existing boulders, as per recommendations of the Bendalong Boat Harbour Coastal Mapping Study to enhance resilience of this area post storm repair”.

Financial Implications

The CZMP identifies the cost of preparation and implementation of the Boat Harbour Master Plan to be $100,000. At this time these works are proposed to be funded within current budget allocations and/or grant funding wherever possible. Any funding requested outside of these identified sources would need to be reported back to Council.

Risk Implications

The coastal hazards for Boat Harbour Beach have been updated and have identified that the beach is subject to coastal erosion from an East Coast Low. The actions outlined in the Master Plan – Operational Actions will address the risk associated with such an event.

Tenderer	Location
Cleanaway Pty Ltd	Melbourne VIC 3004
J.J. Richards & Sons Pty Ltd	Cleveland QLD 4163
Remondis Australia Pty Ltd	Mascot NSW 2020
Rico Enterprises Pty Ltd atf Rico Family Trust t/as Solo Resource Recovery	Chinderah NSW 2487
Suez Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd	Rhodes NSW 2138