Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 26 May 2020

Page 0

CL20.113 Report of the Strategy & Assets Committee - 12 May 2020

HPERM Ref: D20/177705

SA20.59 COVID-19 - Provision of relief - sporting, arts and community groups

HPERM Ref: D20/131045

RECOMMENDATION

That Council give relief to sporting, arts and community groups who have been adversely impacted by the implementation of COVID-19 restrictions in the following ways:

1. Increased support to grant funding programs in the following ways:

a. Sports Funding Program

i. Continue the extension of the changed Capital Sports Funding Program for the 20/21 Financial Year, with an additional $50,000 (total grant program 20/21 FY $208,000) for 2020, and

ii. broaden the program to allow for equipment purchases, or to recoup costs lost as a direct result of COVID-19 pandemic with no matching funding in addition to capital works.

iii. Reallocate funds in the draft 20/21 budget from the Minor Improvement budget (22107) and the Active Recreation budget (82487) equally to fund the extension of the grants program.

b. Community Development Grant Program

i. Extended the Community Development Grant Program for the 20/21 Financial Year with an additional $20,000 (total grant program 20/21 FY $48,000) with a specific focus on assisting communities to rebuild and reconnect as a result of COVID-19 isolation. Ensuring delivery could be during isolation via digital channels, or face to face when restrictions are lifted with social distancing in mind.

ii. Reallocate funds in the draft 20/21 budget from the Community Development Projects budget (13030) to fund the extension of the grants program.

c. Arts Board Grants

i. Extend the Arts Board Grants program in 20/21 with an additional $25,000 and staff work with the Shoalhaven Arts Board.

ii. To be funded from 19/20 financial year operational savings in the Library budget to be carried forward into the FY20/21.

2. Fee waivers or discounts based on Council’s adopted Fees & Charges as follows:

a. 100% fee waiver for a period of 6 months after official lifting of Federal Government COVID19 Pandemic Restrictions:

i. Community hire fee for meeting spaces and gallery hire at

· Nowra and Milton Library, and

· Shoalhaven Regional Gallery

ii. Shoalhaven Swim Sport Fitness community regular, not-for-profit sporting / swimming group fees for:

· Shoalhaven Canoe & Kayak Club and

· Bay & Basin, Bomaderry, Nowra, and Ulladulla Swim Clubs.

Note: Pertains to local competition only, and must cover first summer season after official lifting restrictions, for regular, not-for-profit sporting / swimming groups, weekly, local Club Swim Meet nights (only)

b. 50% fee waiver for a period of 3 months after official lifting of Federal Government COVID19 Pandemic Restrictions at Indoor Sports Centre - for all Shoalhaven-based, regular hirers, local competition only - excludes all other bookings.

c. Adjust forecast income, relevant to each Unit, for Council consideration with the draft 20/21 budget process and trough the quarterly review process once the Federal Government COVID19 Pandemic Restrictions are lifted.

3. To support users of the Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre, in recognition of bookings impacted by COVID-19 Pandemic and force majeure clause in contracts:

a. 100% reduction in cancellation or postponed event related fees and transfer of non-refundable $500 deposit to new contracted dates where applicable. (This includes ticket sale fee for cancelled or rescheduled event date; ticket refunding fee; marketing fee; show build fee). Note: This does not impact hire fees.

SA20.60 COVID 19 & Economic Crisis Financial Assistance to the Ratepayers

HPERM Ref: D20/152352

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopt the following funding strategy to provide financial relief of $300 to all property owners in the Shoalhaven in the 2020/21 Financial Year in response to the significant health and economic crisis presented by the COVID-19 Pandemic:

Fund	Rates Donation/Reduction in Rates, Fees and Charges/Account
General Fund Rates Donation (S356 LGA)	$108
Water Fund Subsidy	$88
Sewer Fund Subsidy	$60
Domestic Waste Fund Subsidy	$44
Total:	$300

2. Note that the Water, Sewer and Domestic Waste Funds components totalling $192 per property owner will be funded from restricted funds by way of a subsidy to reduce the water, sewer and domestic waste annual charges payable to Council for the FY2020/21.

3. Note that the remainder of the $300 financial relief for all property owners ($108) will be funded from the General Fund by way of a Donation to individuals under S356 of the Local Government Act 1993 with the required advertising of Council’s intention to provide the donation be through the public exhibition of the Draft 2020/21 DPOP.

4. Note that where property owners are not in receipt of any or all of the Water, Sewer or Domestic Waste Services, the General Fund Rates Donation component will be increased to ensure ALL property owners receive the full $300 benefit of Council’s COVID-19 Financial Relief.

5. Endorse the proposed opt-in / opt-out strategy outlined in the report to provide an opportunity for property owners not wanting to accept Council’s COVID-19 Financial Relief to advise accordingly - noting that should no response be received prior to 30 June 2020, then this will be deemed as opt-out.

6. Further note that should the hardship arise after June 30, 2020, ratepayers that have been noted as opt-out will have an option to seek financial assistance under the Hardship Policy and may be provided the relief under delegated authority of the CEO.

7. Acknowledge the cost of the financial implications and associated risks of the potential $17.5million reduction in the cash balance should all property owners accept the $300 relief package.

8. Commits to retaining in the 2020/21 capital works program the $5million in projects proposed for deferral in the report and the CEO report to Council on alternate funding sources if needed to retain an acceptable working funds balance.

9. Invites the CEO to present a report at the next Strategy and Assets Committee providing a draft Liquidity Contingency Plan for Council to assist in the monitoring of Councils financial position

SA20.67 Proposed Sale of Lot 140 DP 11629, Inglewood Crescent, Tomerong

HPERM Ref: D20/124352

RECOMMENDATION

That Council resolves to authorise:

1. The sale by direct negotiation Lot 140 DP 11629 at Inglewood Crescent, Tomerong to Robert Lewis Albright for $165,000 (inclusive of GST if applicable).

2. The Chief Executive Officer to sign all documents required to give effect to this resolution and to affix the Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven to all documentation required to be sealed.

3. Funding all costs associated with the sale from Job Number 28800.

4. The net proceeds of the sale to be placed in the Property Reserve.

SA20.68 Creation of an Asset Protection Zone over Council unmade road adjoining Lot 24 Sec 1 DP 9182 - 11 Grandview St, Erowal Bay

HPERM Ref: D20/131488

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Resolve to approve the creation of an Asset Protection Zone over Council’s unmade road at First Avenue, Erowal Bay adjoining the common north boundary of Lot 24 Sec 1 DP 9182 as shown in Attachment 1 (D20/131596), by way of the positive covenant in accordance with the provisions of Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919;

2. Require that the landowners of Lot 24 Sec 1 DP 9182 indemnify Council against any loss, injury or damages incurred whilst on Council owned land and undertaking the activities defined in the APZ Management Plan and pay all costs, fees and charges (including legal) associated with the creation of the positive covenant with the exception APZ approval fee of $3,000; and

3. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to sign any documentation required to give effect to this resolution and to affix the Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven to all documentation required to be sealed.

SA20.69 Business Case - Ranger Services

HPERM Ref: D19/416732

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receive the status of the trial of the pathway street signage on the Adelaide Street Reserve, Greenwell Point for information only (Item 3 of MIN19.390).

2. Accept the framework and approve the increase funding for Ranger Services to educate owners and enforce existing dog off-leash areas by allocating an additional budget of $30,000 for media campaign (Item 4 of MIN19.390).

SA20.71 Draft Proposal for 2020-21 Water and Sewer Charges

HPERM Ref: D20/100652

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the following proposal for inclusion in the draft 2020/21 budget:

1. Water Availability Charge 20mm – Increase of $1 from $82/connection per annum to $83/connection per annum

2. Water Usage Charge – Increase of $0.05 from $1.70/KL to $1.75/KL

3. Sewer Availability Charge 20mm – Increase of $12.00 from $864/connection per annum to $876/connection per annum

4. Sewer System Usage Charge – Increase of $0.10/KL from $1.70/KL to $1.80/KL

5. A contribution from the Water and Sewer Funds to the COVID – 19 Financial Assistance subsidy, is applied up to a maximum amount of $88 per property from the Water Fund and $60 per property from the Sewer Fund in 2020-21.

SA20.73 Acquisition of Easement - Sewer Purposes - South Nowra

HPERM Ref: D20/140751

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Acquire an Easement to Drain Sewage variable width over part of Lot 2 DP 714802 Old Southern Road South Nowra marked (E) on the attached draft survey plan.

2. Pay compensation of $53,000 plus GST if applicable and reasonable legal and valuation costs associated with the acquisition in accordance with the provision of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, from Shoalhaven Water’s Sewer Fund.

3. The Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven be affixed to any documents required to be sealed.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 26 May 2020

Page 0

CL20.115 Bushfire Recovery Update from Local Recovery Coordinator Mr Vince DiPietro

HPERM Ref: D20/184573

Approver: Stephen Dunshea, Chief Executive Officer

Reason for Report

To update Council on the Bushfire Recovery.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Note the Bushfire Recovery Activity and acknowledge the progress for the Shoalhaven LGA since the last Ordinary Meeting

2. Note the activities underway to develop community-led resilience and promote early preparation for the next fire season.

Continuing Global Emergency and Contingency Planning

Notwithstanding a progressive relaxation of social distancing and isolation measures announced by the Federal Government on 15 May 2020 by the Prime Minister, the COVID19 pandemic continues to directly affect every citizen, community, organisation and all levels of Government focus and activity. Bushfire Recovery activity continues at a steady and impressive pace. All demolition and clearance work being conducted by the State Government’s contractor, Laing O’Rourke, is assured by this Tier One contractor to be compliant with all preventative and protective measures being imposed by Federal and State Government. All Council-led Recovery activities are responsive to, and compliant with, public gathering restrictions, suspension of business and commercial operations, travel advisories and precautions in force. Shoalhaven Council’s Business Continuity Team under the personal chairmanship of the Chief Executive Officer remains actively engaged and focussed on maintaining compliance with COVID19 restrictions. and will do so for the foreseeable future.

The Councillors’ Consultative Group (CCG) continues to be briefed weekly and is afforded the opportunity to review the Recovery progress and the identified community social and economic recovery of the community. The CCG is cognisant of the urgency and priority generated by the current COVID19 isolation and social distancing. The multiplicative effect on the Community of COVID19 in addition to that generated by the bushfire is well understood and Council remains sensitised to it.

Community expectation of the progressive relaxation of COVID19 restrictions, the community’s collective response to that relaxation, and the impact on Recovery writ large continues to unfold. The Recovery Committee remains responsive and agile and this report covers its activities since the last Ordinary Meeting.

Background

Emergency and Bushfire Status. Currowan and Crompton Grange Fire State of Emergency was revoked on Friday, 7 February 2020 and the fires were declared extinguished by RFS Superintendent Mark Williams on Saturday 8 February 2020. Record rainfalls occurred from Saturday 8 February 2020. The Shoalhaven LGA has been free of fire activity since 8 February 2020.

Recovery Committee Authority. The establishment of a Recovery Committee post disaster is required by State Legislation. Shoalhaven City Council responded to this requirement in mid-December. Council information briefing was held on Thursday 16 January to update Councillors on Recovery Committee Progress, appointment of a Recovery Coordinator, and intentions for the Shoalhaven LGA.

Governance – Shoalhaven LGA The Recovery Action Plan, Recovery Committee structure and operating guidelines were unanimously approved by Council at its Extraordinary Meeting of 20 January 2020. The first Recovery Update was presented to Council by the Recovery Coordinator on Tuesday 25 February 2020. Subsequent monthly reports to Council have occurred at the Ordinary Council Meetings of 24 March, and 28 April 2020. Prior to the declaration of the global pandemic, it was the Recovery Committee’s intention to amend the current published Recovery Action Plan dated February 2020 to better reflect the shifting priorities of the current and emerging circumstance in the Shoalhaven. The significant interaction and overlays of Recovery from bushfires and COVID19 restrictions are many and the Committee membership is sensitive to the parallels with which it is presented almost hourly.

The Recovery Committee membership and participation is as previously reported. Standing membership of both LEOCON and RFS remains the latter having actively participated in the Committee’s May meetings. The need is clearer than ever to remain ahead of the mental health of our community. The inclusion of NSW Health representation as a standing member in the Recovery Committee has proven itself up to the challenge of being ready to respond when needed. Committee participation of the prime clean up contractor (Laing O’Rourke) has been either in person or by submission of clean up status and statistics prior to the meetings. Council’s indigenous liaison officer and on specific occasion, the CEO of the Waminda organisation has also led to positive outcomes and advances for the Shoalhaven to be described later in this report. COVID19 developments impact on Recovery writ large. Remaining flexible to accommodate expert advice and tailored fortnightly Committee participation is proving to be more effective and efficient than a strictly enforced Committee structure. Accordingly, the Recovery Action Team Leads, LEMO and LRC talk frequently and meet weekly to maintain focus on the Recovery activities: the Recovery Committee meets fortnightly augmented as determined by prevailing demands with advisors and assessments as needed.

Digital/internet and telephone-based access remains the only viable and lawful means of distribution. The inability to maintain personal contact has migrated the primary means of information flows to digital/internet or telephone based. The Shoalhaven City Council Recovery Helpline (02 4429 5888) which commenced on 13 April 2020 broadened its service to include a Call Back service to our registered Shoalhaven residents. The Callback service statistics will be covered later in this report. The authoritative sources of Shoalhaven Council information remain the SCC Website Bushfire Recovery Page, SCC Facebook page, Weekly Recovery Newsletters and SCC Helpline. All continue uninterrupted as does the inclusion of COVID19 information on the reverse of the Recovery newsletter. Each of these media form the backbone of Community Engagement.

Community Engagement

Council Engagement. Since the last report to Council and the recommencement of weekly meetings on 30 April, Councillors’ Consultative Group meetings continue to be briefed weekly at its Thursday afternoon gatherings by the CEO, LRC, Local Emergency Management Officer and Recovery Action team leads where appropriate. Consistent with, and responsive to, the changing circumstances there remains much re-prioritisation requiring CCG guidance and direction for which maximum attendance by all CCG members is strongly encouraged by the Recovery Coordinator and its Committee.

Community Meetings. There have been no Public gathering Community Recovery meetings since the last report due to COVID19. There were three virtual meetings of note.

· The first was a webinar ‘revisit’ by the NSW Government Independent Inquiry held on Friday 1 May 2020. This webinar was open to all Shoalhaven residents to provide input and included a follow-up invitation (subsequent to the ‘trial’ webinar of 17 April previously reported) to residents of Lake Conjola, Conjola Park and Fisherman’s Paradise. There were over 40 participants including Mayor Findley and the CEO, who were invited to comment at the meeting closure. Recovery Action Team leads, LRC and RFS Superintendent Mark Williams attended as observers.

· The second was a webinar conducted by the RFS in response to the community concerns and perceptions enunciated in the 1 May NSW Independent Inquiry webinar about the backburning activities on 31 December 2019.

· The third was a webinar held by the Red Cross as an information session concerning practices and lessons learned during the experience of the Blue Mountains Recovery from the 2013 bushfires.

Each of these events was promoted and advertised directly to the CCG by personal email and more widely through the SCC Bushfire Recovery and Facebook webpages.

Recovery Centres. All Recovery Centre input is now conducted through the SCC Helpline and Council direct phone numbers.

Virtual/Digital/Telephone Engagement. By COVID19 necessity, alternatives to physical/face to face contact are the ‘new normal’. Access for the Shoalhaven community to information and Council remains a priority albeit a routine feature and ongoing commitment of SCC Communications team and the Recovery Action Teams as defined and described in the Recovery Action Plan.

Although covered previously under ‘Governance’ it is worth repeating and amplifying that frequent updates of ALL bushfire related advisory notices and assistance alerts continue through the Shoalhaven City Council Website Bushfire Recovery page, SCC Facebook page, and Weekly Newsletters. For phone contact five days per week during business hours the fully manned and resourced SCC Recovery Helpline (02 44295888) is open for business. Call backs to all registered Shoalhaven residents have continued through the month of May to extend assistance and check on welfare of those citizens.

Recovery radio communications continue in addition to the communications weekly rhythm defined in the Recovery Action Plan. Most commonly used radio stations are ABC Radio Illawarra (97.3 and 603), 2ST and, less frequently through UUUFM Community radio.

Recovery Progress

Clean Up. Across the LGA, Laing O’Rourke reports that 360 deeds have been signed with Landowners and 240 sites have been cleared totalling over 500 houses or outbuildings across the LGA. The NSW Govt/Laing O’Rourke forecast is for all registered clearance from Conjola and South will be completed within 5 weeks, and from Nowra and to the north will be completed in three weeks (weather permitting).

Unregistered (about 40-50) properties remain within the LGA. These include those where the owner is cleaning their own property or has elected to use their insurance company to do the clean-up.

BlazeAid

A small, local volunteer BlazeAid presence remains at Kangaroo Valley and Milton.

Waste Management

As of Sunday 17 May:

· 15,035 tonnes of bushfire demolition waste delivered to West Nowra for processing from 187 houses.

· 7,645 tonnes already recycled and 2,000 to 3,000t in stockpile ready for recycling in the following weekly volumes:

o 1,300 tonnes in week 27 April to 3 May,

o 627 tonnes in week 4 – 10 May

o 320 tonnes in week 11 – 17 May.

Recovery Helpline and Call Back Service

As of close of business 20 May, the Recovery Helpline is receiving 5 calls per day. In the ‘quiet’ between Helpline Calls, the following call backs have taken place:

· Attempts to make contact – 352

· Successful Contacts – 270

· No Answer – 82

· Closed – 197

· Additional Follow Ups required – 73

· Referrals Made – 85

Policy Implications

Shoalhaven City Council submissions

Council submissions to both the NSW Government Independent Inquiry and Royal Commission into National Natural Disasters Arrangements were submitted within the required deadlines during this report’s period in early and mid May respectively.

Recovery Actions and Activities

Initiatives and work undertaken by Council, its Recovery Action Team leads and Local Emergency Management in support of affected Community members of the Shoalhaven LGA.

Built Recovery Action Team

· Providing up to date advice on Council’s recovery webpage of changes and FAQ on rebuilding issues including legislation changes and grant opportunities and ensuring Council staff have the most current information

· Continuing support for temporary housing, especially the use of moveable dwellings in relation to Minderoo Project with two units committed and more expected

· Continuing internal discussions on impacted heritage properties and pathways for clean up as well as asbestos contamination issues

· Engaging with Laing O’Rourke on processes for individual heritage properties affected by the bushfire to assist with clean-up activities

· Representation on Southern Planning, Development and Environment sub-committee of the Regional Bushfire Recovery Committee to seek consistency across councils and push issues up to regional level

· Re-development and building enquires and follow up being provided through phone and email contact

· Assisting owners with review processes where they are not satisfied with Laing O’Rourke scoping assessments and engaging with Public Works for out of scope situations

· Ongoing efforts to ensure that as many properties are registered for clean up as possible

· Preliminary work on projects for bushfire funding applications

Social Recovery Action Team

· Call Back Service now reached over 350 people with overwhelming positive response

· Recovery Assistance Hotline is now gaining traction with upwards of 5 calls per day.

· Released a survey to Community Service Providers and other agencies to assist with mapping service provision across the Shoalhaven.

· Released a Health and Wellbeing survey to the general public to track how people have been engaging with services during recovery, to ascertain what works well and where the barriers are.

· Carried out a series of consultations with community service providers, state and federal agencies to assist with the mapping exercise, establish what is working well and where there are opportunities.

· Planning for 3 June Health and Wellbeing action group meeting.

· Connected with Barnardos, Red Cross and other agencies for regular weekly catch ups to feed into recovery committee.

· Working with Resilience NSW and Service NSW on rolling out survey to people whose properties have been damaged/destroyed.

· Connected Save the Children Journey of Hope program in with local High Schools and Public Schools. The program aims to build resilience among children after a disaster.

· Organising meetings between RFS and Aboriginal Land Councils to discuss Bushfire Management strategies and reengaging with Bushfire Management Committee

· Providing up to date advice on Council’s recovery webpage of changes in service offerings and grants.

· Representation on Southern Region Health and Wellbeing sub-committee of the Regional Bushfire Recovery Committee to seek consistency across councils and push issues up to regional level

Environment Recovery Action Team

· Representation on Southern Planning, Development and Environment sub-committee of the Regional Bushfire Recovery Committee to seek consistency across councils and elevate issues to regional level.

· Representation on Southern Waste sub-committee of the Regional Bushfire Recovery Committee to seek consistency across councils and elevate issues to regional level.

· Council has secured $1.4 million in grant funding for bushfire affected waterways, to be used over the next 3 years. Projects include:

1. $427,281 to prepare a Bushfire Recovery Plan across the south east catchments. This plan will cover the Shoalhaven, Eurobodalla and Bega Council areas.

2. $1,000,000 for the Shoalhaven to undertake catchment stabilisation, water quality monitoring, weed control, regeneration and ecological monitoring works.

· Assisting Laing O’Rourke with process improvement for tree removal around bushfire impacted buildings.

· Commencing discussion on the possible extension of a community led resilience project with Griffith University, adopting the award winning model prepared by the Sussex Inlet Community.

· Co-ordinating with Roads and Maritime Service for the removal of navigational hazards such as burnt out boats and burnt jetties from Lake Conjola.

· Participation in NSW Government Inquiry held for Conjola and surrounds community, NSW Government for the broader Shoalhaven area and the RFS / NPWS community meeting for Conjola and surrounding areas.

· As of Sunday 17 May, 15,035 tonnes of bushfire demolition waste delivered to West Nowra for processing from 187 houses. 7,645 tonnes already recycled and 2,000 - 3,000t in stockpile ready for recycling.

Economic/Tourism Recovery Action Team

· Continuing with the ‘Spend Here This Year’ campaign. Publicity has reached 4.2 million people through 64 pieces of media coverage. Online advertising has reached over 580,000 people with over 9,000 landing page views on Shoalhaven.com/spendhere. The campaign encourages those that can't travel right now to buy Shoalhaven products, virtual experiences and vouchers online, as well as a strong local supporting local element.

· Meeting with Business Chambers and industry representatives to update them on Spend Here This Year and seek input on strategies for when regional travel resumes on June 1.

· Ensuring key messages around the return of visitors includes bushfire related messaging, similar to the Rejuvenate campaign. Ensuring visitors know there are still some areas closed due to fire damage and the importance of treading lightly and being respectful.

· Representation on the Regional Small Business and Tourism Recovery Sub-Committee.

· Numerous radio/press interviews regarding Spend Here This Year and the re-commencement of regional travel.

· Continuing one on one support for small business, including information on funding and support available.

· Working with State Government and Ernst & Young on the new Business Support 'Drop In' centres, ensuring a cohesive approach to business support throughout the region.

· Business Mentoring Session specifically related to social media marketing are continuing with over 50 businesses attending to date.

· Communication with businesses through both Tourism and Economic Development newsletters regarding grant opportunities, mental health support, training and other business support on a regular basis.

· Working closely with regional and state government and tourism bodies to ensure key economic driver projects are recognised and documented ahead of any possible funding. Including key cross regional projects to support fire effected LGAs.

· Attending information sessions, webinars and meetings related to building back better and business resilience to help inform decision making.

Local Emergency Management

· Initial stages community engagement programs to be undertaken prior to next fire season to encourage community and personal preparation of plans and to assist the community in understanding warnings, evacuation centres and Neighbourhood Safer Places.

· Liaise with Local Aboriginal Land Councils and RFS to strengthen partnerships in protection of vulnerable communities.

· Application to Office of Emergency Management to identify Shoalhaven City Council as part of the official ‘GET READY” program.

· Continue to respond to individual impacted community members to assist with insurance claims or provision of financial assistance and confirm loss of property.

· Continue to attend meetings as required:

o LEMC/EOC SITREP meetings COVID19 – as required

o REMC meetings COVID – as required

o Jervis Bay EMC – COVID – as required

o Recovery Meetings – Fire & COVID Once per fortnight

· Assist in finalisation of submissions to Royal Commission relating to the preparation and response actions undertaken by Shoalhaven City Council to the Black Summer fires.

Looking out the Windscreen

Council is asked to note that the work of Recovery and repair after the fires is sufficiently under control and management to be satisfying the aim of the Recovery.

Council is asked to acknowledge that the vision of the Recovery is for the Shoalhaven to emerge from this bushfire and its impacts in a better, stronger and more resilient position than it was prior to the bushfire emergency.

The vision is founded necessarily upon resilience into readiness for the next season and beyond. To this end the Recovery focus in the coming weeks is:

· to conduct virtual Community Recovery meetings focussed on readiness and preparations for the next fire season and in particular emphasising the need to factor in potential COVID implications. This is intended to amplify the partnership between Council and RFS for the RFS’ September ‘Get ready’ campaign.

· to reinvigorate the significant and very effective work of community led resilience conducted by Griffith University within the Shoalhaven over the recent past couple of years. The ‘trial’ community for this work was Sussex Inlet and the product of the study is well worth Council’s deeper attention; and,

· to scope the art of the possible and potential gain for our Community of potential practical early wins such as exploring Citywide improvements to power and communication resilience with expert support from agencies such as NBN and Endeavour Energy.

Assist in the development of programs to enhance communications and power to Risk Implications

Understanding and acknowledgement of the significant work and ongoing progress is essential for the well-being of Council Staff. It is through the Council Staff’s enthusiasm that recovery, and its resilience in the ongoing response to COVID19, will be effective.

Recovery Coordinator assessment is that the biggest risk to Shoalhaven LGA recovery is reputational. Any detraction from the collective effort of the Council, from Recovery Coordinator’s perspective, is actively discouraged.

Council may provide further mitigation of potential reputational risk by acknowledging the effort and activity to date and taking every opportunity to amplify it with their relevant ward constituents and in the public domain.

The further the time since the fires, and the addition of COVID19 will eventually present an amplified level of risk of higher consequence than that posed by the bushfire and its recovery and almost certain likelihood to Council’s reputation and Councillors’ leadership of the Shoalhaven community

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 26 May 2020

Page 0

CL20.116 Draft Delivery Program Operational Plan and Budget 2020-21 - Public Exhibition

HPERM Ref: D20/101260

Section: Executive Strategy

Approver: Stephen Dunshea, Chief Executive Officer

Attachments: 1. Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan and Budget 2020-21 (councillors information folder) ⇨

2. Draft Fees and Charges 2020-21-Part 1 (councillors information folder) ⇨

3. Draft Fees and Charges 2020-21-Part 2 (councillors information folder) ⇨

Reason for Report

To provide Council with the Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan (DPOP), Draft Budget and Draft Fees and Charges for 2020/21 and to seek the endorsement of Council to place these documents on public exhibition, in accordance with legislative requirements.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Endorses the 2020/21 Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan, Budget, Fees and Charges for the purpose of placing on public exhibition, as soon as possible, for a period of 28 days including:

a. With consideration to the unprecedented times of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is recommended for Council to increase rates by 3.4% (2.6% rate peg plus 0.8% SRV) in 2020/21 rather than by the maximum approved SRV of 5% and, as permitted by section 511 of the Local Government Act 1993, to catch up on the shortfall in general income in future years.

b. In order to expedite provision of the COVID-19 subsidy to the ratepayers, it is recommended for the Council to issue rates notices by 1 August 2020 and to provide additional relief to ratepayers by deferring the collection of the first quarter rates instalment until 30 September 2020, as allowed by the regulations under section 747B of the Local Government Act 1993.

c. It is recommended to the Council to maintain the 2019/20 rating structure, comprising both base and ad valorem amounts. The use of a base amount brings the higher and lower values closer together and in effect spreads the burden across the board to all ratepayers. This is a common rating structure that is considered to provide the fairest and most equitable distribution of the rate levy across the LGA.

d. As Shoalhaven Council faces new challenges and offers new financial relief options to the ratepayers, including farmers, it is recommended to discontinue the drought financial assistance measures adopted in September 2018 and to reassess the most appropriate drought assistance measures if such need occurs. Should hardship arise, farmers will have an option to seek financial assistance under the Hardship Policy and may be provided relief under delegated authority of the CEO.

e. Council notes that the budget includes a reduction in the total of the annual rate yield for Jerberra Estate. Special Rates will decrease from $828,060 to $321,410 for the remaining five years of Special Rate Variation.

2. Receive a report on feedback from the community on the draft documents following the exhibition period for consideration prior to returning to Council for adoption.

3. Notes Council officers will continue to assess the COVID-19 impacts on the Draft Operational Plan actions and Budget 2020/21 during the exhibition period.

Options

1. Council resolve to place the Draft DPOP, Budget and Fees and Charges for 2020/21, on public exhibition for 28 days with the 3.4% rates increase as recommended.

Implications

The documents will be placed on public exhibition as presented in the report with a report back to a Council Meeting in June with details of submissions received.

2. Council resolve to place the Draft DPOP, Budget and Fees and Charges for 2020/21, on public exhibition for 28 days with the Council Resolution on:

a. the full 5% SRV rates increase which will provide an additional $1.22 million of revenue to fund additional works, services and/or infrastructure projects.

b. 2.6% rate peg rates increase which will be sufficient to fund increase in operational costs only and will result in $660k decrease in funding for Roads Renewal Program.

c. Council nominate a rate increase noting that each percent reduction from the recommended 3.4% increase would equate to a reduction in revenue of $780k.

Implications

Council would need to provide direction to staff in relation to necessary budget adjustments to accommodate the recommended alternate rate increase. Ideally, options in this regard should be placed on public exhibition with the DPOP documents presented in this report.

Background

In accordance with the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) requirements in the Local Government Act, Council has developed a Delivery Program for the period 2017-2021. Due to the postponement of the 2020 local government elections, the current IPR cycle has been extended by 12 months to June 2022. The now five-year Delivery Program 2017-2022, inclusive of the draft Operational Plan and Budget 2020/21, is presented to Council for endorsement for public exhibition.

Council developed, exhibited and adopted an accompanying Resourcing Strategy in 2017. The Strategy contains the Workforce Plan, Asset Management Plan and the Long-Term Financial Plan. An updated Long-Term Financial Plan will be presented for adoption alongside the final documents at a Council Meeting expected to be held prior to 30 June.

Council Priorities

The Delivery Program details what activities Council intends to undertake in order to achieve the key priorities from the Community Strategic Plan (Shoalhaven 2027). These priorities are grouped under the Key Themes of:

· Resilient, Safe and inclusive communities

· Sustainable, liveable environments

· Prosperous communities

· Responsible Governance

The combined Delivery Program and Operational Plan (DPOP) outlines the projects and services Council will deliver under each of the priorities identified by the community.

Focus on Disaster Recovery and Resilience

Natural disasters of bushfire and flood have significantly impacted the Shoalhaven community over the past year. Combined with current impact and response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Council’s focus in the coming year is on economic recovery and building community resilience into the future.

Alongside Council continuing to maintain and provide new infrastructure and deliver quality services, the following new actions focused on recovery and resilience have been included in the draft Plan:

· Advocate for legislative change to allow the implementation of measures to assist protection of Shoalhaven urban areas from future bushfire attack

· Assist the implementation of recommendations from the relevant government bushfire inquiries

· Undertake bushfire resilience planning for Shoalhaven Water Assets

· Review and update the Shoalhaven Adaptation Plan 2030

· Undertake social mapping to identify community needs with a focus on improving resilience

· Continue the implementation of the Shoalhaven Recovery Action Plan until transition to normal business and service

· Develop and implement initiatives to encourage help-seeking and to build community understanding of mental health issues and available supports

· Facilitate business training and enhance labour force capabilities in parallel with bushfires and pandemic recovery

· Develop and implement strategies that encourage business growth and job creation in response to the impact of the bushfires and COVID-19 pandemic

Key Activities and Major Projects

Projects outlined in the Plan have an emphasis on providing economic stimulus toward economic recovery from the pandemic. Major project highlights include:

· Boongaree Nature Playground – Stage 1 construction of nature-based play Youth Zone including family picnic, BBQ facilities and amenities block

· Deliver two new Croquet Courts at Ulladulla Sports Park

· Complete skate park improvements at Ulladulla and Sanctuary Point

· Undertake the community consultation on the detailed design for the new Sanctuary Point District Library, and progress to construction as soon as possible.

· Advocate for funding to realise Council’s vision for the Shoalhaven Community and Recreation Precinct

· Progress work on the Far-North Collector Road to help bust traffic congestion and accommodate future housing growth

· Continue to lobby for funding to complete additional works to sustain effective management of Lake Conjola.

· Complete the rehabilitation of the Shoalhaven Heads River Road Foreshore Precinct through drainage works, construction of new revetment wall and providing beach access

Performance targets

This coming year, performance targets against each Operational Plan Action have been included to ensure that Council continues to be accountable against the goals that have been set in order to meet community expectations.

Some of these targets are a benchmark based on ‘business-as-usual’ operation as timing for re-opening of facilities to full capacity following the pandemic closures is still unknown. This includes metrics such as visitor numbers at Council facilities such as the Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre or aquatic and leisure centres. These targets will be reported on a ‘pro-rata’ basis dependent on lifting of restrictions.

COVID-19 Assistance Package

To assist residents during the unprecedented times of the COVID-19 pandemic and to support recovery of the region, Council has endorsed an extensive Financial Relief Package for local businesses, residents, sporting and community groups. The relief package comprises up to $17.5 million ratepayer financial relief, rental and fee waivers, 50% discount of development contributions, and additional community grants. The estimated total value of the package is over $22.5 million. Overview of the financial relief measures is provided below, with full details outlined in the budget section..

Residents:

· Option of $300 of financial relief through reductions in domestic waste, water and sewer annual charges and providing one-off rates subsidy.

· Deferred due date of the first rates instalment by 1 month to 30 September 2020, and a waiver of interest on overdue rate notices for a period of up to 12 months for those demonstrating hardship.

· Community hire fees for libraries and regional gallery will be waived for a period of six months following the official lifting of COVID-19 restrictions.

Businesses:

· Rental fees waiver for all Council tenants (Commercial, Retail, Community & Sporting Groups) until October 1, 2020.

· For an initial period of six months, new development that meets the criteria outlined in the COVID-19 Contributions Discount Subsidy Policy may be eligible for 50% refund of section 7.11 development contributions.

· Until further notice, 50% fee waiver of DA pre-lodgement fees.

· Business support through promotion - Shoalhaven Tourism “Spend Here This Year’ campaign

Community and Sporting Groups:

· Additional $50k available through Council’s Capital Sports Funding program in 2020/21. Changes to the program will allow clubs to apply for equipment purchases or to recoup costs incurred as a direct result of COVID-19.

· Extension of the Community Development Grants Program with an additional $20k available to help communities rebuild and reconnect.

· Extension of the Arts Board Program with an additional funding boost of $25k.

· 100% fee waiver for 6 months after the official lifting of restrictions of Shoalhaven Swim Sport Fitness community regular, not-for-profit sporting / swimming group fees for Shoalhaven Canoe & Kayak Club and Bay & Basin, Bomaderry, Nowra, and Ulladulla Swim Clubs.

· 50% fee waiver for a period of 3 months after the official lifting of restrictions at the Indoor Sports Centre for all Shoalhaven-based, regular hirers – noting local competition only.

Bushfire Recovery Assistance 

Council is committed to continue supporting local businesses and residents on their way to recovery from the catastrophic Currowan Bushfire that ran for 74 days from late November 2019 to early February 2020.   

Council will continue waiving development application fees and interest accruing on the rates instalments issued after December 2019 until 30 June 2021. 

In addition, to assist local businesses, Council has temporarily amended its Local Preference Policy (POL20/19) by increasing local preference price discount from 5% to up to 50% for businesses located in the Shoalhaven.  The purpose of the Policy is to support the City and the Region’s economic recovery from the bushfires  by giving preference to local suppliers and non-local suppliers using local content where possible while ensuring that Council achieves the best ‘overall value for money’ in its procurement of goods and services. 

Revenue Policy

2020/21 Rates Increase

In 2010, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales (IPART) was delegated responsibility for determining the allowable annual increase in local government general rates income. Shoalhaven City Council was declared as a Fit for the Future Council by the NSW State Government in 2015. This was based on a Council submission provided to the Office of Local Government (OLG) and IPART which outlined several actions the Council would undertake to improve its financial sustainability.

To ensure consistency with our Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP) and to meet our Fit for the Future benchmarks, Council successfully applied to IPART in February 2018 for an SRV for each of the three financial years: 2018/19; 2019/20 and 2020/21.

Special rates variation was approved in order to allow the Council to improve its financial sustainability, fund capital expenditure, reduce its infrastructure backlog, reduce its operating deficit and fund asset renewal and maintenance.

As per IPART determination, in 2020/21 Shoalhaven City Council can increase rates by a maximum of 5% (2.6% rate peg plus 2.4% increase in addition to the rate peg as per approved SRV).

With consideration to the unprecedented times of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is recommended for Council to increase rates by 3.4% (2.6% rate peg plus 0.8% SRV) in 2020/21 rather than by the maximum approved SRV of 5% and, as permitted by section 511 of the Local Government Act 1993, to catch up on the shortfall in general income in future years.

Indicatively, a 3.4% increase (2.6% rate peg plus 0.8% SRV) in the Council’s 2020/21 rates will generate an additional $2.7 million of revenue that will allow the Council to contiue to deliver the services and infrastructure that meet community needs and expectations.

It is important to note that IPART determines annual rate peg increase based on the Local Government Cost Index (LGCI). The LGCI is a measure of movements in the unit costs incurred by NSW councils for ordinary council activities funded from general rate revenue. As such, the purpose of the rate peg is to compensate councils for the increase in their operational costs and it is required to fund ongoing operational expenditures of councils in NSW.

The 2.6% rate peg increase will generate $2.04 million of additional revenue for the Council and will be fully utilised to absorb increases in salaries and wages as per Local Government Award.

Council already generates $11.3 million of SRV income and an additional 0.8% SRV rates increase ($660k) in 2020/21 will be allocated to fund essential SRV Roads and Transport Renewals Program.

The total SRV income above the actual rate peg for 2019/20 and proposed allocation for 2020/21 (including 0.8% increase) is summarised in the table below.

	2019/20 actual	2020/21 proposed
Assist to Cover Existing Operating Costs	$4,332,303	$3,026,666
Additional Operations	$2,050,000	$2,101,250
Verons Loan Repayments	$148,981	$148,981
Additional Maintenance
Roads	$615,000	$630,375
Buildings and Facilities	$205,000	$210,125
Parks and Reserves	$205,000	$210,125
Additional Capital
Roads and Transport Renewals	$2,201,779	$2,917,429
Building and Facilities Renewal	$1,000,000	$2,395,000
Sports Field Upgrade	$512,500	$525,313
Total SRV:	$11,270,563	$12,165,264

Deferral of the First Instalment Due Date

As per OLG Circular - Modification of Statutory Requirements in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, regulations have been temporarily modified (under section 747B of the Local Government Act 1993) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Council has the option to delay issuing rates notices to ratepayers until 1 September 2020, and the collection of the first quarter rates instalment until 30 September 2020.

It order to expedite provision of the COVID-19 subsidy to the ratepayers, it is recommended for the Council to issue rates notices by the 1 August 2020 and to provide additional relief to the ratepayers by deferring the collection of the first quarter rates instalment until 30 September 2020, as allowed by the OLG regulations under section 747B of the Local Government Act 1993.

Proposed 2020/21 Rates Structure

It is recommended to the Council to maintain the 2019/20 rating structure, comprising both base and ad valorem amounts. The use of a base amount brings the higher and lower values closer together and in effect spreads the burden across the board to all ratepayers. This is a common rating structure and is considered to provide the fairest and most equitable distribution of the rate levy across the LGA.

The rating structure has a flat base amount of $661.00, with the exception of Residential – Non-Urban category that has a base of $48.00 and Business – Ordinary category that does not have a base amount and is subject to an ad valorem rate in the dollar levied on the value of the property supplied by the Valuer General of NSW.

The following rates are proposed for 2020/21 in respect of each category of ordinary rate levied by the Council.

· Residential Rates: Will be levied a base amount of $661.00 and an ad valorem rate of 0.17871 cents in the dollar for Ordinary Residential Rates and a base amount of $48.00 and an ad valorem of 0.17871 cents in the dollar for Residential Non-Urban Rates.

· Farmland: The rates for both Farmland and Dairy Farmland will be levied a base amount of $661.00 and an ad valorem rate of 0.14830 and 0.07560 cents in the dollar, respectively.

· Business: All sub-categories will utilise the same base amount of $661.00, excluding Business Permit (Ordinary – Business category), where no base amount is applied given the type of properties within this category. However, different ad valorems have been applied, depending on the level of service provided in each area. An ad valorem rate for Nowra CBD business rates is 0.55320 cents in the dollar and 0.25920 for the other business rates.

In respect of each special rate levied by the Council, the following are proposed as the special rates for 2020/21:

Category	Sub-Category	Ad Valorem (c in $)	Base Rate Amount ($)	Base Rate	Total Rate Yield ($)
Residential	(903) Verons Road Upgrade Special Rate - Dwelling Potential (commenced 1 July 2017)	0.62359	2,674.00	49.98%	117,695
Residential	(904) Verons Road Upgrade Special Rate - No Dwelling Potential (commenced 1 July 2017)	0.14010	298.00	50.00%	5,960
Residential	(170) Nebraska Road Construction Special Rate	0.11677	121.00	49.80%	5,588
Residential	(900) Jerberra Rd Infrastructure	0.43740	1,094.33	50.00%	234,186
Residential	(901) Jerberra Electricity Infrastructure	0.14749	368.99	50.00%	78,965
Residential	(902) Jerberra Road - E2	0.88050	258.09	50.00%	8,259
Business	Sussex Area Special Rate	0.03130			16,229
Total:					466,882

It is important for the Councillors to note that the infrastructure works for the Jerberra Estates were completed in 2019/20 (with the exception of minor land acquisition for fire trails) with a total construction cost of $5 million and the adjustment was made to the Jerberra Estate rates to reflect $2.2 million of savings. As a result of the adjustment, the total of the annual rate yield for Jerberra Estate decreased from $828,060 to $321,410 for the remaining five years of the loan and Special Rate Variation.

The Verons Estate special rate is based on the repayment of a 20-year loan for the construction of infrastructure at this estate. The total cost estimate was $2.13 million. This is expected to be completed during 2020/21 close to the estimate.

Rate Relief for Drought-Affected Farmers

In September 2018, Council gave public notice of proposed financial assistance measures for drought affected farmers and the following measures were adopted:

· Council amended its Hardship Policy to allow all Farmland rated property owners experiencing financial hardship due to the drought to make an application to have their rates payment deferred to the 2019/20 financial year on submission of a Financial Hardship Application – Farmland form

· Issue of two Drought Relief Waste Disposal vouchers for each Shoalhaven property with a ‘Farmland’ or ‘Farmland – Dairy Farmers’ rating

· Suspension of the accrual of interest on overdue rates payments from Farmland and Farmland – Dairy Farmers assessments

· Support for any application for Tractor and B-Double access to local roads.

· Waiver of fees for commercial quantity loads (over 2m3) of Council’s pasteurised garden waste product, where and when available –

· Acceptance of sufficiently decontaminated silage wrap, at no charge, at all 10 waste depots (not just West Nowra and Ulladulla) to minimise travel distance for farmers

· Mayor’s Relief Fund “Drought” appeal to assist drought-affected farmers in the Shoalhaven

It was proposed that the City be defined as drought-affected while its parishes are identified by the Department of Primary Industries’ Combined Drought Indicator (CDI) as being in the ‘Drought Affected (weakening)’ phase or worse.

As Shoalhaven Council faces new challenges and offers new financial relief options to the ratepayers, including farmers, it is recommended to discontinue the specific financial assistance measures adopted in September 2018 and to reassess the most appropriate drought assistance measures if such need occurs. Should hardship arise, farmers will have an option to seek financial assistance under the Hardship Policy and may be provided the relief under delegated authority of the CEO.

Domestic Waste Management Charges

Council is committed to promoting waste avoidance, minimisation, reuse and resource recovery, and the reduction of waste disposed of to landfill. In accordance with this commitment, Council have instigated a number of responses involving a combination of collection and disposal options and corresponding pricing structures.

The charging structure for 2020/21 is based on reasonable cost recovery, with the aim to avoid, minimise, reduce, recycle and reuse waste and embodies financial incentives to encourage sorting and separating materials, with disincentives for mixed, inseparable or problem loads of waste.

To assist residents during the unprecedented times of the COVID-19 pandemic, Council has endorsed a 12-month reduction in waste fees and charges by a total of $44 per property in 2020/21. The amount of the reduction is an estimate only and may be subject to change. Residents will be able to opt-in for the reduction in their waste charges. For the residents that choose to opt-in, the reduction in fees will be shown as a separate credit line with the description: COVID-19 Council Financial Assistance Subsidy and fees outlined below do not include the one-off reduction of $44.

It is also recommended that in response to the 2019/20 unprecedented bushfires, Council provide free green waste for one further month following the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions. This is a preferred alternative to the provision of additional vouchers.

All rateable properties categorised as residential for rating purposes, and comprising of a building which is deemed to be a dwelling and located within the defined (urban) waste collection area are required to pay an annual charge of $385 for the availability of a standard Domestic Waste Management Service (Section 496(1) of the Local Government Act). GST is not applicable to the domestic waste management service.

Domestic Waste Management Service means services comprising the periodic collection of domestic waste from individual parcels of rateable land and services that are associated with those services.

· The standard domestic waste collection service comprises of one 120 litre mobile garbage bin (MGB) for landfill waste and one 240 litre MGB for recycling. The landfill bin is collected weekly and recycling bin is collected fortnightly.

· For a higher annual charge of $670, the 120-litre landfill bin may be substituted for a 240-litre landfill bin.

· For a lower annual charge of $292, the 120-litre landfill bin may be substituted for an 80-litre landfill bin.

Properties outside the urban collection area may opt to use the rural collection service. Rateable properties comprising of a building which is deemed to be a dwelling and located outside of the defined (urban) waste collection area, and opt for the rural domestic waste collection service, will be required to pay an annual charge of $385 for the provision of a standard Rural Domestic Waste Management Service (Section 501 of the Local Government Act 1993).

The service will be made available to householders outside of the defined (urban) waste collection service area, where the average bin spacing over the return distance along a proposed service road is less than 500m and there are no obvious road safety hazards. Council will determine the availability of the service based on results from surveys of properties adjacent to a proposed route that show compliance with the bin spacing and safety requirements.

· The standard rural domestic waste collection service comprises of one 120 litre mobile garbage bin (MGB) for landfill waste and one 240 litre MGB for recycling. The landfill bin is collected weekly and the recycling is collected fortnightly.

· For a higher annual charge of $670, the 120-litre landfill bin may be substituted for a 240-litre landfill bin.

· For a lower annual charge of $292, the 120-litre landfill bin may be substituted for an 80-litre landfill bin.

Properties outside a nearby rural domestic waste collection service area may opt to use the service. If this option is selected, the property owner will arrange for the collection container(s) to be placed at an agreed point within the collection area for servicing, and they will be charged the rural domestic waste management charge for the type of service selected.

Budget Summary

Income Statement by Fund

	($‘000)
	General Fund	Water Fund	Sewer Fund	Consolidated
Income from Continuing Operations	273,297	33,949	53,294	294,159
Expenses from Continuing Operations	249,485	30,470	43,886	259,656
Net Operating Result	23,812	3,479	9,408	34,503
Net Operating Results Before Capital	(2,967)	(371)	7,358	1,824

Council’s finances have been and continue to be impacted by COVID-19 measures and the restrictions introduced to control the spread of the virus. This is evident in the closure of services, reduction in gathering in public places and social distancing requirements. Council has developed new ways to operate and deliver services, while maintaining the health and wellbeing of our people.

Ongoing business disruption that is being experienced will have significant financial consequences on the proposed 2020/21 Budget. The financial impact of this situation is being assessed, along with options to ensure Council continues to be managed in a fiscally responsible manner. It is intended that the outcomes of this assessment and any necessary adjustments to the 2020/21 draft Budget will be provided for consideration through the quarterly budget review process or the sooner should the circumstances warrant.

It is important for the Councillors to know that the $300 of financial relief per rate assessment subsidy will have NIL net financial impact on the 2020/21 budget. A liability will be recognised as at 30 June 2020 supported by the reserve. In 2020/21, funds from this reserve will be used to decrease rates and fees and charges receivable balance (Credit Accounts Receivable; Debit Liability). The financial impact of other measures of COVID-19 Financial Assistance package is not included in the 2020/21 Budget. Therefore, further adjustments may be required as the situation evolves.

The proposed 2020/21 Budget is based on the principles of prudent financial management and fiscal discipline. It is a balanced budget which means that the budgeted general fund operational and capital expenditures do not exceed general revenue of the Council and conforms to the requirement for no cash deficit budgeting. Maintaining a healthy level of working capital was also taken into consideration in the proposed 2020/21 Budget.

The proposed balanced budget is outlined below ($‘000):

	General Fund Total	Water Fund Total	Sewer Fund	Consolidated
Income from Continuing Operations	$273,297	$33,949	$53,294	$294,159
Expenses from Continuing Operations	$249,485	$30,470	$43,886	$259,656
Net Operating Result	$23,812	$3,479	$9,408	$34,503
Net Operating results before Capital	($2,967)	($371)	$7,358	$1,824
Other Cash Adjustments
Capital Expenditure	($119,913)	($22,960)	($19,890)	($162,763)
New Borrowings	$35,074	$0	$0	$35,074
Loan Principal Repayments	($6,064)	$0	($8,164)	($14,228)
Loan Principal Repayments	$0	$989	$0	$989
Internal Dividend Payment	$0	($712)	($1,484)	$0
Proceeds from the disposal of assets	$5,173	$120	$140	$5,433
Depreciation Adjustment	$44,788	$10,134	$12,984	$67,906
Depreciation Adjustment	$176	$114	$13	$303
Total Cash Adjustments	($40,766)	($12,315)	($16,401)	($67,286)
Net Cash Movement	($16,954)	($8,836)	($6,993)	($32,783)
Reserve Movements
Transfer from Reserves	$153,822	$8,836	$6,993	$169,651
Transfer to Reserves	($136,868)			($136,868)
Net Transfer from reserves	$16,954	$8,836	$6,993	$32,783
Net Cash Movement	$0	$0	$0	$0

The 2020/21 Budget was prepared based on the following economic parameters that were presented to the Councillors at the budget briefings:

Number of Assessable Properties	+1.0% pa
Rate Increases	3.4% increase in 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23 (0.8% SRV catch up plus rate peg of 2.5%)
Financial Assistance Grant	CPI
Other Recurrent Government Grants	+2.0% pa
Interest on Investments	2% (estimate of weighted average return applied to cash flow projection)
Employee Costs	2.5% estimated award increase
On-Costs	38.9%
Road Maintenance	1.6%
Materials and Contracts	No increase
Electricity Costs	5% increase
Borrowings Repayment Schedule General Water and Sewer	10-20 years 15-20 years N/A
Interest Expense for New Loans	2.5%
Other Expenses	No increase
Working Capital	Equals or exceeds the recorded asset balances for debtors (excluding restricted debtors) and inventory (including real estate held for sale).

Budget Details – General Fund

The Operating Result for 2020/21, excluding capital grants, is a deficit of ($2,967K), compared to the estimated surplus of ($2,252K) as reported in previous year Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP). The financial results forecasted in the LTFP assumed full SRV increase of 5% in 2020/21, while current budget is based on 3.4% increase in rates revenue and as a result, rates revenue is $1.3 million lower than projected. In addition, revenue in LTFP was based on the assumption of 4% increase of all user fees and charges across the organisation. However, Council maintained the majority of fees and charges on 2019/20 level with some insignificant increases.

When capital grants are included, the net operating result is a surplus of $23,812k. There is no net impact on the cash flow result for unrestricted general fund, that is, the budget.

Capital Works Program – General Fund

An extensive $120 million capital works program has been allocated in the Draft Budget for 2020/21. This includes an additional $41 million of strategic projects that will support economic recovery of our community.

Program/Project	2020/21 Budget
Active Recreation Total, Including:	8,687,700
Boongaree Park	4,000,000
SCARP - Croquet	1,000,000
Passive Recreation Total, Including:	4,116,100
Moss Vale Rd South URA	250,000
Vincentia Placemaking	2,744,000
Cultural Centres Total, Including:	7,929,338
Bay & Basin Community Hub	420,000
Sanctuary Point District Library	2,000,000
Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre Upgrade	4,905,158
Roads Strategy Projects Total, Including:	6,193,650
Comerong Island Ferry Replacement	969,000
Far North Collector Road D & C	3,840,000
Moss Vale Road South Land Acquisitions	250,000
Moss Vale Road South URA Roads	250,000
Stormwater / Drainage Total, Including:	2,709,700
Moss Vale Road South URA Drainage	250,000
Admin and Depot Buildings	1,811,797
Bridge Program	1,061,200
Car Parking Construction Total, Including:	1,085,023
Nowra CBD All Day Carparking	300,000
Sussex Inlet car parking (16 Nielson Road & 45-47 Ellmoos Avenue)	485,023
Waterways Infrastructure Total, Including:	1,935,000
Shoalhaven Heads - Wharf Road - BLR & pontoon	615,000
Woollamia- Extend Pontoons	465,000
Roads Repair and Pedestrian Facilities	17,030,759
Community Buildings	2,754,000
Environmental Management	1,194,700
Fire Protection and Emergency Services	636,000
Fleet and Plant, Mechanical Services	6,006,949
Industrial Land Development	7,810,000
IT Capital Projects	2,987,977
Kerb and Gutter	246,000
Library	495,500
Other	2,241,793
Public Amenities	520,000
Streetscapes	565,038
Swim and Fitness	753,000
Tourist Parks	7,145,200
Traffic Facilities Program	2,357,850
Waste and Recycling Program Total, Including:	22,049,000
AWT/Organic Processing/MRF	15,260,000
Bioelektra Resource Recovery Facility RRF	2,000,000
Proposed Grants Total, Including:	9,590,000
Southern SCARP - Artie Smith Oval and Croquet Construction	$5,000,000

Grand Total	119,913,274

The proposed funding sources for the capital works program are:

Funding Source	$ '000	%
Loans	29,995	25%
- Cultural Centres Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre Upgrade	$ 4,905	4%
- Boongaree Park	$ 4,000	3%
- Corporate Business Systems Implementation	$ 2,500	2%
- Caravan Park Development	$ 3,590	3%
- Waste Management - AWT/Organic Processing/MRF (Waste Fund)	$ 15,000	13%
General Fund Contribution	18,088	15%
Special Rate Variation	8,536	7%
Stormwater Levy	1,138	1%
Grants	17,929	15%
Other Internal and External Reserves	34,637	29%
Potential Grants with Matching Borrowings*	9,590	8%
Total	119,913	100%

*Council actively pursues grant funding opportunities with $9.6 million of prospective grant funding projects included in 2020/21 Draft Budget.

It is important to note that the COVID-19 might have significant impact on Council’s ability to deliver and resource some projects and the capital works program remains flexible and will be reassessed by management as the situation evolves.

Loan Program – General Fund

Council utilises a mix of internal and external reserves along with external borrowings to deliver its capital works program. In order to fund the delivery of key strategic projects and maintain a healthy level of working capital, the following new borrowings are proposed in 2020/21 financial year.

The proposed loan program is based on the principles of sound financial management endorsed by the Council:

· Only borrow to fund activities core to Council’s agreed priorities and never borrow to fund an operating deficit.

· Borrowings must result into generation of additional revenue and/or savings.

· Debt Service Cover Ratio (measures the availability of operating cash to cover total debt servicing costs) should be greater than 2x benchmark.

· Debt Service Ratio (measures total debt servicing costs as a percentage of operating income less capital items and specific purpose grants and contributions) should not exceed the industry benchmark of 15%.

It is important for the Councillors to note that the Additional Provision for Borrowings of $10 million might be utilised to fund infrastructure projects only if needed to retain an acceptable working funds balance of the general fund or if Council succeeds in acquiring grant funding and additional borrowings are required to fund Council contribution to the grant funded projects.

General Fund Projects	2020/21
Cultural Centres Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre Upgrade	$ 4,905,158
Boongaree Park	$ 4,000,000
Corporate Business Systems Implementation	$ 2,500,000
Caravan Park Development	$ 3,590,000
Waste Management - AWT/Organic Processing/MRF (Waste Fund)	$ 15,000,000
Total	$ 29,995,158
Additional Provision for Borrowings
Loan to fund multiple infrastructure projects*	$ 5,056,184
Matching Funding for potential grants (including $4 million for Artie Smith Oval)**	$ 5,080,000
Total	$ 10,136,184
Grand Total	$ 40,131,342
* This loan will be taken up to fund infrastructure projects only if needed to retain an acceptable working funds balance of the general fund.
**Council pursues various grant opportunities and additional borrowings might be required to fund Council contribution to the grant funded projects.

Noting the timing of drawdown on loans and commencement of the projects across the year, an additional $250K for the loans repayments of $30 million loans has been factored in 2020/21 operational budget as presented at the 3.4% rates increase. It is a common practice for the Council to get loans approved and the start of the financial year and to drawdown on new loans in the last quarter of the financial year.

Based on the current LTFP that may be subject to further change and review, following new loans are forecasted:

Graphs below illustrate projected loan balance and loan interest and repayments over the next 10 years.

Council Debt Service Cover Ratio (measures the availability of operating cash to cover total debt servicing costs) is forecasted to remain above 2x benchmark and Debt Service Ratio (measures total debt servicing costs as a percentage of operating income less capital items and specific purpose grants and contributions) will not not exceed the industry benchmark of 15%.

Management is also considering opportunities to take advantage of the NSW Government low cost loan initiative which assists councils with the cost of new infrastructure by funding 50% of the interest paid on borrowings related to infrastructure that enables new housing supply.

To qualify for the loan Council must have in place current or draft planning controls which are applicable to the council area and meet the relevant housing targets. Shoalhaven City Council already took advantage of this offer to fund land acquisition for the open space at the Moss Vale Road URA and potential projects that might qualify for low cost loan are Open Space and Infrastructure Development for Moss Vale Road and Mundamia URA.

Shoalhaven Water – Operating Budget

The Operating Result for Water Fund for 2020/21, excluding capital grants, is a deficit of ($371K). This is based on an increase of $1 in the water availability charge and 5c increase in the water usage charge.

When capital grants are included, the net operating result is a surplus of $3,479K.

The Operating Result of Sewer Fund for 2020/21, excluding capital grants, is a surplus of $7,358K. This is based on an increase of 1.4% in the sewer availability charge.

When capital grants are included, the net operating result is a surplus of $9,408K.

Shoalhaven Water – Capital Budget

The Shoalhaven Water Group capital expenditure of $42.8 million has been allocated in the Draft Budget for 2020/21. The total includes the following significant projects/programs:

· $10.0 million for Moss Vale Road Development

· $ 5.0 million for Electrical Workshop

· $12.5 million for upgrade of Mains and Pumping Stations

Community Engagement

A community engagement strategy has been prepared to ensure that the community can be informed about the contents of the Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan, Budget and Fees & Charges.

The engagement strategy includes a range of communication activities including advertising, media opportunities, digital promotions and information distribution, contact through CCBs and Business Chambers and through Council’s community engagement portal ‘Get Involved’. Council will also trial online Q & A sessions to enable community member to ‘drop-in’ and ask questions on the draft plans. The successful community information evenings held in recent years are unable to proceed this year due to the current COVID-19 restrictions.

Submissions will be able to be provided to Council online through our community engagement page, via email or in written form.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 26 May 2020

Page 0

CL20.117 Redeployment Strategy COVID-19

HPERM Ref: D20/134277

Section: Human Resources, Governance & Risk

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

Reason for Report

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on Council’s redeployment strategy in response to positions and employees having a reduction or loss of meaningful work due to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

Recommendation

That Council receive and note the update report from the CEO (Finance, Corporate and Community Services) on Council’s redeployment strategy in response to positions and employees having a reduction or loss of meaningful work due to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

Options

1. As recommended above.

Implications: Nil

2. Request additional information in a further report.

Implications: A further report will be prepared for a future meeting.

Background

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on Council’s redeployment strategy in response to employees having a reduction or loss of meaningful work due to the closure of facilities as a result of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

Councillors will recall that at its Ordinary Meeting on 7 April 2020 MIN20.240 was adopted; this report responds to Part 6:

‘The CEO to report on a strategy to redeploy Staff taking into account long service leave where relevant to positions that have been impacted by closure of sections of Council’s operation.’

Accordingly, a redeployment strategy was established to keep as many affected employees, both casual and permanent, in meaningful work as possible and prioritise redeployment for those employees most impacted.

This strategy has seen Council’s Human Resources & Organisational Development team working closely with Managers across Council to identify employees with a loss or reduction in their substantive roles and identifying redeployment opportunities.

Over this period of time the Local Government (Covid-19) Splinter (Interim) Award 2020 was introduced to assist councils during the COVID-19 pandemic. Shoalhaven City Council opted-in to the Splinter Award on 14 April 2020. To date 118 councils across NSW have also opted-in to the Splinter Award, which is effective until 7 April 2021.

The purpose of the Splinter Award is to assist with preserving jobs by affording employers greater flexibility to provide suitable alternative duties to employees that are unable to perform their regular duties due to Health Orders by the State or Commonwealth Governments relating to COVID-19.

Where there is no useful work for employees due to COVID-19, permanent employees may be temporarily stood down subject to Stage 1 (Special Leave), Stage 2 (Job Retention Allowance) and Stage 3 (Leave without pay) provisions of the Splinter Award.

There is also a provision in the Splinter Award which allows permanent employees to access Long Service Leave early and/or Annual Leave at half pay. Under the Local Government (State) Award, Council may direct employees with excess Long Service Leave or Annual Leave to take leave with 4 weeks’ notice. To date, this provision has not been accessed in response to the closure of facilities as all permanent employees have continued to work or have applied for leave.

Whilst there have been permanent employees impacted by the closures of facilities, none have been stood down as alternative duties have been available to them. All employees that have been stood down due to the closure of Council facilities are casual employees. Whilst casuals do not have an entitlement to leave or payment under the Splinter Award, Council’s redeployment strategy includes providing opportunities to casual employees with loss of work wherever possible so that they can continue to remain gainfully employed.

To identify the skills and experience of affected employees for the purpose of matching them to redeployment opportunities, commencing 31 March 2020 a survey was sent to all Council’s casual employees with loss of work due to workplace closures and permanent employees with a loss of meaningful work due to workplace closures. The survey allowed these employees the opportunity to provide information on their current skills and experience. The response rate to the survey as at 13 May 2020 is 60%.

In order to prioritise employees for redeployment opportunities in a fair and practical manner, the following information was collated:

· Number of hours worked over the past 12 months and over the past 3 months

· Distinction between regular and systematic casual or seasonal casual

· Skills and experience

· Licences or certificates held e.g. Cert III Horticulture or Admin, MR licence or Whitecard

· Supervisor recommendations for suitability for identified redeployment opportunities

A priority list was established with consideration given to these factors.

Matching of employees with positions/tasks commenced, resulting in excess of 120 employees being personally contacted by telephone by the Human Resources & Organisational Development team regarding redeployment availability or opportunities. Additional training has been identified and provided as appropriate.

The redeployment status as at 13 May 2020 is as follows:

· 66 redeployments have been confirmed (including 26 of 27 permanent employees impacted, the other being on leave)

· 25 redeployments currently in progress

· 62 of the impacted casual employees work more than 10 hours per week. Of these employees 28 have been redeployed, 17 have declined and 17 continue to seek redeployment.

· 129 of the impacted casual employees work less than 10 hours per week (year-round). Of these employees, 8 have been redeployed. Priority has been given to those who work more hours.

For some casual employees this is secondary employment and they have continued to be employed by their primary employer, have sought JobKeeper payments through their primary employer, have preferred to apply for Job Seeker funding, or are of school age and are not available at the times the redeployment opportunities are available.

Impacted employees who have not had a redeployment opportunity confirmed or have not been contacted by phone were sent another survey to complete on 11 May 2020 to collect updated information on their availability and interest in alternative duties. As at 13 May 2020 the response rate to the survey is 38%. The above statistics will be updated as casuals decline or accept being included in the redeployment process.

Redeployment opportunities continue to be identified and matched to those seeking redeployment opportunities. The response to new duties and feedback from redeployed staff has been positive, with the opportunity to develop new skills, work in different teams and learn more broadly about Council operations. Areas where staff have been redeployed to include:

· Finance

· WHS

· Pay Office

· Records

· Ranger Services

· Road Maintenance & Construction

· Technical Support

· Administration

· Infrastructure Inspections

· Environmental Services

· Cleaning

· Fleet

· Waste Services Customer Service

The feedback from staff who have been redeployed has been very positive; they have welcomed the opportunity to learn new skills, work in a different area and broaden their knowledge of Council. Similarly, the response from managers / supervisors and work colleagues who have accommodated redeployed staff has also been positive. This experience also provides potential opportunities for alternate career paths within Council, and builds the skill set and capacity of Council’s workforce.

Of the Council sites most impacted by workplace closures, Shoalhaven Swim Sport Fitness (SSSF) and the Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre (SEC) are the only sites where casual employees had a loss of work or permanent employees had a loss of meaningful duties.

The impact of the Shoalhaven Swim Sport Fitness (SSSF) closures was that 147 employees lost their casual hours and 26 permanent employees had a loss of meaningful work. It should be noted that with the closure of seasonally operated facilities (pools) the hours available to casual staff would, during normal operations, drop dramatically during the cooler months following the closure of some outdoor pools.

Additionally, many casual staff, by choice at this time of year, return to study and no longer avail themselves to undertake work. It should also be noted that for some casual employees in SSSF this is secondary employment (e.g. a fitness instructor who may work 2 hours per week) and they have continued to be employed by their primary employer, or have sought JobKeeper payments through their primary employer. Other casual staff have preferred to apply for Job Seeker funding. A number of casual employees are of school age and are not available during weekday office hours.

SSSF staff have created online live exercise classes and exercise technique tips, created a Facebook group for all Shoalhaven SSSF members, carried out pressure and chemical cleaning of pool decks, general cleaning, repaired the air handling system, serviced pumps, repaired a pool tank, replaced the floor in the changing room, replaced damaged ceiling tiles, repaired pool tiles, repaired gym walls, grass slashing, gardening, stocktake, developed a re-launch campaign, scanning backlog of forms, emptied and repaired a 25m pool, repainted bench seating, walls, tables, handrails and doors.

The impact of the Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre (SEC) closure was that 44 employees lost their casual hours and one permanent employee had a loss of meaningful work. The permanent employee has been redeployed. Again, for many casuals at SEC this is secondary employment (e.g. wait staff for functions / events) and they have continued to be employed by their primary employer or have sought JobKeeper payments through their primary employer. Other casual staff have preferred to apply for Job Seeker funding. A number of casual employees are of school age and are not available during weekday office hours.

Where possible, staff have been redeployed to alternate duties within their existing work areas. For example Shoalhaven Libraries have been busy with a new home delivery service for those customers who are not able to access our digital resources, moving children’s programs online, online adult programs such as Local Heritage and family history and Law Week presentations, online Book Club, bringing forward a full stocktake of the Shoalhaven Libraries Collection, increasing content and options for the Digital Library, and the introduction of Ask A Librarian Service via email.

Council is the host employer for 43 Trainees and Apprentices. These staff are eligible for and have enrolled for the JobKeeper payments as their employer, HVTC, is an eligible employer. The subsidy is $1,500 per fortnight before tax from 30 March 2020 to 27 September 2020.

As Council responds to the easing of any COVID-19 restrictions in the coming months these working arrangements will be reviewed to ensure a smooth transition and return of staff to their substantive roles as normal services resume.

Policy Implications

Redeployment has been managed in accordance with the Local Government (Covid-19) Splinter (Interim) Award 2020, and Council’s Recruitment & Selection Policy, aiming for the best possible alignment of existing skills and attributes, and grade, to the employee’s current/substantive role.

Financial Implications

Permanent employees redeployed maintain their current salary paid from their substantive salary budget. The JobKeeker payments are being administered by HVTC for eligible trainees.

Renumeration for the casual employees who are redeployed will be met from the COVID-19 redeployment budget; the situation remains fluid and duration unknown. Finance staff will closely monitor this situation. Funding sources include savings from vacant positions, and review of projects across the organisation. If this is not sufficient, other measures will be considered as part of the Quarterly Budget Review. The costs incurred to offer continued employment to casual staff during this period will be reported to Council.

Investigations are also continuing with the Office of Local Government on the applicability of the $1,500 per fortnight job retention payment (equivalent to the Jobkeeper payment) for Council employees. This matter is unresolved at the time of preparing this report.

Hours in the new roles are as close to their substantive hours as possible. Casual employees are paid at the rate of the new duties taking into consideration the skills required to do the role as per the requirements of the Local Government (Covid-19) Splinter (Interim) Award 2020. The situation remains fluid and it is therefore difficult to estimate the total cost of redeployment during COVID-19 due to workplace closures. Once further information is available this will be reported to Council via the quarterly budget review process.

Risk Implications

As with any new employee in a role, suitability with regard to appropriate licencing and training has been considered throughout the redeployment process. On commencement in the new role, the supervisor manages induction to the site, PPE, training, transport, etc.

As the tasks and roles found for redeployment opportunities are in addition to the regular duties undertaken by Council staff, there is no obligation for continuing work in these areas. With the provision of reasonable notice, redeployed employees will return to their substantive roles.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 26 May 2020

Page 0

CL20.121 Update - Detailed Planning - Moss Vale Road North Urban Release Area

HPERM Ref: D20/139031

Section: Strategic Planning

Approver: Robert Domm, Manager - Ulladulla Service Centre

Reason for Report

Provide an update on the preparation of the detailed planning documents that are required to ‘release’ and guide the future delivery of the new Moss Vale Road North Urban Release Area (URA). The report also summarises current activity to deliver road and water/wastewater infrastructure to support the delivery of both the Moss Vale Road South and North URAs.

Recommendation

That Council receive this update on the preparation of planning documents to guide the future delivery of the Moss Vale Road North Release Area.

Options

1. As recommended.

Implications: This report provides an update on the detailed planning work being undertaken to ‘release’ this URA. The work will continue, and subsequent reports will be provided to Council in due course and when matters require specific consideration.

2. Alternate recommendation.

Implications: Would need to be determined based on the nature of the alternative recommendation.

Background

This URA was originally identified as a ‘New Living Area’ in the Nowra-Bomaderry Structure Plan which was adopted by Council in 2006 and endorsed by the NSW Government in 2008.

The site was rezoned under Shoalhaven LEP 2014 to predominantly R1 General Residential with parts rezoned RE1 Public Recreation, B1 Neighbourhood Centre, E2 Environmental Protection and E3 Environmental Management. The current URA covers 266.1ha of land and is subject to provisions of Part 6 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014. This requires a DCP and infrastructure plans to be in place before development can be considered.

A group of landowners have proposed an alternative outcome for the release area and submitted a suite of documents for Council’s consideration. The alternative outcome increases the potential number of new dwellings from 1,300 to between 2,500 - 3,000 and adjustments to the planned retail centre. The proposed increase in dwellings would potentially increase the size of the future community to between 6,000 and 7,200 people, increasing the public infrastructure demand. The proposed adjustments to the retail centre include a reduction in its size, from 2.35 to 1.6 hectares, and a broader range of permissible development, seeking a change from a neighbourhood to a local centre.

The detailed planning for the URA was brought forward from originally Phase 5 to Phase 2 on 28 March 2017. Council subsequently resolved to formally commence the process required under Part 6 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 on 22 August 2017 (MIN17.738).

On 6 August 2019, Council’s Development and Environment Committee considered a report that presented a package of information submitted by the Moss Vale Road North Owners Group and resolved to give ‘in principle’ support to the package being used as the basis for the following supporting plans that are required to ‘release’ the area and to continue to work with the owners group:

· Planning Proposal (PP) – recommending amendments to the planning controls required for the URA in the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014.

· New Development Control Plan (DCP) Chapter – setting detailed development controls within Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 to help guide future subdivision and development activity, including an indicative layout plan and development staging plan.

· Contributions Plan (CP) – facilitate local infrastructure and facilities to support the future community in the URA via required amendments to the Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2019.

Council also resolved to investigate the following:

· Potential biodiversity certification of the URA,

· Development of a possible affordable housing development contributions scheme, and

· Potential suburb naming options for both the Moss Vale Road North and Moss Vale Road South URA’s.

The documents submitted in support of the Owners Group’s alternative adjusted outcome included an indicative layout plan, draft development controls, and a range of technical studies dealing with various matters. These included documents about bushfire, infrastructure (including transport), scenic values, contamination, biodiversity, and water management.

The full Council 6 August 2019 resolution and the Owners Group’s package of information can be accessed on the internet at the following link:

https://shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/Planning-amp-Building/Strategic-planning/Planning-Proposals/Pre-Gateway/Moss-Vale-Rd-North-URA

The initial timeframes identified for Council to deliver the resulting planning documents (PP/DCP/CP) for the URA were ambitious to meet the challenge of securing additional housing supply in a timely manner. The intention was to seek Council’s endorsement of draft documents during the first half of 2020 to allow formal community consultation to occur later in the year. As work has progressed, the complexity of considerations and the preparation of a comprehensive and accurate evidence base to deliver a responsible and sustainable development outcome has required more time. The Council project team however remains committed to delivering this as quickly as possible.

The remainder of this report provides an update on the key elements of Council’s resolution and the work that has been completed and is still being undertaken.

Preparation of planning documents

The amended planning controls (via a PP), drafting of detailed development controls, and identification of development contributions rely on an evidence base of robust technical documents. Some of these documents were provided by the landowner group and others, such as an Integrated Water Management Study, have been directly commissioned by Council for efficiency.

The review of the Owners Group’s package of information included a gap analysis which identified the need for the following technical studies or reviews:

1. A retail analysis to inform the actual amount and type of retail floorspace required by the future community. This analysis is also required to justify proposed/potential changes to the size, type and location of land use zones (Note: analysis not provided by the Owners Group).

2. A gas pipeline safety management study to confirm the type and scale of development possible adjacent to the existing Eastern Gas Pipeline that runs through the area. This study is required to comply with the NSW Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Environment Planning Circular relating to development near pipelines (Note: study not provided by the Owners Group).

3. A peer review of the submitted visual impact assessment, with a focus on the key scenic corridor along Moss Vale Road. This review is required to justify proposed/potential changes to the size, type and location of land use zones. This assessment was provided by the landowner group and proposes changes to the scenic corridor that need to be tested.

4. A community infrastructure needs analysis to identify the community infrastructure required to service the future community. This analysis is required to inform an indicative layout plan and development contributions for the URA (Note: analysis not provided by the landowner group).

5. A traffic impact study to confirm the type and location of roads and connections to the existing road network. This study is required to inform an indicative layout plan and development contributions for the URA. The study submitted by the Owners Group needs to be supplemented.

The following table sets out the current status and, where available, summarises the findings of the above and other studies.

Study	Status	Findings
Integrated Water Management Study	Complete (2 April ‘20)	· Identified options to sustainably manage stormwater run-off, including required land and infrastructure. · Indicates the need for a greater area of land to accommodate drainage infrastructure than initially proposed by the Owners Group, leading to a potential reduction in dwelling yield. · Will inform draft development controls and development contributions.
Retail Analysis	Complete (21 Feb ‘20)	· Confirmed a neighbourhood-scale centre in a central location is required to service the future community (minimum of 1,000-2,000m² of retail floorspace on about 1 to 1.4 hectares of land). · Identified that other, out-of-centre retail developments may reduce the economic viability of a larger retail centre.
Gas Pipeline Management Study	Complete (18 Mar ‘20)	· Identified the location of the pipeline, access easement, and notification area. · Confirmed the compatibility of the proposed development (predominantly low-density residential) with the risks presented by the pipeline. · Informs draft development controls for pipeline crossings (roads and services), risk assessments for future subdivision and construction activity, and consultation requirements for development applications (with Jemena).
Visual Impact assessment	Due by end May ’20 (est)	Will provide recommendations on optimal measures to maintain and enhance a scenic corridor along Moss Vale Road.
Community Infrastructure Needs Analysis	Due by end May ’20 (est)	Work underway includes: · Assessment of the open space, sporting facilities and community buildings required by the future community. · Development of a refined open space masterplan.
Traffic Impact Study	Currently due 19 Jun ’20 (est)	Work underway includes: · Update of Council’s City-wide traffic model to include updated data relevant to the URA. · Pre- and post- development analysis of the intersections (3) connecting the release area to the existing network. · Identification of internal road network.

Note: the timing of the remaining studies may slip slightly due to the reliance on third parties. Staff are however focussed on ensuring the project continues to move ahead in a timely manner.

Other studies may be required as work progresses on preparing to prepare or finalise the planning documents, such as the design and costing of identified infrastructure, or to inform consultation with various Government Agencies as the PP progresses through the NSW Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Environment’s Gateway Process.

Some potential examples include an additional bushfire assessment to address recently published guidelines, and a riparian lands study to justify proposed changes to existing watercourses.

Work is also continuing on the preparation of a PP, development controls, and the identification of infrastructure to inform development contributions. Options for securing development contributions are also being investigated and include amendments to existing contribution plans and planning agreements. It is anticipated draft documents will be presented for Council’s consideration during the second half of this year. If endorsed, it will allow community consultation on draft documents to occur before the end of the year.

Liaison with Landowner Group

A positive working relationship has been established with the Owners Group and their project team (including planning consultants). This initially included regular dialogue with a single owner representative and the group’s planning consultant but has now been expanded to include other members of the Owners Group. Liaison activities include:

· A monthly update on progress re the preparation of planning documents, findings of additional technical studies, and refinements to the potential development outcome. This originally took the form of a face to face meeting but has been replaced with written updates in response to the COVID-19 epidemic.

· A workshop to refine development controls. This work will continue through the exchange and consideration of additional information.

· Representatives of the Owners Group participated in the workshop that informed the Gas Pipeline Safety Management Study.

· Provision of copies of the completed Retail Analysis, Integrated Water Management Study and Gas Pipeline Safety Management Study. The group has provided a response to the retail work which is currently being considered.

· Confirmation of a shared intent to investigate options to contribute to the supply of affordable housing in Shoalhaven

Engagement with other landowners in the release area who are not part of the Owners Group has been limited at this stage. Opportunities to improve this are currently being investigated and once a final development outcome has been settled, increased engagement will definitely occur. This additional engagement is essential to provide all the affected owners an update on potential development outcomes ahead of any broader community release/consultation.

Biodiversity certification

Biodiversity certification is a streamlined biodiversity process for areas of land proposed for development. The process identifies areas which can be developed and measures to offset impacts. Where land is certified, development may proceed without the usual requirement for a site by site assessment. The use of the biodiversity certification process is supported as it would simplify future development assessment processes, potentially resulting in quicker approvals.

Council staff have met with relevant NSW Government representatives to discuss this opportunity and Investigations are continuing into the possible use of the certification process for this URA.

Affordable housing

The provision of affordable housing is a shared aspiration of Council and the Owners Group. The current planning for the release area provides the opportunity to investigate options to add to the supply of affordable housing in Shoalhaven.

In February 2019, the NSW Government changed legislation and its policy for affordable housing, allowing Council to develop a formal affordable housing development contribution scheme to capture a share of the uplift in land value from ‘significant’ residential rezoning.

Council has a clear intent to consider such a scheme, but it is unlikely it will be completed prior to or apply to current work on the URA. The mechanism relies on a significant change in land use zoning that permits an increase in residential density, for example from R1 General Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential. The initial alternative outcome for URA put forward by the Owners Group included the potential for such a rezoning. The Owners Group has since clarified its preferred outcome, reducing or removing proposals for higher density development (zoning areas R3). The proposed increase in dwellings will now be delivered through smaller lots and a variety of housing types.

There are however a range of other mechanisms to achieve the broad Council and Owners Group objective in this regard, including a planning agreement applying to the URA and securing an affordable housing outcome. Once the ultimate development outcome for the release area is settled, its economic feasibility will be tested to understand the ability and capacity to deliver an affordable housing outcome. This could include the direct delivery of affordable housing throughout the URA or funds to facilitate the delivery of homes elsewhere in Shoalhaven (where there is an identified need). The results of this work will be presented to the Council when available.

Suburb naming

The process and timeframes for settling a new suburb boundary and name for the URAs has been confirmed with the NSW Geographical Names Board. The Board has requested that any new boundary and name should also apply to the Moss Vale Road South URA to recognise the similar age and character of the release areas. The naming process includes an application to and approval by the Board and community consultation. It is anticipated to take approximately 9-12 months.

Naming options are currently being examined with Nowra Local Aboriginal Land Council and local historical societies. Once some options have been identified and tested with the Board, they will be presented for Council’s formal consideration, including by the Aboriginal Advisory Committee. The process and timeframe for completing the suburb creation process will also be confirmed.

Enabling infrastructure

Council received funding from the NSW Government’s Restart NSW – Housing Acceleration Fund to prepare business case and detailed design work for the critical road and water/wastewater infrastructure required to support or enable the delivery of developable land in the Moss Vale Road URAs. This infrastructure includes:

· Significant new intersection on Moss Vale Road (roundabout) providing access to both URAs.

· Water supply upgrades, including pipelines, a new reservoir and pumping stations.

· Sewerage system upgrades, including gravity mains, pumping stations, and emergency storage tanks.

The preparation of the business cases commenced in November 2019 and the initial assessment of options is complete. Concept designs are now being progressed for the preferred options.

Conclusions - Next Steps

A package of information containing a PP, draft DCP Chapter, and essential infrastructure list will be presented for Council’s consideration early in the second half of this year. The required critical piece of information is the traffic analysis, which is due for completion on 19 June, which will confirm an indicative layout, selection of road types, development controls, and new or upgraded road infrastructure.

Council’s endorsement of these three documents/pieces of work will enable the PP to progress into the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment’s Gateway process and the completion of community consultation before the end of the year. The current estimated delivery of a final published set of documents is early 2021.

Council will be provided with further updates in due course on the findings of technical studies, key discussion points with the landowner group, and the progress of planning documents.

Community Engagement

Options for the timing and nature of formal community engagement will be presented to Council when the preparation of the draft documents is complete. In the interim, a “Get Involved” page has been established for the project and provides information on current work. Interested persons/parties can subscribe to the page to receive updates.

Policy Implications

The finalisation of planning documents to guide the delivery of the release area is a high priority project on the adopted Strategic Planning Works Program and is a focus for the Strategic Planning Team. This work will deliver comprehensive planning and development controls to manage the future subdivision and development of the release area. It will also secure the funding for the infrastructure required by the future community.

Financial Implications

The current work on preparing the planning documents is being managed within the existing Strategic Planning budget. There is likely to be a range of longer-term financial and resourcing implications for Council associated with the delivery of the release area.

For example, funding the management of new open space, restoration of riparian corridors, and maintenance of infrastructure. These will be examined at appropriate points in the release area process.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 26 May 2020

Page 0

CL20.122 RD20/1001 – Westbrook Road, Nowra – Lot 340 DP 755952

DA. No: RD20/1001/4

HPERM Ref: D20/136384

Section: Development Services

Approver: Phil Costello, Director Planning Environment & Development Group

Attachments: 1. Plans - Shed Location, Parking and Truck Manoeuvring - Lot 340 DP 755952 - Westbrook Rd Nowra ⇩

2. Plans - Shed Detail - Lot 340 DP 755952 - Westbrook Rd Nowra ⇩

3. Legal Advice (Confidential - under separate cover)

Description of Development: Construction of Shed for use as a 'Depot’

Owner: Christopher Mark Carter

Applicant: Christopher Mark Carter

Notification Dates: 24 March 2020 – 8 April 2020

No. of Submissions: Nil

Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council

Councillors called in the section 8.2(1)(a) Review of Determination on the grounds of public interest on 7 April 2020.

To assist with the review, legal advice was obtained.

There is however a public interest consideration against disclosure of this legal advice as disclosure of the information could potentially prejudice any legal proceedings. Accordingly, the advice is provided as a confidential attachment.

Recommendation

That Council resolve to reaffirm the determination (refusal) of DA18/2387, dated 28 November 2019, for the construction of a shed for use as a 'depot’ at Lot 340 DP 755952, Westbrook Road, Nowra.

Options

1. Reaffirm the decision to refuse the application in accordance with the recommendation of this report.

Implications: This would result in the determination remaining in place. An appeal with the Land and Environment Court is possible in the event of a refusal of the application. There is no ability for further review (section 8.2(3) EP&A Act 1979).

2. Alternative recommendation.

Implications: Council could specify an alternative recommendation and advise staff accordingly.

In the event that Council resolves to support the proposal, reasons would need to be put forward as to why the proposal is capable of support.

It should be noted that connection to sewer is unavailable as the details of the end user are unknown and the capacity of the proposed tanks as put in the application (3400L) has not been determined to be adequate. There are also access issues and construction code requirements.

These matters, however, could be ‘conditioned’ if the permissibility issue can be overcome.

Figure 1 – Location Map

Background

Division 8.2 Reviews, Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

A section 8.2 application allows an applicant to request a consent authority to review a determination or decision made by them. After conducting its review, the consent authority (in this instance Council) may confirm or change the determination or decision.

It is noted that in accordance with the provisions of section 8.10(1) under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, an appeal by an applicant may be made only within six (6) months after the date the decision appealed against is notified.

Proposed Development

DA18/2387 sought approval for the construction of a shed for use as a 'depot’.

Refer to Attachment 1 for plans confirming shed details submitted with the DA and Attachment 2 for the site plan submitted with this application.

Subject Land

The development site comprises Lot 340 DP 755952 (Westbrook Road, Nowra). Refer to Figure 1.

Site & Context

The development site:

§ Is currently vacant;

§ Is zoned RU1 Primary Production. The site is 2,023sqm in area;

§ Is identified as being wholly flood prone land;

§ Has available access to an unformed Council public road connecting to Westbrook Road; and

§ Adjoins land zoned RU1 Primary Production under the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (SLEP 2014) as illustrated in Figure 2. The land to the west is Council “operational land”.

Figure 2 – Zoning Extract

History

The following provides details on post-lodgement actions and general site history for context:

§ The DA was determined by refusal on 28 November 2019 for the following reasons:

“1. The development application has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal meets a land use definition that is either ‘exempt’ or ‘permissible with consent’ within the RU1 – Primary Production zone in accordance with the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014. (Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

2. The development application has not satisfactorily demonstrated compliance with the objectives of the RU1 – Primary Production zone in accordance with clause 2.3, Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014. (Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

3. The development application has not adequately demonstrated that the proposal will not have an adverse social or economic impact upon the site or the surrounding locality. (Section 4.15(1)(b) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

4. The information submitted with the development application does not satisfactorily demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed use. (Section 4.15(1)(c) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)

5. Having regard to the above matters to address the relevant provisions of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the granting of development consent is not considered to be in the public interest. (Section 4.15(1)(e) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)”

The section 8.2 application to review this determination was lodged on 19 March 2020, disagreeing with the determination, and offering up the following as addressing the reasons for refusal:

“1) A ‘depot’ is permissible with consent within the RU1 – Primary Production zone. The definition of ‘depot’ is:

‘A building or place used for the storage (but not sale or hire) of plant, machinery or other goods (that support the operations of an existing undertaking) when not required for use but does not include a farm building.’

It is proposed that the depot will be offered for lease to local businesses, such as civil and agriculture contractors, as a storage facility for plant, machinery, or other goods.

We note that Council raised a concern that the intended use of the proposed development did not satisfy the definition of a ‘depot’. In an email from Council to PDC Planners dated 3 September 2019, Council advised that “for the definition of a Depot to be satisfied, it must support the operations of an existing undertaking.” Council referred to a decision of the NSW Land & Environment Court of Flowers v Wollondilly Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 1340.

In response, the Applicant obtained a legal opinion as to the correct interpretation of the definition of ‘depot’. In the letter from Alex Kelly of PDC Lawyers, Mr Kelly referred to the Flowers decision, and explained how the definition should be interpreted. For assistance, we have summarised his opinion as follows:

- The Court separated the definition of ‘depot’ into three relevant components:

• A building or place used for the storage (but not sale or hire) of plant, machinery, or other goods;

• That support the operations of an existing undertaking, when not required for use;

• But does not include a farm building.

- The Court defined ‘existing undertaking’ from the Macquarie Dictionary as:

• The act of someone who undertakes any task or responsibility.

• A task, enterprise, etc, undertaken

• A promise; pledge or guarantee.

- It is not the depot itself which must support an existing undertaking, but the use of items stored in the depot that must support an existing undertaking when those items are not in use.

- Accordingly, it is not relevant to ask whether the building itself supports an existing undertaking.

- The proposal relates to the construction of a depot. It is not until after the depot is constructed that it will be capable of storing items that support an ‘existing undertaking’.

- The decision in Flowers does not suggest that the existing undertaking which the stored items within the depot serve must exist prior to the depot being constructed.

Respectfully, it appears that Council has misinterpreted the Court’s reasoning in the Flowers decision. While in that instance the appeal for a depot was dismissed by the Court, that case involved different circumstances to this proposal, and the facts are not entirely comparable. We implore Council to strongly reconsider their interpretation of the definition of ‘depot’ in the context of both the Flowers decision, and the legal opinion obtained by the Applicant.

In summary, the depot will be a place for storage for plant, machinery, and other goods for a local business (being, an existing undertaking at the time the lease or licence is entered). For the sake of completeness, we note that the depot will not be a farm building (although we note that this is not a point of contention).

2) The objectives of the RU1 – Primary Production 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 resources lands.

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

- To conserve and maintain productive prime crop and pasture land.

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

As a place for a business to store plant and machinery, the depot has the capacity to support enterprise in the local primary industry. Given the size of the land, it is unlikely to be used as crop or pasture land, nor will it be used for extractive industries. It’s location to surrounding agricultural businesses make it an ideal location for a depot.

We note that the site is mapped as subject to flooding, which limits the development of the land pursuant to clause 7.3 of the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014. When combining the objectives of RU1 – Primary Production land and the flooding constraints with the physical lot characteristics (principally its size and location), a depot is an advisable option for development.

3) The land is bordered to the north-west, west, and south-west by vacant land (some used for agricultural purposes, other land vacant), a golf course to the south-east, and large rural lots to the north-east. The lot itself has no immediate residential neighbours or surrounding businesses. The construction of a depot would not significantly increase the density of the area, nor have any social impact on the surrounding area.

As noted earlier, the land is subject to flooding which limits development options. While the land remains vacant, it does not contribute to the economic viability of the surrounding locality. On the other hand, this proposal to construct a depot for lease to local businesses would result in a net positive economic impact on the surrounding locality.

4) The Statement of Environmental Effects and the supporting documentation assess the application against relevant planning documents. The application complies with the relevant planning controls and is considered an appropriate development of the site taking into consideration to zoning, surrounding uses and specific site attributes. No unreasonable or excessive developmental, social, or economic impacts are expected as a result of the proposed development. The development meets the zone objectives and presents a low-impact economic use of otherwise under-utilized and undeveloped land with limited alternate development options.

We believe the application demonstrates that the site is suitable for a depot.

5) Having regard to our responses to the reasons for refusal, we consider that the proposed development is in the public interest. The depot will provide a venue for storage of plant and machinery used by local businesses and will have no net negative social or economic impact on the area. Given the site constraints, a depot is the ideal, low impact development for this site.”

Issues / Discussion

Review of Determination

Reason for Refusal No. 1 – The development application has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal meets a land use definition that is either ‘exempt’ or ‘permissible with consent’ within the RU1 – Primary Production zone in accordance with the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014. (Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

The applicant advised in the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects and subsequent representations submitted on 20May 2019, 3September 2019, and 26October 2019 that the proposed development is characterised as a ‘depot’ which is again defined in accordance with the SLEP 2014 as follows:

“A building or place used for the storage (but not sale or hire) of plant, machinery or other goods (that support the operations of an existing undertaking) when not required for use but does not include a farm building”.

Council disagrees with the applicant’s characterisation of the development as a ‘depot’ given there is no existing undertaking and instead considers that the development is a vacant building.

Given no alternative land use definition for the proposed shed has been provided which would be permissible with consent or considered exempt development in accordance with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008, the development is a prohibited innominate use in the RU1 zone.

The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to enable Council to be satisfied that the storage of plant, equipment and other goods will support the operations of an existing undertaking.

An indication that there is intention to lease the proposed shed to an unspecified local business is insufficient to enable Council to be satisfied that the storage of plant, equipment and other goods will (rather than could) support the operations of an existing undertaking.

Further to this, Council would not be in a position to impose a condition of any consent to require that the development only be used for the storage of plant, machinery and other goods to support the operations of an existing undertaking, as there is no undertaking.

One reason for this is that Council is required to consider the provisions of the SLEP 2014 at the time of its determination of the application and the fact that the proposed use could satisfy the terms of the definition is insufficient. In order for the proposed development to be capable of being approved, Council must be satisfied that the development does satisfy the terms of the definition.

The other reason for this is that the imposition of such a condition would effectively defer the consideration of an essential aspect of the application (i.e. permissibility).

Accordingly, Council has no option but to refuse consent and this reason for refusal remains valid.

Reason for Refusal No. 2 – The development application has not satisfactorily demonstrated compliance with the objectives of the RU1 – Primary Production zone in accordance with clause 2.3, Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014. (Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).

Given there is no existing undertaking and no alternative land use definition for the proposed shed has been provided which would be permissible with consent, Council cannot be satisfied that the proposed development demonstrates compliance with the objectives of the RU1 zone.

Reason for Refusal No. 3 – The development application has not adequately demonstrated that the proposal will not have an adverse social or economic impact upon the site or the surrounding locality. (Section 4.15(1)(b) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

Insufficient information has been provided by the applicant to determine social and economic impacts. Given the end user of the proposed shed has not been indicated, Council cannot be satisfied that the proposed development would not have an adverse social amenity impact upon neighbouring residents fronting Westbrook Road, particularly as it relates to traffic and noise. Further to this, Council cannot be satisfied that the development would not have an adverse economic impact upon the surrounding locality, particularly as it relates to sensitive uses such as dwellings fronting Westbrook Road.

Reason for Refusal No. 4 – The information submitted with the development application does not satisfactorily demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed use. (Section 4.15(1)(c) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)

As insufficient information has been provided by the applicant as already detailed in this report, it is unclear whether the site will be suitable for the proposed development.

Reason for Refusal No. 5 – Having regard to the above matters to address the relevant provisions of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the granting of development consent is not considered to be in the public interest. (Section 4.15(1)(e) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979)

As already detailed in this report, the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the land use definition for ‘depot’ in accordance with the SLEP 2014 and the proposed development prohibited according to the land use table for the RU1 zone. This reason for refusal remains valid. An existing undertaking would need to be confirmed.

Planning Assessment

The DA was assessed under s4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Whilst components of the development were found to be satisfactory and / or could be ‘conditioned’, the permissibility issue was not overcome.

Consultation and Community Engagement:

Notification was undertaken as per the original DA in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy with letters being sent within a 100m buffer of the site during the period 24 March 2020 to 8 April 2020.

No public submissions were received in relation to Council’s notification of the application.

Financial Implications:

There are potential cost implications for Council in the event of a refusal of the application. Such costs would be associated with defending any appeal in the Land and Environment Court of NSW.

Legal Implications

An appeal with the Land and Environment Court is possible in the event of a refusal of the application.

Summary and Conclusion

The proposed development involves construction of a shed for use as a ‘depot’ with no existing undertaking as required by the definition.

Given no alternative land use definition has been provided which would be permissible with consent or considered exempt development, the development is prohibited according to the land use table for the RU1 zone under the SLEP 2014.

The determination of Development Application No. DA18/2387 has been reviewed in accordance with Division 8.2 (Reviews) under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

It is recommended that the refusal be reaffirmed.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 26 May 2020

Page 0

CL20.123 DA19/2171 – 11 Dent Street, Huskisson – Lot 2 DP 870242

DA. No: DA19/2171/4

HPERM Ref: D20/159724

Section: Development Services

Approver: Phil Costello, Director Planning Environment & Development Group

Attachments: 1. Revised Report - Addendum Cl. 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards - Lot 2 DP 870242 - 11 Dent St Huskisson ⇩

Description of Development: Construction of Lighthouse Structure

Owner: Crown Lands Office

Applicant: Lady Denman Heritage Complex Huskisson

Notification Dates: 26 February 2020 to 11 March 2020

No. of Submissions: One (1) in objection

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 than 10%, the variation must be reported to 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. Further information can be obtained in the Department’s Circular PS18-003.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Confirm it supports, pursuant to clause 4.6 (Exceptions to development standards) of SLEP 2014, the applicant’s request to vary the height limit of 11m to 18.6m; and

2. Refer the development application (DA19/2171) 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 and Zone Map

Background

Proposed Development

The application seeks approval for the construction of a lighthouse structure, the purpose of which is to display the original 1850s Cape St George lighthouse mantle/lantern in a form that respects and interprets its history.

The structure is proposed to enhance the experience of visitors to the Jervis Bay Maritime Museum complex and encourage engagement with the history of the local area.

The structure is in the outline of a lighthouse and features a masonry base plinth, a mantle object and steel frame outline of the lighthouse finishing at a height of 18.6m. An LED light is to be installed near the peak of the sculpture if permitted.

Figure 2 – Site Plan

Figure 3 – Elevation with Height Plane Analysis

Subject Land

The development site comprises Lot 2 DP 870242 (11 Dent Street, Huskisson). Refer to Figure 1.

Site & Context

The development site:

§ Is Crown owned and contains the existing Jervis Bay Maritime Museum complex with Currambene Creek directly to the east of the site;

§ Is zoned RE1 Public Recreation and E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves (E1 is a minor portion of the site and outside of the area of the proposal – see Figure 1) and has a total area of 2.9ha;

§ Is identified as being partially flood and wholly bush fire prone land;

§ Has existing access via Dent Street; and

§ Adjoins land zoned RE1 Public Recreation, E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves, SP2 Infrastructure and R2 Low Density Residential under SLEP 2014.

The zone objectives are provided below as they are a consideration with regard to assessing and considering a variation request with regard to clause 4.6, which is discussed later in this report.

The RE1 Public Recreation zone objectives are:

§ To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes.

§ To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

§ To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

History

The following provides details on general site history in relation to the current application:

§ The Jervis Bay Maritime Museum complex features a number of historic buildings and a variety of structures and exhibits including the Lady Denman Ferry, Halloran and Jervis Bay Collections and operational areas of the museum, foyer/shop and Collection Management Centre.

Included onsite is the display of three (3) locally significant wooden vessels, Porthole, Kingfisher, and Crest, which are all listed on the Australian National Register of Historic Vessels.

§ The current application was lodged on 29 November 2019.

Issues

Clause 4.3 (Height of buildings) of SLEP 2014

Clause 4.3 contains controls for the maximum height of buildings and specifically outlines that the maximum height of a building must not exceed the height shown on the ‘Height of Buildings Map’ that supports SLEP 2014, or if land is not mapped a building must not exceed 11m.

Note that in accordance with SLEP 2014, the term ‘building’ is defined to include any structure or part of a structure.

In this instance, the ‘Height of Buildings Map’ has no specific maximum building height provisions for the development site. As such, the maximum height of any building, under this clause, must not exceed 11m as required by subclause (2A). The development does not comply with this development standard as it will have a maximum height of 18.6m; see Figure 3 elevation with height plane analysis. This represents a variation to the numerical standard of 69.09% variation.

Clause 4.6 (Exceptions to development standards) of SLEP 2014

The applicant has consequently sought an ‘exception’ to the development standard pursuant to the requirements of clause 4.6 of SLEP 2014. Refer to Attachment 1 for the detailed request. Note that this references the originally proposed maximum height of 19.52m. The height of the steel frame structure was reduced in response to concerns regarding the height.

Therefore, Council is required to consider subclauses (3), (4) and (5).

(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.”

Comment

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

The applicant’s written request seeking to justify the contravention of the development standard must adequately address 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 (clause 4.6(3)(a)); and

2. That there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard (clause 4.6(3)(b)). The written request needs to demonstrate both of these 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 (L&EC) in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 the principles outlined in Winten Developments Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 46 and further clarified by Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118. The “5-part Test” is outlined as follows:

1. The objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance 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 were 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.

The applicant, in the clause 4.6 report prepared for the proposal, does not rely on parts 2-5 of the ‘5 Part Test’ as they are not considered applicable. The argument put forward is focussed on parts 1, 2 and 3.

The objectives of clause 4.3 are repeated below:

(a) to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of a locality;

(b) to minimise visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to existing development; and

(c) to ensure that the height of buildings on or in the vicinity of a heritage item or within a heritage conservation area respect heritage significance.

The following is an extract from the applicant’s request. Evaluation of reasoning is in the following section.

“1. The specific intent of this development and the historical artefact that it supports, is its historical precedence and accuracy of representational form from circa 1859, which is documented in the drawings provided by AEJ architects, which show the original drawings of the 1859 Cape St George Lighthouse, the subsequent installation at Crookhaven Heads, the vandalism of this site and the requirement to ensure the future security of the artefact. The development is also required to fulfill the purpose of the Museum to present historically accurate interpretive information to the public.

2. This development is designed in accordance with the Building Code of Australia, Class 10 structure; a sculptural, non-habitable structure. The purpose of which is to accommodate a heritage item for public interpretation and appreciation of its 1859 history.

3. Because this is a sculptural, non-habitable structure, the underlying objective or purpose of the SLEP 2014 development standard is not consistent with this development

4. The underlying objective or purpose of the planned lighthouse structure would be defeated or thwarted if compliance to reduce the height of the development was required because the recommended Heritage values (documented historical significance) and interpretation of the object would be diminished by not recognising historical accuracy and interpretation. Accuracy and interpretation are the core business and basis of factual reporting by public Museums as credible sources of information – and that includes the visual as well as the textually communicated information. It is vital that the original site of the Mantle at Cape St George is visually represented to provide accurate context (majestic height and scale) of the first location of the item 165 years ago.

5. In 1988, the Crown Land Reserve on which the existing Museum and other buildings sit was zoned a public space for free access by the public, it is not private land it is for recreational leisure use. The gardens attract around 15,000 visitors annually. This development enhances the access and experience of the community, public, and tourists on this land and is consistent with the current character of the site and documented Shoalhaven City Council approved purpose of the land.

6. The planned development to display the heritage item is therefore consistent with the Shoalhaven City Council / Crown Lands Reserve zoning and development of the land as a cultural public space as gazetted prior to 1988. The planned development enhances the purpose of the Maritime Museum and the links to maritime heritage in the Shoalhaven.

7. In this instance, the purpose of the Crown Reserve, for which the express use is as a cultural precinct and for recreational use, and for which the Shoalhaven City Council has adopted a strategic plan for the site [ref: 2016-17 Strategic Business and Master Plan for the Lady Denman Reserve] should be evaluated against the performance criteria of the structure, its purpose, and long term benefit to the community, including the intangible benefits of health and amenity provided by cultural experiences.

8. The development is consistent with the broader planning objectives for the locality, and strict compliance with the standard is not relevant as the development meets Shoalhaven City Councils’ broader objectives both for the community, for the site, and the Jervis Bay Maritime Museum as well as being in character with the locality.”

Clause 4.6(3)(a) – Evaluation of the written request relating to Clause 4.6(3)(a) – Compliance with the Development Standard is Unreasonable or Unnecessary

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).

Having regard to the objectives of the zone (refer to the objectives cited earlier in this report) the development does not compromise the objectives of the Public Recreation zone. The proposal will provide an extension to the existing cultural public space and will enhance the purpose of the Maritime Museum and the links to maritime heritage in the Shoalhaven.

Although the height contravention appears numerically large, most of the structure is open. The base structure with the lantern is approximately 8.6m high and only 4.3m wide of which half is solid (being 2.115m). The base is 4.26m in height. Above this there is an open Square Hollow Section (SHS) steel structure to 18.6m which is open like a spire.

The structure is a sculptural reference to a historical lighthouse structure. The four (4) SHS sections that comprise the open ‘spire’ do not represent a square metre mass of solid structure and are in effect four (4) free standing poles conjoined at the top.

The applicant justifies that the proposed height is required as “essential to the interpretation of history. To change one height would in essence render the structure and its purpose as a museum presented artefact, meaningless.”

The structure has also been sited so has to have minimal environmental impact, particularly not requiring any impact to existing trees and vegetation. Any visual impact to Currambene Creek would be reduced as the structure is proposed below the maximum height of existing surrounding trees.

Refer to Figure 3 for the elevation with height plane analysis.

Given the majority of the structure is to be open, it is considered that the objectives of the development standard are achieved with the design compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of the locality, particularly noting the adjacent low density residential zone to the south.

The design also minimises visual impact, disruption of views, loss of any privacy and solar access to existing adjacent development.

Clause 4.6(3)(b) – Evaluation – There are 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).

To demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard, Preston CJ in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118, held that the grounds relied on by the applicant in the written request under clause 4.6 must be “environmental planning grounds” by their nature: see Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 at [26]. The adjectival phrase “environmental planning” is not defined, but would refer to grounds that relate to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), including the objects in s1.3 of the EP&A Act.

The environmental planning grounds relied on in the written request under clause 4.6 must be “sufficient” (Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 at [24]). In [24] of the judgment, Preston CJ outlined the two (2) methods for demonstrating that a clause 4.6 is “sufficient” at paragraph [24] of case 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: see Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWCA 248 at [15]. 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’s clause 4.6 variation request must provide a written justification that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

The applicant’s clause 4.6 request seeks to justify the height exceedance by setting out environmental planning grounds in favour of the variation. Those grounds are set out as follows:

“1. The base structure with the Lantern is approximately 8.5 – 8.8 meters high and only 4.3m wide of which half is solid. Above this there is an open Square Hollow Section (SHS) steel structure to 19.5m which is open like a spire. This structure is a sculptural reference to a historical lighthouse structure. It is not a building.

2. The SCC SLEP 2014, Height of Buildings map HOB_020C indicates the zone on the opposite side of Dent Street which consists of private dwellings is noted as (H) and (12) which are 8 meters and 8.5 metres respectively. There is no maximum height for buildings on the Crown Reserve/Lady Denman Reserve, therefore a maximum height of 11 Metres applies for built structure in other categories of the Building Code of Australia (domestic dwellings/buildings). This proposed development is not a habitable structure, building or dwelling and does not fit the same requirements of bulk, scale, over-shadowing, view loss, loss of amenity.

3. This development cannot be compared or judged in the same category as a dwelling / building, where the massing of those developments equate to a square meter of solid mass at a potential maximum height 8 or 8.5m meters leading to overshadowing and loss of amenity. The base of the proposed development only has a diameter of 4230mm of which half (2.115m is solid) and height of 4300mm.

4. In this instance, the four (4) SHS sections that comprise the open ‘spire’ do not represent a square meter mass of solid structure, are in effect four (4) free standing poles conjoined at the top.

5. The planning principle of assessing height and bulk, takes into consideration other planning controls such as maximum height, floor space ratio, site coverage and set backs. Assessment of our Lighthouse project against these planning controls is of little use, the site coverage is minimal, the set-back is not relative to impact with other buildings only the boundaries of the reserve, and floor space ratio similarly, is not applicable for a non-habitable space in a Reserve setting. The maximum height is the only criteria for assessment.

6. Environmentally, the site will not be damaged or changed in any way, the works are not substantial in foot-print, and the Aboriginal Heritage Study completed for the site requires for there to be minimal heritage or environmental impact through construction. The site has been heavily disturbed in previous site development in 1988, such as the creation of a channel to bring the Lady Denman Ferry 50 meters onto the site, and the subsequent construction of the pond feature.”

In response to the above grounds, refer to previous comments under clause 4.6(3)(a) evaluation section.

Clause 4.6(4)(a)(i) – Have the matters set out in clause 4.6(3) been adequately addressed?

Clause 4.6(4)(a)(i) requires Council to be satisfied that the written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause 3. RebelMH Neutral Bay Pty Limited v North Sydney Council [2019] NSWCA 130 per Preston CJ of LEC at [51] makes it clear that “the consent authority needs to be satisfied that those matters have in fact been demonstrated”. The applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by clause 4.6(3), as demonstrated in the analysis above.

Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) – Evaluation – Public Interest

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 is zoned RE1 Public Recreation. The proposal, being the construction of a lighthouse structure, the purpose of which is to display the original 1850s Cape St George lighthouse mantle/lantern in a form that respects and interprets its history, and to enhance the experience of visitors to the Jervis Bay Maritime Museum complex and encourage engagement with the history of the local area, is not inconsistent with the RE1 Zone objectives.

It is also considered consistent with the relevant objectives of the development standard, as has been outlined in the comments provided under clause 4.6(3)(a), and justifies departure from the standard on environmental planning grounds under clause 4.6(3)(b). Accordingly, the proposed development is in the public interest.

Clause 4.6(b) – Concurrence of the Planning Secretary

The Council assumes the concurrence of the Planning Secretary in this instance, when considering the application.

Clause 4.6(5)(a) – Matters of Significance for State or Regional Environmental Planning

The non-compliance with the maximum building height development standard will not raise any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning. It does not have implications for any State Environmental Planning Policies in the locality or impacts which are considered of a State or regional scale.

Clause 4.6(5)(b) – Public Benefit of Maintaining the Development 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 proposal’s breach of the building height will provide a better planning outcome as opposed to strict compliance with the development standard or amending the application to reduce or remove the extent of the variation.

Clause 4.6(5)(c) – Other matters

No other matters need to be taken into consideration by the Planning Secretary.

Accordingly, the written submission provided by the applicant is considered to satisfy the requirements of clause 4.6(3), (4) and (5).

Planning Assessment

The DA is being assessed under s4.15(1) of the EP&A Act. Part of the assessment requires resolution of the height issue pursuant to clause 4.6 which is the subject of this report.

Consultation and Community Engagement:

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy with letters being sent within a 120m buffer of the site, including the Huskisson Woollamia Community Voice and Huskisson Chamber of Commerce, during the period 26 February 2020 to 11 March 2020. The proposal was also advertised in the local press on one occasion (South Coast Register). As with all applications, the application is also viewable on Council’s DA tracking website.

One (1) public submission was received in relation to Council’s notification of the development and was in objection to the development.

Several matters were raised as a result of the notification, however, specific to height concerns, the concern in relation to scale and loss of amenity was noted.

Comment

The proposed maximum height of the steel frame structure has been reduced and most of the structure is open (see the below Figures 4 & 5 photomontages). The impact of the development is not considered to be significant in regard to this area.

The structure is a sculptural reference to a historical lighthouse structure and considered appropriately sited within the Jervis Bay Maritime Museum complex.

Again, any visual impact to Currambene Creek and the coastline would be reduced as the structure is proposed below the maximum height of existing surrounding trees.

The subject site is identified as “proximity area for coastal wetlands” and within the coastal environment and coastal use areas by State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018. However, the development is unlikely to cause any adverse impact on overshadowing and loss of views from public places to the foreshore or the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast. It has been designed, sited and is to be managed to avoid any adverse impact.

Figures 4 & 5 – Photomontages

Financial Implications

There are potential cost implications for Council in the event of not supporting the requested variation to the height limit and refusal of the application. Such costs would be associated with defending an appeal in the Land and Environment Court of NSW.

Legal Implications

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

Summary and Conclusion

The clause 4.6 request has adequately addressed the requirements of the clause and provided sufficient justification to demonstrate that given the specific circumstances of this case that the 11m height limit is unreasonable, there is 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 May 2020

Page 0

CL20.124 Petitions – Edgewater Motel Proposal -1 Princess Ave Burrill Lake – Lot 47 & DP1051945

DA. No: DA19/2160/4

HPERM Ref: D20/174093

Section: Ulladulla Service Centre

Approver: Phil Costello, Director Planning Environment & Development Group

Attachments: 1. Petition objecting to Edgewater Development (councillors information folder) ⇨

2. Petition supporting Edgewater Motel redevelopment (councillors information folder) ⇨

Reason for Report

At the Development & Environment Committee meeting of Council on 5 May 2020, Councillor Gartner presented a petition with 1008 signatures from change.org opposing the development application for the redevelopment of the Edgewater Motel in Burrill Lake. The petition has 1008 signatures supporting it, and this report is submitted in compliance with the Code of Meeting Practice that states that, if a petition is tabled with 500 or more signatures, a report is to be submitted to the next Ordinary Meeting.

It is also noted that a petition in support of the redevelopment was received by Council with 592 signatures, which will also be discussed in the report.

Recommendation

That Council receives the Petitions – Edgewater Motel Proposal -1 Princess Ave Burrill Lake – Lot 47 & DP1051945 report for information

Options

1. Council receive the report for information

2. Council makes an alternative resolution

Background

At the Development & Environment Committee meeting of Council on 5 May 2020, Councillor Gartner presented a petition with 1008 signatures from change.org requesting that Council oppose the development application for the redevelopment of the Edgewater Motel at Burrill Lake as proposed.

A petition in support of the proposal was received at Council on 27 April 2020 with 592 signatures.

Issues

It is noted that the matters raised in the petition opposing the development include the following:

· The development of the Edgewater Motel will have adverse impacts on the lake foreshore, vegetation, ecological processes, public access, street parking, neighborhood character, visual amenity, and noise.

· The scope and scale of the proposal is too large for the site on which it is proposed. It is too high, blocky and without architectural features sympathetic to its site. The development will include a motel, restaurant, pub as well as a 4th floor outdoor roof top terrace which will have a huge impact on noise in the location of Burrill Lake.

· The proposal will cut off direct pedestrian access to the beach from the highway and other areas to the north-west which has been provided under the new highway bridge.

· Parking spaces of 75 are the requirements for this proposal, but only 52 are planned. Parking is at a premium for this area for people to access Burrill Lake beach, Holiday Haven Caravan Park and camping areas.

The petition also requests that the application be called-in to Council for determination.

The petition in support of the proposal has outlined the following issues:

· The development of the Edgewater Motel will have significant positive impacts on employment (construction, management, bar staff, cleaners, cooks, yards people etc.) as well as income for suppliers in the Ulladulla area.

· Restriction of access to the foreshore, for example, is overstated. The fact that the majority of houses facing the lake have restricted access to the public is overlooked. Privatising the gains of these residents against the amenity of the people using the proposed facility.

· Other general claims overlook regulation in place that already contains environment threats, noise and access.

· The scope and scale of the proposal is a gateway development that may foster a significant update of worn-out fibro, parked 1960 caravan shells and other remnants from the 1960s.

The application is yet to be determined and still under assessment and there are outstanding matters with the Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries) and engineering which are still to be resolved. The matters raised in the petition and in all other submissions will be addressed as part of the assessment of the development application.

Validity of Petitions

The absence of any form of policy or guidance in the presentation of petitions to Council must be considered in any matters relating to the petitions and in particularly the increasing use of online petitions.

As a minimum, petitions submitted to Council must include:

• a clear and concise statement covering the subject matter of the petition. It should state what action petitioners want the Council to take; and

• the name and address and signature (or email address in the case of electronic petitions) of any person supporting the petition. A petition should contain the name and address and contact details of the main petition contact.

An analysis of both petitions in regard to areas where the signatories are located reveals the following:

Petition against the proposal (Location as referenced in petition)

Australia	204
Burrill Lake	69
Ulladulla	66
Mollymook	10
Mollymook Beach	4
Milton	8
Narrawallee	8
Lake Conjola	4
Conjola Park	4
Dolphin Point	6
Lake Tabourie	10
Kings Point	4
Little Forest	1
Jervis Bay	2
Kiama	4
Huskisson	2
Batemans Bay	5
Manyana	2
Malua Bay	1
Morton	2
Moruya	1
Mossy Point	2
Narooma	1
Nowra	2
Sanctuary Point	3
Shellharbour	1
Shoalhaven	1
St Georges Basin	2
Surf Beach	1
Lake Tabourie	1
Tuross head	1
Unanderra	2
Termeil	1
Woonona	1
Adelaide	5
Melbourne	17
Brisbane	19
Perth	4
Canberra	6
Sydney	143
Wollongong	7
Australia (other)	236
lnternational (Gemany/France/UK/New Zealand/Canada/Austria/Poland/US/Greece/Finland/Croatia/Columbia/New Caledonia/Nicaragua/Netherlands/Hungary/Phillipines/Hong Kong/Belgium/Italy)	135

Petition supporting the proposal (Location as referenced in petition)

Burrill Lake	54
Ulladulla	66
Mollymook	19
Mollymook Beach	11
Milton	16
Narrawallee	9
Bendalong	3
Conjola	1
Dolphin Point	11
Lake Tabourie	1
Kings Point	7
Little Forest	1
Kiama	1
Morton	3
Moruya	1
Nowra	3
Shoalhaven	1
Lake Tabourie	1
Melbourne	4
Brisbane	11
Perth	2
Canberra	11
Sydney	84
Wollongong	3
Australia (other)	268

In reviewing the above it is noted that:

• Actual local support, i.e. within 30km of the site, is essentially equivalent with 198 against and 202 in support.

• It is noted that the petition against the proposal has utilised plans drawn up by a third party to support the petition and not the actual plans from the development application. Therefore, questions are raised as to validity of the petition if signatures have been obtained using plans that are not part of the development application.

• Further the initial petition title was “Stop High Rise Development in Burrill Lake” and was circulated extensively through social media. Signatures obtained before the petition title was altered to be site specific to the Edgewater Motel are therefore questionable given the incorrect information in the title of the petition.

• There were no contact details in the form of an address and/or email phone number of signatories to both petitions.

Community Engagement

Both petitions have been disseminated through social media. It is noted that the initial petition opposing the development was titled “Stop High Rise Development in Burrill Lake” which questions the number of signatures obtained under the petition title before it was changed to be site specific to the Edgewater Motel.

Policy Implications

Shoalhaven City Council’s principal role is to act as an informed and responsible decision maker which represents the interests of its community through open and transparent decisions.

Shoalhaven City Council makes decisions on behalf of the community; however, members of the community have a role to play in informing Council of their needs and/or providing information that may assist or influence Council’s decision(s). One of the ways in which members of the community can advise Council of their concerns, and influence the decision making process, is to take up a petition. Petitions provide a democratic mechanism for the community to make requests of, and provide information to, Council

Clause 9.19 of the Council’s Code of Meeting Practice states that

“9.19 The exact wording of petitions tabled at meetings of the Council shall be recorded in the minutes of that meeting. In the event a petition contains 500 or more signatures is presented to a Council meeting the subject matter of the petition shall trigger a report from the General Manager to the next Ordinary Meeting of Council.”

The Council does not currently prescribe requirements or rules for the format, wording or collection of petitions lodged with the Council. Whilst this leads to flexibility in how groups of people can communicate their concerns to the Council, this lack of prescription can lead to the provision of petitions which are not an appropriate basis from which Council should take action. Council may consider that a more prescribed approach is preferable given the matters outlined in this report.”

Summary and Conclusion

It is recommended that:

· Council receive the report for information

· Council consider the requirement for the implementation of policy/guideline for presenting petitions to Council

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 26 May 2020

Page 0

CL20.125 Emergency Overflow Storages, Various Sites - Review of Environmental Factors

HPERM Ref: D20/161559

Section: Water Asset Planning & Development

Approver: Robert Horner, Acting Director Shoalhaven Water

Attachments: 1. Proposed Provision of Emergency Overflow Storage Structures at Sewer Pump Stations at various locations in the Shoalhaven REF – EMAP Consulting Pty Ltd (under separate cover) ⇨

Reason for Report

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the Revised Review of Environmental Factors (REF) for the Proposed Provision of Emergency Overflow Storage Structures at Sewer Pumping Stations (SPS) at various locations in the Shoalhaven Local Government Area (LGA).

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council, after consideration of the Review of Environmental Factors for the Proposed Provision of Emergency Overflow Storage Structures at Sewer Pump Stations at various locations in the Shoalhaven Local Government Area (LGA), dated May 2020:

1. Determine that it is unlikely that there will be any significant environmental impact as a result of the proposed works and an Environmental Impact Statement is therefore not required for the proposed activity.

2. Adopt and implement the proposed mitigation measures and controls outlined in the REF.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendations.

Implications: This is recommended as the project, with the mitigation measures adopted, will significantly reduce the risk of unplanned overflows from sewage pumping station catchments. This will in turn reduce the risk of adverse impact to the environment and public health.

2. Council could determine not to proceed with provision of emergency overflow storage structures for the various SPS sites identified.

Implications: The risk of unplanned overflows of raw sewage into the environment from the identified SPS sites would not be reduced.

3. Council could determine that the environmental impacts warrant the preparation of an EIS.

Implications: This is not recommended as the REF has found that the identified potential impacts are satisfactorily addressed by the proposed management and mitigation measures.

Background

Shoalhaven Water operate and maintain approximately 240 major sewage pumping stations (SPS) throughout its 13 sewerage schemes. On occasions, mechanical failure and power outages at the SPS sites can lead to unplanned discharge of raw sewage into the environment. These unplanned overflows have potential to adversely impact the surrounding environment, including private properties and waterways.

In order to reduce the risks associated with unplanned discharges, Shoalhaven Water has identified a number of high risk sites and propose to construct emergency storage capacity to act as buffer storages. These storages will provide additional time for staff to respond to emergency situations, thus reducing the risk of overflows.

It is proposed to construct emergency overflow storage structures at eleven (11) high risk SPS sites located at Berry, Culburra, Huskisson, St Georges Basin and Sussex Inlet.

A Review of Environmental Factors (REF) was originally prepared for the project in 2015 by Cowman Stoddart Pty Ltd and shortly after the project was placed on hold due to budget and resource limitations, primarily due to the commitment to the REMS 1B project.

Shoalhaven Water is now in a position to progress this project and engaged EMAP Consulting Pty Ltd to prepare a Revised REF (the subject of this report) to re-assess the environmnetal impacts on the proposed activity, accounting for any legislative changes since the original project REF was prepared in 2015.

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

Based on the information in this REF, it is concluded that:

i. the proposed mitigation measures will be adopted and implemented.

ii. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the environmental impact of the proposed activity; and

iii. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the proposed works if all mitigation measures in this REF are implemented by Shoalhaven City council.

The proposed activity is recommended to proceed subject to the implementation of the measures to avoid, minimise or manage environmental impacts listed in this REF.

The mitigation measures outlined in the REF will be incorporated in the construction contract documents.

Community Engagement

The REF for this project was placed on public exhibition between from 15 April 2020 to 6 May 2020 during which time submissions were invited, with seven (7) responses received.

The first respondent was from Crown Lands NSW and, whilst generally supportive of the project, identified that those structures proposed to be constructed on Crown Lands would require a licence to be prepared and submitted to Crown Lands NSW. The project team was aware of this requirement and had already commenced with licence applications. Crown Lands further suggested that Shoalhaven City Council submit a global licence application for all existing water/sewer pumping stations in the LGA which are located on Crown Lands. This matter of a global licence application is not considered a matter to be dealt with under this REF, and Shoalhaven City Council’s Property Team are addressing this matter separately.

The second respondent initially objected to the project in relation to the works proposed at SPS 6 Culburra Beach, however subsequently retracted their objections following further discussions and clarification with Council’s project representative.

The third respondent was the NSW Government Department of Planning, Industry & Environment, who acknowledged receipt but had no comment.

The fourth respondent was generally supportive of the project in relation to the proposed works associated with SPS 1 at Sussex Inlet, however raised the following concerns:

1. visibility of the proposed structure;

2. removal of tree within their property;

3. concern of flooding associated with street surface run-off;

4. potential odour; and

5. potential for batter material to extend onto their property.

Following further discussions with the project’s nominated Council representative, the project team was able to:

· alleviate the concerns identified as items 2, 4 and 5 above;

· refer the respondent to Council’s Assets & Works Team for their concern identified as item 3 above, as this was not considered a matter to be dealt with under this REF; and

· reduce the concern identified as item 1 above by clarifying that the tanks will be constructed in-ground (with only the roof visible) and that a specific landscaping plan could be developed as part of the project in consultation with the respondent, to minimise concerns of visual impacts; whilst the respondent appreciated the approach, they maintained that it remained a concern and issued a subsequent letter to Council seeking further assistance to reduce the visual impacts of the proposed in-ground tank.

It is considered that the outstanding visibility concern raised can be resolved with the respondent prior to the construction of the project, noting that the respondent has not objected to the construction of a tank, but rather seeks assistance in reducing the visibility impacts on their adjacent property.

The fifth respondent objected to the project in relation to the proposed works at St Georges Basin SPS 12 (physically located in Sanctuary Point). Concerns raised related to:

1. visibility of the proposed structure;

2. existing vegetation management within the land adjacent the existing pump station;

3. placement of the sewer pump station at the subject lot originally;

4. exhibition of project during coronavirus lock down period;

5. potential odour of the new storage facility;

6. existing accidental releases of the existing SPS;

7. existing odour issues at the exiting pump station; and

8. proposed construction timeframe.

Following further discussions with the project’s nominated Council representative, the project team was able to:

· alleviate the concerns identified as items 4, 5 and 8 above, with the respondent seeking construction works to take place where possible during the non-peak tourist periods (winter months ideally) to reduce impact to her holiday letting business; the Project team accordingly updated the project documentation to reflect the requirement for the construction of works associated with SPS 1 2 St Georges Basin to be constructed between May and August;

· refer the respondent to Council’s Natural Resources Team, as well as NSW Crown Lands for their concern identified as item 2 above, as this was not considered a matter to be dealt with under this REF;

· refer the respondent to Shoalhaven City Council’s generic email address for their concern identified as item 3 above, as this was not considered a matter to be dealt with under this REF;

· refer the respondent to Shoalhaven Water’s Operation Team for their concern identified as items 6 and 7 above, as this was not considered a matter to be dealt with under this REF; however, did acknowledge that the project would significantly reduce the risk of such unplanned releases; and

· reduce the concern identified as item 1 above by clarifying that the tanks will be constructed in-ground and that a specific landscaping plan could be developed as part of the project in consultation with the respondent, to minimise concerns of visual impacts.

It is considered that the outstanding visibility concern raised can be resolved with the respondent prior to the construction of the project.

The sixth respondent (Conservation of Native Fauna & Flora) objected to the proposed provision of emergency storage facilities at any of the proposed SPS within the Culburra Beach catchment, and suggested that the funding for the proposed works should instead be used to create a small native bush garden in memory of Henry Halloran. The matters raised within the respondents objection were noted, however generally not considered matters to be dealt with under this REF, with matters relating to potential environmental impacts being the subject of both the original REF prepared in 2015, and this revised REF (2020), both of which do not support the claims made within the respondent’s submission.

The seventh respondent was the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), who simply acknowledged the proposed works and noted that the sewage pump stations are part of the existing sewer reticulation network and therefore captured under existing Environmental Protection licences for the associated treatment plants. The NSW EPA highlighted that the works would need to be undertaken in accordance with the licence conditions, of which particular note was made to Conditions O1.1, O2.1 (works to be undertaken in competent manner), Condition R2 (requirement for any environmental incidents to be reported while the works are being undertaken), that a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan (SECP) should be developed for the proposed works (and include a procedure to prepare the sites for rainfall events) and that consideration should also be given for noise generated from the proposed works. The Revised REF has since been updated to reflect such requirements.

Financial Implications

Adequate funds have been allocated in the sewer budget for the construction of the project in 2020/21 and 2021/22 financial years.

Risk Implications

A project risk assessment for the project has been established. Environmental risks have been identified and addressed in the project REF by recommending mitigation measures. These mitigation measures will be required to be implemented by the construction contractor through their Construction Environmental Management Plan.

Total Cash	-$11,387,918	April was not a rates instalment month and there was reduced income, additional creditors payments and the processing of refunds from Holiday Haven and SEC.
Waste Disposal	-$1,546,854	Reduced Income due to COVID closedown and not a rates instalment month.
Unrestricted Cash	-$10,850,388	April was not a rates instalment month and there was reduced income, additional creditors payments and the processing of refunds from Holiday Haven and SEC.