Agenda of Ordinary Meeting

Ordinary Meeting

Meeting Date: Tuesday, 28 July, 2020

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

Time: 5.00pm

Membership (Quorum - 7)

All Councillors

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

Agenda

1. Acknowledgement of Traditional Custodians

2. Opening Prayer

3. Australian National Anthem

4. Apologies / Leave of Absence

5. Confirmation of Minutes

· Ordinary Meeting - 23 June 2020

· Extra Ordinary Meeting - 30 June 2020

6. Declarations of Interest

7. Call Over of the Business Paper

8. Presentation of Petitions

9. Mayoral Minute

Mayoral Minute

MM20.9....... Mayoral Minute - Congratulations - Kim White - 2020 Minster's Awards for Women in Local Government.......................................................................................... 1

10. Deputations and Presentations

11. Notices of Motion / Questions on Notice

Notices of Motion / Questions on Notice

CL20.152..... Notice of Motion - Destination Park - Ulladulla.............................................. 2

CL20.153..... Notice of Motion - Request to RMS - Traffic Calming Measures - Princes Hwy, Bewong........................................................................................................... 3

CL20.154..... Notice of Motion - Traffic Safety Measures - Waratah Crescent, Sanctuary Point........................................................................................................................ 4

CL20.155..... Notice of Motion - Preserve View Lines - Lions Park to Burrill Lake............. 5

CL20.156..... Notice of Motion - Sussex Inlet Canal - Badgee Boundary Adjustment and Waterway Dedication....................................................................................................... 6

CL20.157..... Notice of Motion - Reserve and Play Area - Lake Drive, Swanhaven......... 12

CL20.158..... Notice of Motion - Chief Executive Officer - Voting Rights.......................... 16

CL20.159..... Question on Notice - DA20/1453 at 3 Moona St, Huskisson (Lot 104 DP 755928)...................................................................................................................... 18

12. Committee Reports

CL20.160..... Report of the Development & Environment Committee - 20 July 2020....... 19

DE20.61...... Road Closure - Unformed Road UPN102284 Separating Lot 28 & 14 DP 755927 - Conjola

CL20.161..... Report of the Strategy & Assets Committee - 21 July 2020........................ 20

SA20.106.... Notice of Motion - Berry Riding Club - Loan Request

SA20.110.... Local Government Remuneration Tribunal - Determination - Councillor and Mayoral Fees - 2020/2021

SA20.116.... House Keeping - Sussex Inlet Roads Dedication Under Sec 16 & 17 of the Roads Act 1993

SA20.117.... Land Acquisition - Easement for Drainage - Lot 107 DP 1170860 Burralee Drive Worrigee

SA20.118.... Wondalga Farm - Disaster Assistance & Fodder Production Update

SA20.119.... Release of Drainage Easement and Restriction on the Use of Land - Molloy Street, Mollymook

SA20.120.... Acquisition of Crown Land - Formalisation of Main Access to Integrated Emergency Management Centre (IEMC) and Nowra Racing Complex

SA20.121.... Proposed Retail Lease to The Brow Collective - 37a/43 Kinghorne Street Nowra

SA20.122.... Proposed Lease to Cash Stop Financial Services - 43/43 Kinghorne Street Nowra

SA20.123.... Land Acquisition - Road Widening - Part Lot 2 DP 124710 - 2 Lawrence Ave Nowra

SA20.124.... Proposed Road Closure Part Tarawara Street Bomaderry

SA20.131.... Acquisition of Easement for Water Supply - 172B&C Pointer Road Yatte Yattah

13. Reports

Finance Corporate & Community Services

CL20.162..... Response to Presentation of Petition - Proposed Dog Off-leash Area at Dolphin Point...................................................................................................................... 25

CL20.163..... Response - Questions on Notice - Climate Change Risk to Australia's Built Environment Report...................................................................................... 32

CL20.164..... Investment Report - June 2020.................................................................... 37

Planning Environment & Development

CL20.165..... Variations to Development Standards - June Quarter 2020........................ 44

CL20.166..... Proposed Application - Low Cost Loans Initiative Round 3 - Funding Local Infrastructure to Accelerate New Housing Supply....................................... 47

CL20.167..... Local Government and Conservation and Land Management Economic Stimulus...................................................................................................................... 53

14. Confidential Reports

Nil

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 28 July 2020

Page 1

CL20.156 Notice of Motion - Sussex Inlet Canal - Badgee Boundary Adjustment and Waterway Dedication

HPERM Ref: D20/328181

Submitted by: Clr Patricia White

Purpose / Summary

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

Recommendation

That:

1. Council receive the Sussex Inlet Canal - Badgee Boundary Adjustment and Waterway Dedication update report for information.

2. Council allocate loan funding of up to $250,000 to carry out preliminary works to enable the boundary Adjustment and waterway dedication.

3. Those residents who “opt in” to the proposed dedication of the boundary adjustment and waterway dedication equally share the repayment of the loan funds.

4. Residents who wish to “opt in” with hardship issues, may seek Council support under Council’s Hardship Policy with a view to establish a payment plan.

5. Council enter a Deed with those residents who “opt in” for repayment of funds. This Deed to be secured by a Caveat on the land, if required.

6. Council waive the DA fees for this item.

Background

Council resolved at the June 2020 Council meeting to defer this recommendation until a residents briefing had been held. The residents briefing was held on Saturday 11 July at Thompson Street Hall Sussex Inlet.

Residents who reside on the Canal were contacted by letter explaining the current position of the required works and requested to attend the meeting. Residents had to register to attend due to the Covid restrictions.

Over 60 residents attended the meeting, with other residents making direct contact with Council. The meeting was also attended by Director Phil Costello, Colin Wood Section Manager, Shaun Clay Compliance, Clr Gash and myself.

Phil Costello and Colin Wood explained to residents the current situation and costs and the way to move forward in either “opting in” or “opting out”. Clr White gave an overview of the meetings and discussions with Taliac since our last residents meeting in late 2019. There was general discussion with residents with questions and answers. Many residents indicated that they would pay up front to “opt in”, however, others will need assistance.

Those residents who did not attend spoke at length with Council staff and the majority were satisfied with the way forward.

Overall, the residents briefing went really well with everyone basically happy to move forward.

This has been a long and complex matter to resolve and it is important that the required works are completed as one job lot to save costs and logistics. It is in the best interest of our residents who live on the Canal and the community to resolve the issues that have developed over the last 60 years on this canal. Resolving the issues will improve the safety on the canal, regularise illegal structures, and complete the boating access on the canal system in Sussex Inlet.

I request all Councillors to support the residents and resolve the issues.

Note by the CEO

Background

For many years Council has received reports regarding the Taliac land and canal in Sussex Inlet. The concerns include the need to regularise many unauthorised structures and have the waterway portion dedicated to Council. This would then form part of the existing canal infrastructure in Sussex Inlet as part of boating navigation.

At present the Canal is privately owned by Taliac between the Jacobs Drive Bridge and the Badgee Bridge Sussex Inlet. This canal was constructed in the 1960s. Over time residents have built revetment walls, jetties and other structures along the canal and on Taliac land. Currently, Taliac own a proportion of land between the resident property owners and the canals with the biggest proportion on one lot being approximately 60m².

Following complaints, a report to Council last year highlighted the need to regularise the unauthorised structures and the ownership of the canal.

Over the last 12 months meetings have been held with Council Staff, Taliac and Planners, Allen Price and Scarratts. There have also been 2 public meetings with residents residing on the affected canal to resolve the issues.

At the meetings we have worked through issues including: -

1. Ownership of the revetment walls

2. Jetty and structures in the canal – both approved and unauthorised

3. Residual land owned by Taliac – between the residents’ property and the canal and unauthorised structures on this land.

4. Council owned land around the bridge areas

5. Legislation and way forward

6. Residents’ concerns with costs, the process for regularising unauthorised structures, revetment walls and land ownership

7. Hardship for residents who have lived on the canal for many years

8. Cost of project works to enable transfer and dedication linguistics

Council staff and Taliac representatives have now come up with a plan to move forward as follows:

(a) Council Officers’ perspective

(i) Keen to only take over the waterway and licence the jetties that are located within the waterway.

(ii) Prefer the retaining walls and land are transferred to the current residential landowners before the jetties are regularised.

Taking on ownership of revetment walls and the parcels of land between residents and the canals would have major cost implications such as maintenance and insurance. Access issues from residents’ properties to the water’s edge would be problematic as land would be classified as Council reserve and public access into people’s backyards would be difficult to manage.

It is acknowledged that not all owners may “opt in” due to the cost. The proposed dedication of funds to allow this to happen with an interest free payment option should entice everyone to opt in.

(b) Property Boundaries

Taliac has agreed to transfer the land between the residents’ property boundaries and the canal boundary to the residents by way of dedication.

(i) This work will be carried out by a boundary adjustment between Taliac and the residents.

(ii) Residents will have the option to “opt in” to the boundary adjustment. Following the resident meetings, it is expected that most owners will “opt in”. Owners that choose to “opt in” to the boundary adjustment will need to:

(1) Pay for the legal fees to have the transfer completed; and

(2) Pay on a pro rata basis to offset the costs for the original survey works.

(iii) Opt-out residents: Residents that “opt-out”, will not need to pay for the survey work but they will not receive the land. These residents will be advised that land will be transferred to Council’s ownership and it will be included in the licence agreements for any jetty they may want to retain. Should an owner opt out and the land is transferred to Council, then any future transfer of ownership would need to be at the market rate.

If there is a revetment wall and jetty associated with these properties, then they will need to pay for an Engineer’s report attesting to the adequacy of the revetment wall. All jetties will need to be demolished if the owner opts out. Any works deemed necessary for rectification of the revetment walls, will need to be carried out by the owner.

The logistics of this project for the boundary adjustment to residents and transfer of the canal to Council are difficult due to the number of residents involved. The process involves:

(i) Main survey of the whole canal and residential properties including structures

(ii) Preparation of legal documentation including Deeds and Transfers

(iii) Legal advice for residents

(iv) Discussion and sign off with Mortgagees

(v) Engineers’ Reports

(vi) Meetings ongoing Resident, Consultant and Staff

(vii) Subdivision Costs

The costs have been estimated at $250,000 excluding Engineering Costs for the jetties which are to be met by all residents separately. Those that “opt in” will not require engineering certification on the revetment walls because these will be wholly contained within the landowner’s parcel as part of the boundary adjustment. When these revetment walls need to be replaced, they will be the subject of a separate development application.

As we are dealing with 54 residents it is difficult to undertake the work required whilst waiting for payment from those who “opt in”, as the first stage is a survey of the whole area. This involves establishing the current boundaries of the properties and to highlight:

(1) the area of land (in m²) that is being used by the individual property owners. This area must account for the outer edge of the revetment walls.

(2) location of the revetment walls, jetties, boat ramps and any other structure that has been constructed on Taliac land.

This recommendation proposes Council loan fund the works required to complete the works required and the residents repay Council. This is believed to be the simplest straightforward way forward to ensure the canal and unregularized structures are resolved in a quick, efficient, professional and organised manner.

Council will need to enter a Deed for repayment of the loan funds which is estimated to cost residents between $5,000 if all residents opt in and $7,000 if 50% of residents opt in. This is a major cost saving for the residents as if each resident had to pay individually for the works it would cost approximately $16,000 each.

Council is aware that some residents may have difficulty in paying the costs. Following discussions with the CEO, Council should be able to establish a payment plan, for those residents in hardship and unable to meet the costs for “opting in” on a single payment to Council.

(d) Engineering Reports

In relation to the illegal structures and jetties, Council will require the residents to obtain Engineering reports at their own costs.

Following the works project the revetment walls will largely be within the ownership of the residents. All jetties will need to be assessed for structural stability. Only one Engineer will be engaged for this work. This will be a second “Opt-in” or “Opt-out” arrangement – but at no cost to Council.

(i) “Opt-in” owners: The owners of the property would pay the cost of the report on their own jetty.

(ii) “Opt-out” residents: The jetties would need to be demolished by the owners.

(iii) On completion of any works identified in the Engineer’s report as any work identified by the Engineer would need to be completed by the owners of the jetty within a set time period (say 3 months).

(iv) The Engineer will prepare a final clearance certificate once the work has been completed.

(v) Failure to complete the works within that time would revert to a demolition order.

(vi) Licence agreements: Owners would enter into licence agreements for the use of the jetties and pay the annual fees (and land if they did not opt in to the purchase pathway identified in point (b) above).

(e) Building Information Certificate (BIC)

Following all the project works, Taliac Pty Limited is required to submit 1 building information certificate application to Council. The survey plan accompanying this BIC would show:

(i) the location of all remaining Jetties.

(ii) the new boundary accounting for all owners that have opted in and out of the boundary adjustment identified in item 2 above.

(iii) Council will also require a copy of each engineering certificates attesting to the structural adequacy of each jetty.

(f) Transfer of waterway and any residual land to Council

Once Council has issued the BIC, Taliac Pty Limited would arrange for the completion of the DP and the transfer of the waterway and any residual land to Council.

This has been a long and complex matter to resolve. It is in the best interest of our residents who live on the Canal and the community to resolve the issues that have developed over the last 60 years on this canal. Resolving the issues will improve the safety on the canal, regularise illegal structures, and complete the boating access on the canal system in Sussex Inlet.

I request all Councillors to support the residents and resolve the issues.

Note by the CEO

The Note by the CEO presented to the June Council meeting is reproduced below for Councillors’ reference.

“Council’s Compliance staff have been working with the Community for over two years to resolve the unauthorised structures and jetties on this stretch of waterway in Sussex Inlet. Council’s staff are keen to get this resolved as there have been complaints concerning the safety of the canal and in particular the structural stability of the jetties contained along it.

Having this resolved will reduce Council’s liability should an incident occur where a jetty was found to be unsatisfactory.

Two public meetings have been held with owners where the issues and process have been explained in detail. Owners have expressed a general desire to work with Council to resolve this issue but they are understandably cautious and worried about the likely costs involved.

At the last public meeting, Council staff gave owners an undertaking to obtain firm quotations and then present these to a future meeting for their consideration.

Essentially, the resolution of these issues would require the following processes to be completed and these have been discussed with the landowners and Taliac:

(a) The survey of the land to establish the extent of the encroachments onto Taliac land.

(b) Boundary adjustments to ensure all revetment walls and other land structures are located wholly upon the individual land owner’s properties (Note: - the jetties will remain on the waterway). This will require separate development applications and the registration of the boundary adjustment with NSW Land Titles.

(c) The assessment of the jetties from a professional engineer, the completion of any identified remedial works and final certification. This is all completed at the owners’ cost and will not be paid for out of the Council account.

(d) A single building certificate to regularise the jetties

(e) A final boundary adjustment dedicating the waterway to Council.

(f) The licensing of the jetties with Council.

This will be a long process and the key to its success is the need for all impacted owners to “opt-in” to the proposal. To “opt-in” owners will need to provide written acceptance moving forward. The more owners that “opt-in”, the cheaper the overall costs will be for them. The benefit to the owner is the gift of the portion of land transferred from Taliac into their ownership. The size of this land gift will vary between owners and this will have a pro-rata component for the payment of the initial survey.

The delay has been with obtaining firm quotations for each process and this is understandable given the level of complexity. The quote was received on 19 May 2020 and it can now move to the next stage. The overall cost is in the order of $250,000. The main costs are associated with survey work ($130K), legal fees ($70K) and registrations (23K). The quote also includes a contingency.

The setting of an account with Council is seen as the best way to get things moving and ensure consultants are paid for their services in a timely manner. Once the survey is completed, the pro-rata rate can be set for each property owner. This is the only variation in the amount payable by owners as the requirements for legal fees, development application fees and registration fees with NSW Land Titles are all standard. Council would pay the consultant for the initial survey and then invoice property owners for their total contribution to the overall project.

Council would then pay the consultant’s accounts for legal fees and registration fees as these stages are completed.

It is acknowledged some owners will struggle with the payment and this has been identified during the public meetings. Council will be able to consider these on their merit and arrange for a payment plan over 3 to 5 years. There will also be a requirement that if the property changes ownership, then the account is paid at settlement.

If this notice of motion is approved, a further public meeting will be held whereby the costs will be discussed along with this payment method. It is hoped most people will see the goodwill offered to them by Council and “opt-in” to the proposal. In an effort to encourage everyone to “opt-in”, Council staff will highlight that the long-term benefits to owners will far outweigh the costs of this proposal.

Support is given to this Notice of Motion for the creation of loan funding to the value of $250,000.”

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 28 July 2020

Page 1

CL20.157 Notice of Motion - Reserve and Play Area - Lake Drive, Swanhaven

HPERM Ref: D20/328243

Submitted by: Clr Patricia White

Purpose / Summary

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

Recommendation

That Council request the Chief Executive Officer (or his nominee) to organise an onsite meeting with Residents of Lake Drive Swanhaven, Sussex Forum Executive, Ward Three Councillors (available) and Council Staff to discuss the formation of a Group to maintain the natural area and playground reserve.

Background

I have received representations from a majority of residents in Lake Drive Swanhaven regarding the condition of the reserve area and play area in the reserve on Lake Drive. I attended an onsite meeting with residents and Sussex Forum and unfortunately the residents, the Forum and myself were very disappointed with the area. The local residents wish to rescue the "natural" that is left of this environment, as it is overrun with noxious weeds, some of them tree-sized, which cover other weeds, fallen branches and dangerous trees that need inspection etc. This not only presents a fire hazard, but also kills the original "natural environment".

An onsite meeting will assist residents and staff to discuss the issues.

I request all Councillors to support the residents and resolve the issues.

Note by the CEO

1. The land in question is crown land under Trust management by Council – known as Dyball reserve.

2. The land is currently managed by Council as a mix of Natural Area (green below) and Park.

3. The area has been mapped as a threatened Ecological Community – Bangalay Sand Forest.

4. Swan Lake and nearby Berrara Creek, and their catchment support a great variety of habitats. The area is known to be a biodiversity hotspot, with nearly 500 plant species, 150 bird species, and at least 23 native mammal species known to occur in the area (taken from Bushcare Action Plan).

5. There is an existing active Bushcare Group - Dyball reserve Bushcare Group. The group’s action plan was approved by Council in September 2017 and includes the area west of Lake Drive. There are twelve registered members of the group.

6. Weed control, as sought by the group of residents, is part of the Bushcare action plan.

7. A group of Lake Drive residents were emailed by the Bushcare Coordinator inviting a meeting on site to discuss working to the existing approved action plan. Residents have been informed they would be welcome to join the existing group and work to the existing plan.

8. Residents have shown an interest in having a separate Parkcare group.

9. Clearing and burning of vegetation within the reserve without required permissions has been reported to Council Rangers recently by a member of the local community.

10. Following discussion with two key members of the Bushcare group it is thought reasonable that the approach to work on the area by Lake Drive residents is understandable and would be acceptable to some in the community, but perhaps not all.

11. Some broader community consultation would be desirable prior to implementing any new proposed actions outside of the Bushcare plan.

12. The processes underway to categorise Crown Land in accordance with the Local Government Act that is currently underway will be used to formalise how this community land will be categorised.

13. In the meantime, the formation of a Parkcare group is considered incompatible to the existing Bushcare group and action plan.

14. As such, residents would be welcome to join the existing Bushcare group (and potentially work independently) or form a sub group.

Recent Correspondence

There has been a series of interactions and correspondence recently between Council and some of the residents of Lake Drive, Swan Haven. These are summarised below:

Date	HPECM reference	Incoming to SCC or outgoing
18 May	D20/186779	Incoming	Letter sent to Council outlining concerns and offer to assist
20 May	D20/171558	Outgoing	Show cause letter sent to one resident regarding removal of tree
1 June	D20/206794	Incoming	Response to ‘show cause letter’ by resident
3 June	D20/208971	Outgoing	Response to D20/186779, referring to Bushcare Coordinator
4 June	D20/212713	Outgoing	Response to D20/186779 by Council regarding fire – directing concerns to the RFS as the responsible authority
16 June	D20/232827	Outgoing	Follow on from D20/208971, response by Bushcare Coordinator, explaining the Bushcare group and action plan with an offer to meet
28 June	D20/308221	Incoming	Letter from Swanhaven resident alleging vegetation removal, bonfires and alcohol consumption on the reserve on May 17
28 June	D20/269423	Incoming	Letter from Sussex District forum to Parkcare Coordinator, seeking to apply for Crown Reserve funding and seeking to create a Parkcare group
5 July	D20/292956	Incoming	Email from resident further seeking to form a Parkcare group
6 July	293325, 293514, 293546	Outgoing	Replies to SDF and residents from Parkcare Coordinator, outlining that the area is managed as Natural Area, covered by an existing Bushcare action plan approved by Council, and with a map showing Park areas suitable for Parkcare
7 June	D20/297220	Incoming	Email from resident that Parkcare, not Bushcare, wanted.
7 June	D20/297220	Outgoing	Response reiterating previous statements by Parkcare Coordinator

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 28 July 2020

Page 1

CL20.158 Notice of Motion - Chief Executive Officer - Voting Rights

HPERM Ref: D20/328789

Submitted by: Clr John Levett

Purpose / Summary

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

Recommendation

That the CEO continue in an advisory role at the core Council Meetings, the Development and Environment Committee and Strategy and Assets Committee, but cease to have voting rights.

Background

This motion arises from Questions on Notice at the Ordinary Meeting Tuesday 23rd June, 2020 in relation to the CEO voting power.

Question 1. asked for the rationale behind the move and the answer seems to suggest that it was introduced to circumvent a Code of Meeting Practice provision that the Mayor had the right to chair any meeting the membership of which was restricted to Councillors. If a non Councillor was a member then that right no longer applied. There was likely, then, to be a political motive at play in giving the CEO voting rights but the legality of it might be in question. “There is some doubt about whether clause 20.11 (of the Code of Meeting Practice) does or does not apply to committees with members other than councillors and therefore whether the Mayor is or is not entitled to chair Council committees of which the CEO is a voting member.” No other explanation was found for the decision.

No other NSW Council gives a vote to the CEO on a “Core” or “Standing” committee.

Is it good Governance? The answer in the report says; “Members of the public may feel that their democratic rights to elect all those tasked with strategic decision making for the local government area are eroded by the current practice. This does pose a risk for the Council.” The answer goes on to suggest that there may be other risks or benefits but that; “Such risks or benefits have not been identified in the review of Council files or legislation.”

The fundamental flaw in the CEO voting power is delineated in the answer to Question 4 which asked about inherent conflicts of interest in the practice.

“There is a real concern about actual or perceived bias and conflicts of interest arising from the CEO’s membership of Council committees.”

“It can be readily appreciated that where the CEO has responsibility for a staff report, advice or recommendation provided to a Council committee in relation to a matter and also has a right to vote on the matter on the committee, the possibility that the CEO may be perceived as not having an impartial mind or not being open to persuasion on the matter or having a stake in ensuring that the staff position is adopted by the committee is real and ever present.”

“Under the general law, perceived bias or a conflict of interest of the CEO would disqualify the CEO from voting on a matter and, if he/she did nevertheless vote on the matter, his or her participation would infect the Council committee’s decision with bias and undermine the validity of the decision on the matter.

“The vote by the CEO has the potential to politicise the Council…the CEO has an employment relationship defined by Councillors and if there is a prevailing faction on Council the decisions of a CEO may be coloured accordingly.

“Basic democratic principles dictate that an unelected person should not have an influence in policy making decisions or development application outcomes when that person can’t be held accountable at the ballot box. A key element of the Local Government Act is the separation of political and administrative functions, that is; elected councillors determine policy and council staff administer policy. Prudent management is undermined by the CEO vote. This is acknowledged in the answer to Question 5; “The inclusion of the CEO as a voting member may create the perception that a CEO could vote on political grounds rather than merit.”

There would be public outrage if a political party made the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet a member of the Cabinet… or similarly at the State level. And the question arises, does the CEO’s obligation to vote amount to pressure from a dominant faction. It could be argued in a court of law that it’s a corruption of process.

The staff are represented in the decision making process through their recommendations… further influence through a CEO vote is not appropriate.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 28 July 2020

Page 1

CL20.161 Report of the Strategy & Assets Committee - 21 July 2020

HPERM Ref: D20/332150

SA20.106 Notice of Motion - Berry Riding Club - Loan Request

HPERM Ref: D20/300733

Recommendation

That Berry Riding Club be granted a loan in the amount of $25,000 to enable the Club to acquire jumps for the Eventing Course being developed at the Berry Equestrian Centre of Excellence.

SA20.110 Local Government Remuneration Tribunal - Determination - Councillor and Mayoral Fees - 2020/2021

HPERM Ref: D20/228313

Recommendation

That:

1. Council notes the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal’s Annual Report and Determination dated 10 June 2020.

2. Council adjust the Councillor Fee to $24,320

3. Council increase the Mayoral fee by $4,000, include the new increased Councillor Fee of $24,320, the new increased Mayoral remuneration totals $77,570.

SA20.116 House Keeping - Sussex Inlet Roads Dedication Under Sec 16 & 17 of the Roads Act 1993

HPERM Ref: D20/150535

Recommendation

That Council resolves to dedicate the land identified in Attachment 1 (D20/172897) at the intersection of River Road, Lyons Road & Ethel Street in Sussex Inlet, as a public road in accordance with the provisions of Sections 16 & 17 of the Roads Act 1993.

SA20.117 Land Acquisition - Easement for Drainage - Lot 107 DP 1170860 Burralee Drive Worrigee

HPERM Ref: D20/170594

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Acquire by agreement an easement to drain water 5 metres wide and variable-width over part of Lot 107 DP 1170860 Burralee Drive, Worrigee as shown on Attachment 1 (D20/171101).

2. Agree to pay compensation in the amount of $12,000 (excl GST) plus reasonable legal costs associated with the acquisition from Job No 75503 Forest Meadows Way Worrigee Easement acquisition, as easements were not created in favour of Council at the time of subdivision.

3. Authorise the Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven be affixed to any document requiring to be sealed and delegate to the Chief Executive Officer authority to sign any documentation necessary to give effect to this resolution.

SA20.118 Wondalga Farm - Disaster Assistance & Fodder Production Update

HPERM Ref: D20/187739

Recommendation

That in respect to the Wondalga Farm, Council:

1. Continue to produce and provide Fodder for disaster (drought and fire) affected farmers and include any other stock owners requiring feed for animals throughout the state.

2. Sell fodder, by the bale at market rates according to fodder quality as determined by the CEO (Director Assets and Works).

3. Note that a report on the sale of Fodder from Wondalga Farm, as well as the status of the operating budget, will be presented in October 2020 (end of first quarter).

4. Note that a report on the long-term commercial management of Wondalga Farm as required in Part 6 of MIN 20.215, is expected to be presented in October 2020 (end of first quarter).

SA20.119 Release of Drainage Easement and Restriction on the Use of Land - Molloy Street, Mollymook

HPERM Ref: D20/205649

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Approve the release of the Easement to Drain Water 3 Wide and Restriction of Use of Land over Lot 32 DP 1190685, known as 52 Molloy Street, Mollymook;

2. Approve the release of the Easement to Drain Water 3 Wide and Restriction of Use of Land over Lot 59 DP 1204912, Part Lot 71 DP 1263187, Lots 112, 113, 114, 115 in DP 1215166, Lot 2 DP 1137611, Lot 110 DP 1215166, Lots 60 & 61 in DP 1219963 as & when Council receives applications from respective property owners;

3. Require all costs associated with the release of the easement to drain water and restriction of the use of land be met by the respective Registered Proprietor of the burdened land;

4. Require the Registered Proprietor accept the transfer of ownership and all future responsibilities, including any costs for existing infrastructure within Lot 32 DP 1190685;

5. Require all remediation works and associated costs within the easement area being the responsibility of the Registered Proprietor of the burdened land; and

6. 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.

SA20.120 Acquisition of Crown Land - Formalisation of Main Access to Integrated Emergency Management Centre (IEMC) and Nowra Racing Complex

HPERM Ref: D20/212671

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Resolve to compulsory acquire Lot 5 DP 1265268 in approved plan of subdivision under SF10607 (land known as Dog Track Road) from NSW Department of Planning, Industry & Environment – Crown Land;

2. Pay compensation for the acquisition including all ancillary costs, in accordance with the determination of the Valuer General under the terms and conditions of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms) Compensation Act 1991 from job number 88810;

3. Approve the making of the necessary applications for compulsory acquisition to the Minister for Local Government and the Governor;

4. Dedicate Lot 5 DP 1265268 in approved plan of subdivision under SF10607 as a public road by way of a notice published in the Gazette under Section 10 of the Roads Act 1993 at the completion of the acquisition;

5. Approve that the Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven be affixed to any documents required to be sealed and that otherwise the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to sign any documentation necessary to give effect to the resolution.

SA20.121 Proposed Retail Lease to The Brow Collective - 37a/43 Kinghorne Street Nowra

HPERM Ref: D20/241094

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Enter into a two (2) year lease plus one (1) year option for Part Lot 1 DP 225912; retail shop known as 37a/43 Kinghorne Street Nowra with Jessica Norman, trading as The Brow Collective, at a commencement rent of $18,000 (excl GST) pa + outgoings with annual 3% increases.

2. Agree to a three (3) month rent free period, as per industry guidelines.

3. Require each party to pay their own legal costs relating to this matter.

4. Approve the Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven be affixed to any documents required to be sealed otherwise the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to sign any documentation necessary to give effect to this resolution.

SA20.122 Proposed Lease to Cash Stop Financial Services - 43/43 Kinghorne Street Nowra

HPERM Ref: D20/262900

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Enter into a three (3) year lease plus three (3) year option for Part Lot 1 DP 225912; retail shop known as 43/43 Kinghorne Street Nowra with Cash Stop Financial Services Pty Ltd for the purpose of financial services and pawnbroking at a commencement rent of $20,000 (excl GST) pa + outgoings with annual 3% increases.

2. Agree to a three (3) month rent free period as per industry guidelines.

3. Require each party to pay their own legal costs relating to this matter.

SA20.123 Land Acquisition - Road Widening - Part Lot 2 DP 124710 - 2 Lawrence Ave Nowra

HPERM Ref: D20/276391

Recommendation

That Council: -

1. Acquire by agreement 50.5m² area of land for road widening purposes over part of Lot 2 DP 276076 Lawrence Ave, Nowra, as shown on Attachment 1 (D20/276076).

2. Agree to pay compensation in the amount of $36,000 (excl GST) from the Property Reserve

4. Following acquisition, the land be dedicated as Public Road pursuant to Section 10 of the Roads Act 1993.

SA20.124 Proposed Road Closure Part Tarawara Street Bomaderry

HPERM Ref: D20/287620

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Close the unformed road reserve as per attachment 1 (D20/58909) at DP2886 Tarawara Street Bomaderry, between Princes Highway and Tarawal Street adjacent to Ringbalin Crescent lots 12 – 21 DP249575 by a notice published in the Government Gazette.

2. The CEO negotiate the sale of the closed road (if the closure proceeds) with the Nowra Anglican College in such a manner as to provide certainty as to the use of the road reserve prior to any transfer occurring.

3. Require all costs associated with the road closure be borne by the Nowra Anglican College.

4. Authorise the Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven be affixed to any document requiring to be sealed and delegate to the Chief Executive Officer authority to sign any documentation necessary to give effect to this resolution.

SA20.131 Acquisition of Easement for Water Supply - 172B&C Pointer Road Yatte Yattah

HPERM Ref: D20/247587

Recommendation

That:

1. Council rescind MIN16.170.

2. Council acquire an Easement for Water Supply 3 wide over Lot 1 DP725956 and Lot 1 DP1244841 at Yatte Yattah, as shown highlighted and marked ‘A’ on DP1224571 and DP1244841, attached.

3. Council pay compensation of $6,000, plus GST if applicable, and reasonable legal costs associated with the acquisition in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, from Council’s Water Fund.

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

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 28 July 2020

Page 1

CL20.162 Response to Presentation of Petition - Proposed Dog Off-leash Area at Dolphin Point

HPERM Ref: D20/229824

Section: Recreation Community & Culture

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

Attachments: 1. Petition - Timed Dog Off-leash Area - Dolphin Point / Lions Park (councillors information folder) ⇨

2. Summary of Submissions ⇩

Reason for Report

The purpose of this report is to respond to the presentation of petition in relation to the request for a new timed dog off-leash area at Dolphin Point.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Do not support the proposal for a dog off-leash area at Dolphin Point, as per the petition, due to the high utilisation of the area and environmental reasons (habitat and nesting sites for threatened shorebirds).

2. Undertake investigations into the suitability of alternative locations including Burrill Beach, Dolphin Point Reserve and Rackham Crescent Reserve for dog off-leash areas.

3. Consult with the petition organiser, Ulladulla and Districts Community Forum, adjacent landowners, and broader community to seek feedback on alternative locations for dog off-leash areas. As part of the consultation, allow the opportunity to suggest alternative locations between Ulladulla Harbour and Cormorant Beach off-leash areas for consideration for dog off-leash areas.

4. Prepare a report back to Council following the investigations into alternative sites and consultation.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation.

Implications: Given the proposed location of the dog off-leash area as per the petition is unsuitable for dog off-leash activity due to high utilisation of the area and environmental reasons, the recommendation provides an opportunity to identify other locations which may be more suitable, whilst consulting with the community to seek their feedback on the matter.

The recommendation acknowledges that there is potentially a need for a dog off-leash area in this general location, due to the distance between the existing off-leash areas at Ulladulla Harbour and Cormorant Beach.

2. Do not proceed to consultation at this stage and defer the matter until the broader Access Areas for Dogs Policy review takes place.

Implications: As the recommendation is to not support the proposal for a dog off-leash area at Dolphin Point, investigating alternative sites provides Council staff with adequate opportunity to consider locations for a dog off-leash area whilst consulting the community.

Council could still potentially look at deferring the adoption of any changes (i.e. introducing a new dog off-leash area) that may evolve from the investigations and consultation as part of the Access Areas for Dogs Policy review. However, the benefit of undertaking the investigations and consultation now is that it will allow Council staff to be more prepared for the introduction of a new dog off-leash area as part of the Policy review.

Background

At the Strategy and Assets meeting on 9 June 2020, a petition was presented in relation to a request for a new dog off-leash area at Dolphin Point.

The area proposed for dog off-leash area is within the Burrill Lake estuary and includes the eastern section of Lions Park, the foreshore of the Lake down to the inlet at Dolphin Point Reserve.

The proposal is a for a timed off-leash area consistent with other timed off-leash areas in Shoalhaven (i.e. May to September from 3pm to 10am and October to April from 4pm to 10am). Figure 1 below identifies the approximate area proposed for a timed dog off-leash area.

Figure 1- Indicative location of proposed timed dog off-leash area

The petition submitted contained 1,101 signatures in support of the proposal. The petition contains signatures from individuals who are local residents and from outside the local area and Shoalhaven Local Government Area. However, the majority of signatures are from Shoalhaven residents from suburbs including Burrill Lake, Dolphin Point, Kings Point, Ulladulla, Mollymook, and Milton. A copy of the petition is available in the Councillor’s Information Folder.

The petition argues that the area subject to the proposal will:

1. Provide a flat and accessible walking area for all local residents. This includes those who may not be able to drive the 10 kms to Colliers or Narrawallee Beach, and those from other local areas who may have mobility issues and therefore have difficulty in accessing Colliers beach and the Ulladulla Harbour beach.

2. Foster the responsible sharing of the area between all users; to provide an enjoyable environment for exercise and recreation for non-dog owners and dog owners alike; and, to better cater for the growing number of tourists that travel to the area with their dogs.

Preliminary Assessment of Proposed Timed Dog Off-leash Area

As part of the consideration of the proposed timed dog off-leash area within Burrill Lake estuary, a review of Council’s GIS and records was undertaken.

It was noted that the location of the proposed dog off-leash area is in a highly frequented location by residents and visitors for various recreation pursuits including walking, picnics, fishing, and swimming. Lions Park in particular is embellished with a multitude of infrastructure including playground, picnic and BBQ facilities, accessible change room (fit with lift and change facility), car parking and pathways, making it highly utilised and a popular destination for locals and tourists alike with its accessible location off the Princes Highway and adjacent to the tourist park.

As part of the review, it was noted that site is located within the coastal zone and has been noted as habitat and nesting sites for threatened shorebirds.

Council’s Environmental Services Section and NSW Department of Planning and Environment’s (DPIE) Biodiversity and Conservation Team were contacted in relation to the proposal. The following advice was received from DPIE and concurred with by Council’s Environmental Services Section:

· This area along the foreshore at the entrance to Burrill Lake is adjacent to extensive sand and mud flats that are important foraging habitat for several threatened shorebirds. The area is particularly important at low tide for Pied Oystercatchers that nest on nearby beaches and within the estuary, and I have regularly seen these birds feeding east of the bridge.

· Similarly, the migratory Eastern Curlew and other migratory species forage on the sand and mud flats in this area during their summer visits to Australia.

· The area would also be important for Hooded Plovers if pairs nested on the ocean beaches in the vicinity of the lake entrance.

· Providing a dog off-leash exercise area adjacent to important shorebird foraging habitat will increase impacts on the birds and reduce the value of this important area of habitat.

· It is worth investigating alternate areas to avoid this obvious conflict.

On this basis, the proposed area as per the petition is considered unsuitable as an off-leash dog area as it is highly utilised and for environmental reasons.

Review of Access Areas for Dogs Policy and Dog Off-leash Guidelines

A review of Council’s Access Areas for Dogs Policy and Dog Off-leash Guidelines indicates that there is only one designated dog off-leash area south of Ulladulla Harbour in the Shoalhaven Local Government Area (LGA) which is approximately 25-minutes south at Cormorant Beach, Bawley Point.

Whilst the area subject to the petition is unsuitable as it is highly utilised and for environmental reasons, there may be merit in considering a new dog off-leash area between Ulladulla Harbour and Cormorant Beach off-leash areas, particularly given the concentration of dog off-leash areas in other parts of Shoalhaven.

Alternative sites have been suggested to Council in the past in the area between Ulladulla Harbour and Cormorant Beach. Some of these alternative sites include:

· Northern end of Racecourse Beach between Flatrock and south end of Rennies Beach

· Rennies Beach

· Burrill Beach

· Wairo Beach

Out of the four alternative areas, Council’s Dog Off-leash Guide indicates that three of these locations are regular nesting sites for threatened shorebirds, except for Burrill Beach.

Other non-beach areas that may be worth considering where fencing could be installed includes Rackham Crescent Reserve or the southern section of Dolphin Point Reserve. Further investigation of these sites would be required to determine their suitability, as well as community consultation with the adjacent landowners, the Ulladulla and Districts Community Forum and broader community would need to be undertaken in relation to these alternative locations.

Community Engagement

Due to the short turnaround time for this report, limited consultation outside the petition could occur.

Community Consultative Body

Council staff contacted Ulladulla and Districts Community Forum (Forum) in relation to the petition requesting their feedback.

The response received indicated that Forum does not have a position on off leash areas at Dolphin Point or elsewhere. The Forum is currently not in a position to consult more broadly with the Forum membership due to the restrictions surrounding COVID 19 and suspension of monthly meetings.

Get Involved Page and Quick Poll

A news feed post and quick poll was made available on the petition via Council’s Get Involved page in relation to the Access Areas for Dogs Policy. This page has become the platform for communicating Council resolutions in relation to dog off-leash areas generally, as well as the on various dog off-leash trials, implementation for new dog off-leash areas and more.

The quick poll ran from Friday 19 June to Friday 3 July 2020 (inclusive). The quick poll sought feedback from interested community members on whether they agreed with the proposal or not, and why. A total of 26 responses were submitted via the quick poll which indicated the following:

· 30.8% (8) of responses were in support of the proposal. The justifications provided included:

o There are not enough dog off-leash areas / there is a need for more dog-friendly beaches.

o Dog off leash areas are an important community issue.

o Offering this area might help control where visitors exercise their dogs; and

o The Caravan Park is pet friendly and the off-leash area will be an added tourist incentive.

· 69.2% (18) of responses were not in support of the proposal. The justifications provided included:

o The area is highly frequented, especially by families with young children, elderly people, swimmers, walkers, and anglers.

o The proposed times are problematic as they coincide with times that the area is highly utilised by people.

o Concerns that there will be compliance issues with the times, as seen in other places like Narrawallee Beach.

o There is a population of endangered shorebirds that frequent this area.

· A further five (5) submissions were received in relation to the proposed dog off-leash area. The submissions received raised concerns with the proposal due to the following:

o There are a number of families with children who use this area at the nominated times and in general.

o The number of people who follow the rules outweigh the number who disobey them.

o Dog off-leash areas should be in fenced off locations for everyone’s safety and include doggie bags and bins.

o There is other land where tourists and local residents rarely congregate for a dog off-leash areas; and

o Lions Park contains a large number of facilities and therefore is used by a number of people and families and including vulnerable people (young children and older persons) who can be intimidated by dogs off-leash.

The content of each of the submissions is provided at Attachment 1.

Given the proposed location subject to the petition is deemed unsuitable for a dog off-leash area due to high utilisation by the public and for environmental reasons, an investigation of alternative sites should include consultation with community. This process will allow Council staff to receive feedback from the community and ascertain whether other suitable locations are generally supported and make an informed decision in relation to the introduction of a new dog off-leash area.

Policy Implications

Any new dog off-leash area, temporary or permanent, will need to be incorporated in an amendment to the Access Areas for Dogs Policy and the Dog Off-Leash Guide.

The Access Areas for Dogs Policy is due for review at the end of 2020. Any new dog off-leash areas can be included in the Policy review at that time.

Financial Implications

The preliminary investigations that have taken place in consideration of the petition has been managed by internal staff resources and Community and Recreation Unit’s operational budget.

There may be potential costs in undertaking further investigations (including preparing Review of Environmental Factors) and undertaking community consultation. These costs will be met from the Community and Recreation Unit’s operational budget.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 28 July 2020

Page 1

CL20.163 Response - Questions on Notice - Climate Change Risk to Australia's Built Environment Report

HPERM Ref: D20/307550

Section: Human Resources, Governance & Risk

Approver: Phil Costello, Director Planning Environment & Development Group

Reason for Report

The report provides answers to the Questions on Notice – Climate Change Risk to Australia’s Built Environment Report (CL19.339 - MIN19.980) of 26 November 2019.

Recommendation

That the Response - Questions on Notice - Climate Change Risk to Australia's Built Environment Report be received for information.

Options

1. As recommended.

Implications: The responses are received for information.

Background

A Question on Notice regarding the Climate Change Risk to Australia's Built Environment Report was submited to the Ordinary Meeting of 21 November 2019, where it was resolved that a report be presented to Council outlining the response (MIN.19890). The responses to the Questions on Notice are outlined below:

Q1. The Climate Change Risk to Australia’s Built Environment (the report) has now been released - the report identifies that the Shoalhaven in 2020 (next year) has 641 properties and an insurable value of $60 million at risk and climbing to 3129 properties and a value of $112 million by 2100.

The Report in question is the Climate Change Risk to Australia’s Built Environment – A Second Pass National Assessment – October 2019 – XDI (Cross Dependency Initiative).

Recommendations

On the basis of the insights provided by this analysis, XDI makes the following

recommendations

1. Establish Legal Requirements for Risk Disclosure: Establish unambiguous legal requirements for purchasers, investors and tenants of built property and infrastructure to be advised of the full range of extreme weather and climate change risks that may affect the property over its full life time.

2. Require Fit-for-Purpose Construction in High Hazard areas: Ensure design standards and planning requirements for infrastructure and development match location specific hazards. All tiers of government seek to achieve full insurability by ensuring projected VARs of less than 1% of the replacement cost of the property over its design lifetime under worst-case climate change projections.

3. Plan for Infrastructure System Resilience: Federal and state governments require that all critical infrastructure - including water, power, transport and telecommunications - be assessed both at an asset level and at an interdependent system level. Establish an overarching standard risk tolerance (e.g. 1:500 year event tolerance) such that extreme weather event failures do not cause cascading failures across sectors.

4. Develop Risk Based Insurance Pricing: Financial regulators require that insurance industry products fairly reflect both site specific hazard probabilities and asset specific vulnerability, thus providing lower premiums for more resilient designs and materials, and a clear market signal that investment in resilience will be fairly rewarded by lower premiums.

5. Adaptation for Highly Exposed Areas: State and Federal governments implement support schemes to finance adaptation in areas at high risk. This can finance resilient construction, municipal works or relocation.

Q2. In considering this report can the CEO comment if Council is exposed to any liability considering this is a presentation of new data.

A: In the view of Council’s legal advisors, the answer to this question is no.

“The report referred to is the Climate Change Risk to Australia’s Built Environment A Second Pass National Assessment October, 2019 (the Report).

Liability to compensate can come in various forms – contract, tortious (including nuisance), statutorily. However, there has to be a loss, for example, of property, financial loss or personal injury, before there is the potential for any liability. Without a loss, no right to claim for a liability to compensate arises.

Councils, like every other person, company or body, can be exposed to a liability when for example, they own and manage assets, issue certificates or approve developments, or in the issue of their policies, though the duty of care which might be owed to a third party or the scope of duty owed will change depending on the loss alleged. For example, it is easier to prove a duty is owed to someone injured by a defective piece of playground equipment than to prove a duty is owed for a failure to exercise a statutory power.

The Report updates a similar report issued ten years earlier. The Report is said to inform government, communities and business on the risks they face and can plan for current and future impacts of climate change.

The Report includes other hazards or risks which the first report did not consider it being, it appears, focussed on coastal risks from sea level rise. The Report refers to high risk properties.

The risks which the Report refers to are:

• Riverine risk

• Coastal inundation

• Forest Fire

• Subsidence risk

• Wind risk.

The Report itself refers to “extreme weather risks”. Of the above “risks” Shoalhaven is said by the authors of the Report to fall into the Top 10 for Forest Fire (which no doubt recent events over the summer just gone support) but none of the others. On page 65 of the Report there is a reference to the Shoalhaven LGA and the assessment by Climate Risk Pty. Limited (not a government agency) of what it describes as the key risk metrics. Two dates are used, currently (2020) and what Climate Risk Pty. Limited extrapolate to as it says likely in 2100.

The Report itself says there has not been any modelling of a “full ensemble of climate models for this report”. The Report also notes it should be used with caution.

These riders would mean in our view that whatever the Report indicates, if Council is going to consider the risks indicated in the report, other than Coast risk which we deal with below, then it ought to have a comment specifically on whether the Report contains any information which is of use to the Council in the management of its affairs.

Primarily, in our view, the risks discussed generally in the Report relate to Council’s planning controls and the ability of third parties to be able to develop areas within the Council’s LGA.

Where development has already occurred, the risks of Council being successfully sued for failing to adopt practices it might now in light of the Report, but did not at the time an action was taken and which might be attacked, are in our view slim. That is different, for example, to a claim that the Council had undertaken some action which led to coast erosion or otherwise (say for example the building of a groin that led to a depletion of sand along a beach and exposure of beach front properties to tidal inundation which is a different scenario – that is a nuisance claim further to action being taken by Council – in this example the building of the groin).

Coast inundation is covered by the Coastal Zone Management Act, 2016. Council has created and adopted, as required, a Coastal Zone Management Plan dated June, 2018. That document will comply with mandated requirements. Coastal risks are only one of the risks referred to in the Report, but we consider it fair to say it is the risk which has seen the most publications and government (particularly State Government) attention. There appears, as probably expected, greater focus and attention to the Shoalhaven LGA in the CZMP than appears to be the case in the Report, as it covers all of Australia for coastal, plus additional risks.

A significant amount of work and consideration as gone into the CZMP and what is required both related to the protection of Council assets and the considerations generally as to what levels people might have to build to (if an application is received and Council then is required to exercise its statutory powers or duties with respect to that application).

The Civil Liability Act, 2002 deals with civil liability in NSW. It contains specific provisions that concern the exercise by Council of statutory powers.

Section 43A of the CLA says that with respect to special statutory powers, as defined (and for the purposes of this advice will include actions taken by Council in approving developments or sub divisions etc) there is no liability unless a person (who suffers a loss) is able to prove that the action or inaction of the Council was so unreasonable that no other reasonable Council would have considered that a proper exercise of its statutory powers. That has been described as a higher bar than usual for a person to exceed in order to succeed in gaining damages for loss allegedly due to a failure to exercise a statutory power. It appreciates, in our view, the difference between policy decisions and practical decisions used with respect to existing Council assets, for example.

In short therefore, it is our view it is the requirements of the CZMA that will continue to the guiding light as to Council’s management of its affairs rather than the Report. We do not expect the Report itself would be sufficient in any way for the Council to consider using in altering any of its current plans or policies.”

Q3. In reviewing this report can the CEO comment on any policy deficiencies that Shoalhaven has when managing risk and will the Coastal Management Plan take this data into consideration?

A: The Shoalhaven Coastal Management Program Scoping Study and the Coastal Zone Management Plan for the Shoalhaven Coastline have been prepared in accordance with NSW Government legislative requirements. The Coastal Management (CM) Act 2016 establishes the framework and overarching objects for coastal management in New South Wales. The CM Act defines the coastal zone, comprising four (4) coastal management areas:

1. coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests area

2. coastal vulnerability area

3. coastal environment area

4. coastal use area.

The NSW Coastal Management Manual establishes the mandatory requirements for coastal management programs including risk assessments and development of actions in c consultation with communities and Government to manage risk. Council will be required to carry out a five-stage risk management process to help council and our communities to identify and manage risks to the environmental, social and economic values of the coast. The manual provides information to help councils to evaluate and select management actions that are feasible and effective ways to manage the coastal environment. These actions are to be incorporated into councils integrated planning and reporting framework and land-use planning instruments in accordance with the Manual.

Q4. The Shoalhaven has adopted a sea level rise policy that bases its 2050 and 2100 projections on a global reduction in carbon concentrations or Representative Concentration Scenarios that are not reflective of current global trends. Considering the data presented in the report would it be prudent and protect Council from liability to review the policy?

A: The NSW Government requires Councils to consider current and future risks including climate change and sea level rise when preparing floodplain management risk studies and plans; and coastal management programs to inform the management of these areas, assets within them and relevant planning controls. These requirements are set out in the NSW Floodplain Development Manual and the NSW Coastal management framework which includes the Coastal Management Act 2016 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal management) 2018. Councils’ plans and programs are prepared in accordance with these requirements. These legislative requirements do not mandate or set sea level rise projections that must be used in this planning.

The NSW Government AdaptNSW website https://climatechange.environment. nsw.gov.au provides advice on climate change and sea level rise which can be used by Councils. The Shoalhaven Coastal Management Program Scoping Study recognises that Council’s sea level rise policy is to be reviewed every 7 years and recognises that coastal vulnerability assessment (e.g. beach erosion and inundation mapping) may need to be revised and updated should council adopt new sea level rise projections when the policy is reviewed.

The legal advice printed above addressees the question of liability in regard to this report.

Q5. The report identifies the Shoalhaven as the seventh highest ranking council in Australia for Forest Fire exposure.

Q6. Can the CEO provide information to reassure the public that Council has a collaborative strategic framework on how to manage current fire risk and what existing mechanisms review the strategic framework to deal with the impact from increased forest fire exposure.

A: Under the Rural Fires Act 1997 the Bush Fire Coordinating Committee (BFCC) must establish a Bush Fire Management Committee (BFMC) for each area in the state of NSW that is subject to the risk of bush fires. Each BFMC is required to prepare and submit to the BFCC a Bush Fire Risk Management Plan. This Plan is the main tool used for the consideration of local conditions.

This process is managed by the Rural Fire Service and in accordance with the Rural Fires Act the Plan must be placed on public exhibition for comment. District BFMCs provide a forum for cooperative and coordinated bushfire management and community involvement. The plan is required to be reviewed every 5 years and current information is utilised in any review.

This Plan is developed by the BFMC which is a multi-stakeholder committee administered by the Rural Fire Service and the Rural Fires Act sets out the requirements for the Plan and the membership of the Management Committees. Assets of importance to the community are identified in the Plan along with consideration of the risk level to each asset. The Plan then sets out strategic priorities and treatments to mitigate identified risks such as the creation and maintenance of Asset Protection Zones (APZs) and Strategic Fire Advantage Zones (SFAZs). Council has representation on this Committee.

The BFRMP states that: “The BFCC recognises that climate change has the potential to increase bush fire risk. The risk assessment process applied in this BFRMP is based on current climatic conditions. The BFCC will monitor information on climate change and will modify the process when necessary.”

Q7. The CEO identify any other issues that the report raises for the Shoalhaven and suggest how Council can manage the issues and expectations.

A: Council’s Delivery Program, Operational Plan and Budget 2020/21 recognise that Council’s Climate Adaptation Plan has expired and it will be reviewed and updated. The Climate Adaption Plan will include a risk assessment of Council services and assets across the delivery program. This Plan was originally prepared with support and funding from Statewide Mutual. The Climate Adaption Plan should be updated to meet needs under Council’s insurance to manage potential existing and future risks.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 28 July 2020

Page 1

CL20.164 Investment Report - June 2020

HPERM Ref: D20/321321

Section: Finance

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

Attachments: 1. Monthly Investment Report - Shoalhaven Council - June 2020 (under separate cover) ⇨

Reason for Report

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

Recommendation

That:

1. The report of the Chief Executive Officer (Finance, Corporate & Community Services Group) on the Record of Investments for the period to 30 June 2020 be received for information.

2. Council note Council’s investment portfolio returned 1.66% for the month of June 2020, exceeding the benchmark AusBond Bank Bill Index (0.09% pa) by 157 basis points (1.57%).

Options

1. The report on the Record of Investments for the period to 30 June 2020 be received for information

Implications: Nil

2. Further information regarding the Record of Investments for the period to 30 June 2020 be requested

Implications: Nil

3. The report of the Record of Investments for the period to 30 June 2020 be received for information, with any changes requested for the Record of Investments to be reflected in the report for the period to 31 July 2020

Implications: Nil

Background

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

All investments are within the current Minister’s Order. Investments are diversified across the eligible fixed interest universe and well spread across maturities. Available capacity exists in all terms, with medium term particularly relevant to new issues.

Portfolio Return

Council’s investment portfolio returned a very strong 1.66% for the month of June 2020, exceeding the benchmark AusBond Bank Bill Index (0.09% pa) by 157 basis points (1.57%).

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

Interest Earned – June 2020

The following table shows the interest earned for the month of June 2020. The interest earned for the month of June was $264,094, which was $110,372 below the current budget.

Fund	Original Monthly Budget	Actual Earned	Difference	Revised Budget	Revised Difference
General	$268,520	$148,528	-$119,992	$256,520	-$107,992
Water	$55,479	$73,672	$18,192	$68,630	$5,042
Sewer	$49,315	$41,894	-$7,421	$49,315	-$7,421
Total	$373,315	$264,094	-$109,221	$374,466	-$110,372

Interest Earned - Year to Date

Return on the Council investment portfolio was negatively impacted by the catastrophic bushfires followed by floods and the COVID-19 pandemic. Closure of Council community facilities and Holiday Haven Tourist Parks resulted in a significant decrease in cash inflow. In addition, rapid deterioration of interest rates across all types of investments due to natural disasters and pandemic resulted in lower than budgeted return on investments.

The impact of these events on interest revenue continues to be monitored with necessary variations to be reported in future quarterly budget reviews.

The following table shows how the interest earned year to date actual dollars against the total budget forecast dollars is performing with 100% of the year passed – the interest earned to the month of June was $4,223,104, 92.69% of the current full year budget.

Fund	Original Total Annual Budget	Actual YTD June	% Achieved	Revised Budget	Revised %
General	$3,266,999	$2,523,699	77.25%	$3,120,999	80.86%
Water	$675,000	$1,117,889	165.61%	$835,000	133.88%
Sewer	$600,000	$581,516	96.92%	$600,000	96.92%
Total	$4,541,999	$4,223,104	92.98%	$4,555,999	92.69%

The graphs below illustrate the cumulative interest earned for the year for each fund against the original and adjusted budgets.

Please Note: there has been no adjustment to the Sewer Fund interest budget

RECORD OF INVESTMENTS
Cash and Investment Balances

	June 2020	May 2020

Cash And Investments Held
Cash at Bank - Transactional Account	$2,113,390	$15,882,527
Cash at Bank - Trust Fund	$0	$0
Cash on Hand	$40,059	$43,469
Other Cash and Investments	$184,904,936	$176,901,762
	$187,058,386	$192,827,757

Fair Value Adjustment	$350,718	$286,648
Bank Reconciliation	-$36,477	$162,421
	$314,241	$449,069

Book Value of Cash and Investments	$187,372,627	$193,276,825

Less Cash & Investments Held In Relation To Restricted Assets
Employee Leave Entitlements	$8,119,913	$8,119,913
Land Decontamination	$761,774	$763,913
Critical Asset Compliance	$1,712,047	$1,739,706
North Nowra Link Road	$19,635	$19,650
Other Internal Reserves	$11,018,539	$12,311,001
Section 7.11 Matching Funds	$311,169	$311,169
Strategic Projects General	$1,493,516	$1,605,304
Industrial Land Development Reserve	$5,840,326	$5,928,795
Plant Replacement	$2,348,486	$1,905,613
Financial Assistance Grant	$6,548,913	$6,548,913
S7.11 Recoupment	$23,976,847	$24,262,781
Commitment To Capital Works	$393,965	$455,600
Property Reserve	$1,585,220	$1,596,392
Total Internally Restricted	$64,130,350	$65,568,751

Loans - General Fund	$3,994,744	$4,230,369
Self-Insurance Liability	$1,977,780	$1,957,777
Grant reserve	$6,618,112	$4,749,874
Section 7.11	$12,688,984	$12,016,849
Storm Water Levy	$924,409	$1,069,646
Trust - Mayors Relief Fund	$181,125	$201,401
Trust - General Trust	$2,836,614	$2,970,519
Waste Disposal	$4,865,657	$5,107,979
Sewer Fund	$29,375,183	$28,720,229
Sewer Plant Fund	$1,936,198	$1,908,012
Section 64 Water	$19,433,205	$19,199,969
Water Fund	$28,343,809	$30,131,078
Water Communication Towers	$2,260,329	$2,005,443
Water Plant Fund	$2,669,225	$2,523,810
Total Externally Restricted	$118,105,374	$116,792,954

Total Restricted	$182,235,724	$182,361,705

Unrestricted Cash And Investments
General Fund	$5,136,903	$10,915,120

Restricted Asset Movements

The table below lists the major movements in Restricted Assets:

Total Cash	-$5,904,199	Includes Loan Repayments of $3.9M.
Grants	$1,868,238	Receipt of RMS Grants
Sewer Fund	$654,954	Normal Operating Cycle
Water Fund	-$1,787,269	Normal Operating Cycle
Unrestricted Cash	-$5,778,217	Includes General Fund loan repayments of $2.9M. June was not a rates instalment month.

June is normally a high cash outlay month with loan repayments of $3.9M being paid and not much income being received. The reduced cash is also a result of our outstanding rates being $1.2M more than last financial year (currently $5M) and the impacts of COVID noted below.

COVID-19 Impact

Finance are monitoring cash flows as the effects of the COVID 19 pandemic are felt in the community. To support our suppliers through this pandemic, Council is paying their accounts sooner than our previous payment terms.

COVID 19 has also impacted our cash balance, due to the closure of Council’s community facilities and Holiday Haven Tourist Parks.

Despite the negative impact of COVID-19, Council continues to maintain a sufficient level of working capital and management closely monitors cash position of the Council.

Financial Implications

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

Statement by Responsible Accounting Officer

I hereby certify that the investments listed in the attached report have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005 and Council’s Investments Policy POL19/72.

A picture containing arthropod, invertebrate

Description automatically generated

Olena Tulubinska Date: 17 July 2020

Responsible Accounting Officer

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 28 July 2020

Page 1

CL20.165 Variations to Development Standards - June Quarter 2020

HPERM Ref: D20/250337

Section: Development Services

Approver: Phil Costello, Director Planning Environment & Development Group

Reason for Report

Council is required to consider variations to development standards (contained in an environmental planning instrument such as the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan) which exceed 10%, with lesser variations able to be dealt with by staff, under delegation.

Council is also required to report the variations to the full Council and thereafter the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

Recommendation

That Council receive the Variations to Development Standards – June Quarter Report 2020 for information and forward a copy of this report and table (in the standard format required by the Department) to the Department of Planning and Environment in accordance with the requirements specified in Circular PS20-002 Variations to development standards.

Options

1. Receive the report for information and forward the report to the Department.

Implications: Council will be complying with the reporting provisions as detailed in Circular PS20-002 Variations to development standards.

2. Resolve an alternative and provide details to staff.

Implications: Depending on what is resolved, the Council would need to ensure compliance observing that the Department undertakes periodic audits.

3. Receive the report for information and forward the report to the Department.

Implications: Council will be complying with the reporting provisions as detailed in Circular PS20-002 Variations to development standards.

4. Resolve an alternative and provide details to staff.

Implications: Depending on what is resolved, the Council would need to ensure compliance observing that the Department undertakes periodic audits.

Background

SEPP 1 and clause 4.6 have allowed flexibility in the application of development standards by allowing the consideration of development proposals that meet the objective of a development standard but not its stated value.

On 5 May 2020, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment issued a new circular (PS20-002) which replaces PS18-003 and issues assumed concurrence, governance, and reporting requirements for consent authorities. It also advises that council reports are to come through the Planning Portal and the repeal of SEPP 1. The concurrence is conditional containing limitations on lot sizes for dwellings in rural areas and for contraventions over 10%, (which must be reported to Council).

Link to Circular:

https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/-/media/Files/DPE/Circulars/planning-circular-20-002-variations-to-development-standards-2020-05.pdf?la=en

Procedural and reporting requirements

To ensure transparency and integrity in the planning framework, the Department requires monitoring and reporting measures.

· A written application must be made.

· Online register of all variations to be maintained.

· A report to be submitted through the Portal.

· A report of all variations from a Council must be provided to a meeting of the Council at least once a quarter.

Audit

The Department will continue to carry out random audits to ensure the above monitoring and reporting measures are complied with. The Department and the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption will continue to review and refine the audit strategy.

Should ongoing non-compliance be identified with one or more consent authorities, the Secretary will consider revoking the notice allowing concurrence to be assumed, either generally for a consent authority of for a specific type of development.

Conclusion

The repeal of SEPP 1 came into effect from 1 February 2020 as part of the SEPP Review Program to update and simplify the NSW Planning system.

The variations are provided to the Department in the form of a spreadsheet as soon as possible after 30 June.

The table below is based on the spreadsheet but is simplified for easier reading. The spreadsheets are viewable on Council’s webpage and are published quarterly as soon as possible after the last day of the month.

Table – Variations June Quarter 2020

DA	Lot	DP	Street #	Street Name	Suburb	Post Code	Description	Standard Varied	Extent of Variation	Decision	Date
SF10775	2	1237878		Bryces Rd	BERRY	2534	subdivision	Lot size	8.9%	Delegation Council has assumed concurrence	4/6/2020
DA19/1846	5 B A A 1	542693 370205 392035 370205 130928	208 21 19 206 204	Kinghorne St, Gould Av, Gould Av, Kinghorne St, Kinghorne St,	NOWRA	2541	Residential Flat Building	Height	Entire roof exceeds height. 2.32 (at worst point) or 21.1%	Council decision Council has assumed concurrence	5/5/2020
DA19/2171	2	870242	11	Dent St	Huskisson	2540	Architectural element / monument	Height	7.6m or 69.09%	Council decision Council has assumed concurrence	1/6/2020

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 28 July 2020

Page 1

CL20.166 Proposed Application - Low Cost Loans Initiative Round 3 - Funding Local Infrastructure to Accelerate New Housing Supply

HPERM Ref: D20/275017

Section: Strategic Planning

Approver: Phil Costello, Director Planning Environment & Development Group

Reason for Report

Obtain endorsement of a proposed application to Round 3 of the NSW Government’s Low-Cost Loans Initiative (LCLI) for selected local infrastructure projects and commence the process of obtaining loan finance to fund the projects.

The LCLI helps Councils to accelerate the delivery of infrastructure needed for new housing by subsidising part of the interest on eligible loans used to fund infrastructure projects.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Endorse the proposed application to Round 3 of the Low-Cost Loans Initiative (LCLI) for the local infrastructure projects identified in Table 1 of this report, to be submitted to the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment by 14 August 2020.

2. Amend the Integrated Strategic Plan 2020/21 to include the additional borrowings of $17,533,620 which includes bringing forward $5 million loan for Boongaree Park currently included in the Long Term Financial Plan in 21/22, with the future repayments of the borrowings to be funded from a combination of Developer Contributions, general revenue and the low-cost loan initiative interest subsidy.

3. Commit to funding the proposed works for the infrastructure projects in Table 1 of this report using loan funds of $21,533,620 to take advantage of the discounted interest rate through the LCLI and to accelerate the delivery of the infrastructure in various locations in Shoalhaven Local Government Area.

Options

1. As recommended.

Implications: This is preferred as it will enable an application to be made under the LCLI to deliver a range of infrastructure required for new housing development in Shoalhaven earlier than would otherwise be possible. Specifically, the LCLI would assist Council to deliver roads, open space and drainage infrastructure necessary to release land for housing in Moss Vale Road and Mundamia Urban Release Areas, as well as other significant community infrastructure projects that broadly support new housing throughout Shoalhaven LGA. The LCLI interest subsidy reduces the cost of the loans used by Council to fund the delivery of community infrastructure.

2. Adopt an alternate resolution.

Implications: This could change, add or remove projects from the proposed application to the LCLI. In this regard Council should ensure that projects included in an application meet the LCLI eligibility criteria and are sufficiently advanced to enable commencement and completion of projects within the required timeframes. This option is not preferred as the projects in Table 1 are considered to be the most suitable at this point.

3. Do not proceed with an application to Round 3 of the LCLI.

Implications: This is not preferred as it could mean that an opportunity to fund and accelerate the delivery of a range of community infrastructure needed to support new housing development in Shoalhaven will not be taken up. Other sources of funding (developer contributions, grants, general revenue) may not be sufficient to enable Council to deliver this infrastructure in a timely manner in line with the expectations of the community.

Background

Round Three of the NSW Government’s Low-Cost Loans Initiative (LCLI) grant program is currently open for applications. The LCLI helps Councils to provide local infrastructure by providing a 50% rebate on the interest paid on loans used to fund local infrastructure.

The LCLI aims to accelerate the delivery of local infrastructure projects that support, or enable, new housing supply including roads, drainage, water, sewer, community facilities and open space.

Enabling early delivery of essential infrastructure has the potential to accelerate the release of land in Shoalhaven by reducing costs to developers. These costs are then typically passed on to future buyers, therefore this initiative may also provide savings for future buyers. The initiative also allows Council to deliver community infrastructure earlier in the development of new release areas, making them an attractive place for the future community to buy into and enjoy from an early stage.

Council obtained funding under Round One of the LCLI in 2018 which is currently subsidising the cost of borrowings that are being used to acquire identified public open space land in the Moss Vale Road South Urban Release Area (URA). The subsidy is helping Council deliver this infrastructure much earlier in the overall development of the URA and will ultimately make it more attractive for future residents.

A further $16 million in funding is now available under Round Three, with applications closing on 14 August 2020.

Key eligibility criteria

· Council must be eligible to access the TCorp loan facility.

· Loans must be used for local infrastructure that supports, or enables, new housing development.

· Council must be responsible for the provision of the infrastructure, for example, projects on local roads would be eligible but not projects on State roads.

· Council must have in place current or draft planning controls directly relevant to the proposed infrastructure - a Contributions Plan, Local Environmental Plan and/or Development Control Plan.

Infrastructure loans must:

· be for a minimum of $1 million

· have a fixed interest rate

· not exceed 10 years

· be new, not an existing or a refinanced loan

· be for the purposes of capital expenditure only – not operating or recurrent expenditure

Applications to the LCLI must include evidence that loan finance is in the process of being obtained, an indicative Bank Term Sheet or Letter of Offer and loan repayment schedule.

Support will only be provided to projects that are in a reasonably advanced stage of preparation. Projects with a construction completion date of 30 June 2023 or earlier will be prioritised. The LCLI Guidelines note that the LCLI reimbursement may be withdrawn if construction of the project is not commenced within 12 months after the signing of the funding agreement.

Relevant information is accessible on the NSW Department of Planning, Industry & Environment’s (DPIE) website via the links below:

· LCLI Webpage

· LCLI Guidelines

· LCLI application form

Potential project shortlist

On review of the LCLI guidelines and application requirements, Council staff prepared an initial shortlist of local infrastructure projects in the Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2019 which are likely to meet the LCLI eligibility criteria. The Group Directors considered the shortlist at their 16 June 2020 meeting where it was resolved to:

1. Commence the preparation of an application to Round 3 of the LCLI for the shortlisted infrastructure projects in Table 1 plus any other projects identified as eligible after discussion.

2. Commence the process of obtaining loan finance for the selected infrastructure projects.

3. Report the proposed application to Round 3 of the LCLI and proposed additional borrowings to a future meeting of Council.

In accordance with this resolution, Council staff have commenced the process of preparing a funding application and checking Council’s eligibility for additional loan funds with TCorp. Several additional local infrastructure projects which are likely to meet the LCLI eligibility criteria were added to the proposed project shortlist, which is provided at Table 1 below.

Table 1: Proposed project shortlist for application to LCLI Round 3

Location	Type	CP project	Proposed works	Cost estimate / loan funds required
Moss Vale Road South URA	Open space	01OREC0015	· Preparation of an overall masterplan for all URA open space. · Design & construction of open spaces in Stage 1.	$735,000¹
	Drainage	01DRAI0006	Design and construction of 2 sediment basins in Stage 1 (BIO_B1 and BIO_C1).	$886,200¹
	Drainage	01DRAI0006	Land acquisition for 2 sediment basins in Stage 3.	$360,000¹
	Roads	01ROAD0154	Design and construction of internal roundabout at the Taylors Lane access point.	$880,000¹
Mundamia URA	Roads	01ROAD0149	Design and construction of the George Evans Road and Yalwal Road intersection upgrade.	$799,610
	Roads	01ROAD0145	Design and construction of URA access roads	$3,215,790
	Roads	01ROAD0146	Design and construction of shared cycle/pathway - George Evans Road	$266,280
	Roads	01ROAD0150	Design and construction of 2 roundabouts at Yalwal Road/Rannoch Drive and Yalwal Road/Lightwood Drive	$1,458,240
Nowra	Fire & emergency services	CWFIRE2002	Completion of internal roads, traffic facilities and car parking - Shoalhaven Fire Control Centre (Albatross Road, Nowra)	$1,400,000
Berry	Open space	01AREC0009	Boongaree Park (North Street District Park) - Construction of the youth zone and skate park extension, sporting fields, footpaths, parking and lead-in infrastructure.	$9,000,000¹
Bomaderry	Recreation	CWAREC0005	Shoalhaven Community and Recreation Precinct (SCARP) - Construction of croquet courts, clubhouse and supporting infrastructure (lighting, irrigation, etc).	$2,532,500¹
Total loan funds required:				$21,533,620

1. Included in the 2020/21 and 2021/22 capital works program.

Projects in Moss Vale Road South URA and Mundamia URA are considered to be suitable candidates given that they will directly enable/facilitate/assist new housing development in these URAs and are likely to be required/completed within the next three years as the initial stages are developed. It is also noted that the progression of the Nowra-Bomaderry URAs generally is an organisational priority for Council and there is also a high level of development industry expectation.

The other shortlisted projects in Nowra (Shoalhaven Fire Control Centre), Berry (Boongaree Park) and Bomaderry (SCARP) are considered to be potentially suitable candidates as they will support new housing development across a broad geographic area and are sufficiently advanced to be capable of being delivered by 30 June 2023.

The community/childcare centre and central open space contributions projects in Mundamia URA were also considered but not included in the shortlist for this round. The Mundamia URA is subject to a deferred commencement development consent which requires a range of issues, most notably bushfire risk, to be resolved before subdivision work can commence. This is not expected to greatly impact on the Mundamia roads projects in Table 1. The design/layout of the planned community/childcare centre and central open space and the associated planning (e.g. Contributions Plan adjustment) is not yet settled enough to enable these projects to also be considered for inclusion at this point. The applicant has only recently lodged a development application for the combined neighbourhood safer place and community/childcare centre. However, the inclusion of these projects could be reconsidered if needed.

Council staff also considered infrastructure projects in later stages of Moss Vale Road South URA and infrastructure required for Moss Vale Road North URA (the next URA to be released in the Development Phasing Plan). The delivery of infrastructure in later stages of Moss Vale Road South URA relies to a large extent on the provision of access and services in earlier stages. Given physical construction of the first stage is yet to commence, it is unlikely that projects in later stages could be commenced and completed within the required timeframes. The detailed planning for Moss Vale Road North URA is still in progress, with infrastructure requirements and funding mechanisms still being investigated/defined. The ultimate timing of development is also uncertain at present. As such, no further projects from these URAs are proposed to be nominated in this round but will be considered in future rounds.

Other significant community infrastructure projects that were reviewed but not considered eligible for the LCLI or this round of were:

· Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre upgrades (replacement of cladding), Nowra

Comment: the proposed works at this stage are repairs and maintenance which does not meet the eligibility criteria of the LCLI and is not currently included in the Contributions Plan.

· Shoalhaven City Library Extensions, Nowra

Comment: not advanced enough to be commenced and delivered within the required timeframes.

· Sanctuary Point District Library, Sanctuary Point

Comment: not advanced enough to be commenced and delivered within the required timeframes. It will also cater substantially for the existing population, as opposed to enabling or supporting significant new housing development.

· SCARP (Artie Smith Oval redevelopment), Bomaderry

Comment: Council intends to apply for separate NSW Government grant funding for this project. The project would not be eligible for grant funding if it is funded under the LCLI.

It is noted that the current cost estimates provided in Table 1 generally exceed the identified costings of the projects in the Contributions Plan. This reflects the fact that the cost estimates are more up to date/accurate and that annual CPI increases have possibly not kept pace with construction costs. As most of the projects have a high apportionment to future development (generally 100%), future loan repayments can be partly or substantially funded from developer contributions received by Council as development occurs. Council will however need to fund the balance of loan repayments from general revenue.

Community Engagement

None undertaken for this report, however, timely delivery of community infrastructure for new development is a key concern of developers and the community in general. Also, as the release area planning is undertaken there is a range of community engagement/consultation undertaken.

Financial Implications

The local infrastructure projects in Table 1 (with the exception of Boongaree Park) are identified in the Contributions Plan and generally have a high apportionment to future development, meaning that future loan repayments can be funded from developer contributions received by Council as development occurs.

Bongaree Park ($9 million) is funded by the general fund and the loan to fund this project is included in 20/21 Budget ($4 million) and in Long Term Financial Plan ($5 million in 21/22 financial year).

The LCLI Guidelines note that the LCLI reimbursement may be withdrawn if construction of the project is not commenced within 12 months after the signing of the funding agreement. Interest reimbursement will be paid twice a year in the first and third quarters of each financial year.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 28 July 2020

Page 1

CL20.167 Local Government and Conservation and Land Management Economic Stimulus

HPERM Ref: D20/322246

Section: Environmental Services

Approver: Phil Costello, Director Planning Environment & Development Group

Reason for Report

Local Government motion of support for conservation and land management stimulus.

Recommendation

That Shoalhaven City Council:

1. Acknowledge that:

a. In light of the current and anticipated impacts of COVID-19 across every sector of society, it is clear that decisive action and unprecedented investment is needed to temper the worst social and economic impacts of this crisis.

b. Over 70 farming and conservation groups around Australia, including Landcare, the National Farmers Federation, NRM Regions Australia, the Australian Land Conservation Alliance and the Australian Association of Bush Regenerators, have come together to call on state and federal government to invest in a jobs-rich conservation and land management stimulus package as part of the economic response to Covid-19.

c. Such a program presents important opportunities for safe, meaningful and socially beneficial work as part of the ‘bridge to recovery’, while leaving enduring benefits for the environment, tourism and farm businesses.

d. Local Governments play a pivotal role in delivering conservation and land management work, such as controlling weeds, protecting and restoring habitat, and managing public land and are ideally placed to manage a surge in effort for on ground conservation work.

2. Express its support for state and federal government investment in a jobs-rich conservation and land management stimulus package as part of the economic response to Covid-19.

3. Write to our local Federal and State Members of Parliament expressing our support for this proposal and urging them to support it.

Options

1. As recommended

Implications: This effective program design could provide jobs to 24,000 workers at its peak to undertake practical conservation activities such as weed and pest control, river restoration and bushfire recovery and resilience.

2. Reject the motion

Implications: Newly unemployed or underemployed members of the community may miss the opportunity to have meaningful and secure employment for at least 12 months as soon as social distancing measures are eased.

Background

The Federal and State Governments are proposing a $4 billion stimulus package. In light of this stimulus package, 70 conservation, farming and land management organisations are seeking Council’s support for a proposal for a jobs-rich investment in conservation and land management across Australia as part of broader economic stimulus measures in the wake of Covid-19. Supporters of this proposal include Local Government NSW, Landcare, the National Farmers Federation, NRM Regions Australia, the Australian Land Conservation Alliance, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Association of Bush Regenerators.

The sector is ready to be part of the ‘bridge to recovery’ and can take on an expanded workforce once social distancing measures are eased. During the period of economic recovery, there is scope for tens of thousands of skilled and unskilled workers to be employed in the conservation and land management sector in roles that are:

· practical and labour intensive;

· located in both regional and metropolitan areas;

· appropriate for temporarily repurposing existing workforces which are under pressure, including tradespeople and workers in the tourism and small business sectors;

· contributing to building Australia’s natural capital, through helping improve land condition and resilience;

· supportive of long-term sustainability of food and fibre production;

· will not create long-term structural commitments in the budget.

Practical activities across public and private lands

Some practical conservation activities that could be undertaken across public and private land include:

· a surge in weed control efforts, focussed on containment and preventing cross-tenure spread;

· river and wetland restoration, including fencing, revegetation and erosion control;

· national park infrastructure, track maintenance and park management (fire, weeds, feral animals);

· bushfire recovery and resilience activities, including infrastructure repairs and habitat restoration;

· invasive animal control, including deer and pigs which impact on farming and threatened species;

· tree planting and habitat restoration in metropolitan, suburban, peri-urban and rural areas;

· funding for private land conservation, putting money in the hands of farmers and other land managers;

· coastal habitat restoration and monitoring, in partnership with the fishing industry and local communities;

· plastics and marine debris clean up, including research to inform future policy decisions; and

· funding for Indigenous rangers to deliver jobs directly to vulnerable communities using a proven model.

Community Engagement

During the period of economic recovery, there is scope for tens of thousands of skilled and unskilled community members to be employed in the conservation and land management sector.

Policy Implications

N/A

Financial Implications

There would be some staff resources required for the effective delivery of conservation and land management work such as weed control. Additional staff time would be required to draft up letters for local Federal and State Members expressing support of the proposal.

Risk Implications

This investment would be low risk, especially if the planning occurs during the current COVID19 business safety requirements, as part of the stimulus measures.

Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday 28 July 2020

Page 1

Local Government Amendment (governance & planning) act 2016

Chapter 3, Section 8A Guiding principles for councils

(1) Exercise of functions generally

The following general principles apply to the exercise of functions by councils:

(a) Councils should provide strong and effective representation, leadership, planning and decision-making.

(b) Councils should carry out functions in a way that provides the best possible value for residents and ratepayers.

(c) Councils should plan strategically, using the integrated planning and reporting framework, for the provision of effective and efficient services and regulation to meet the diverse needs of the local community.

(d) Councils should apply the integrated planning and reporting framework in carrying out their functions so as to achieve desired outcomes and continuous improvements.

(e) Councils should work co-operatively with other councils and the State government to achieve desired outcomes for the local community.

(f) Councils should manage lands and other assets so that current and future local community needs can be met in an affordable way.

(g) Councils should work with others to secure appropriate services for local community needs.

(h) Councils should act fairly, ethically and without bias in the interests of the local community.

(i) Councils should be responsible employers and provide a consultative and supportive working environment for staff.

(2) Decision-making

The following principles apply to decision-making by councils (subject to any other applicable law):

(a) Councils should recognise diverse local community needs and interests.

(b) Councils should consider social justice principles.

(d) Councils should consider the principles of ecologically sustainable development.

(e) Council decision-making should be transparent and decision-makers are to be accountable for decisions and omissions.

(3) Community participation

Councils should actively engage with their local communities, through the use of the integrated planning and reporting framework and other measures.

Chapter 3, Section 8B Principles of sound financial management

The following principles of sound financial management apply to councils:

(a) Council spending should be responsible and sustainable, aligning general revenue and expenses.

(b) Councils should invest in responsible and sustainable infrastructure for the benefit of the local community.

(c) Councils should have effective financial and asset management, including sound policies and processes for the following:

(i) performance management and reporting,

(ii) asset maintenance and enhancement,

(iii) funding decisions,

(iv) risk management practices.

(d) Councils should have regard to achieving intergenerational equity, including ensuring the following:

(i) policy decisions are made after considering their financial effects on future generations,

(ii) the current generation funds the cost of its services

Chapter 3, 8C Integrated planning and reporting principles that apply to councils

The following principles for strategic planning apply to the development of the integrated planning and reporting framework by councils:

(a) Councils should identify and prioritise key local community needs and aspirations and consider regional priorities.

(b) Councils should identify strategic goals to meet those needs and aspirations.

(d) Councils should ensure that the strategic goals and activities to work towards them may be achieved within council resources.

(e) Councils should regularly review and evaluate progress towards achieving strategic goals.

(f) Councils should maintain an integrated approach to planning, delivering, monitoring and reporting on strategic goals.

(g) Councils should collaborate with others to maximise achievement of strategic goals.

(h) Councils should manage risks to the local community or area or to the council effectively and proactively.

(i) Councils should make appropriate evidence-based adaptations to meet changing needs and circumstances.