Ordinary Meeting

 

 

Meeting Date:     Monday, 14 March, 2022

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

Time:                   5.30pm

 

Membership (Quorum - 7)

All Councillors

 

 

 

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

 

Statement of Ethical Obligations

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

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

 

Agenda

 

1.    Acknowledgement of Country

2.    Moment of Silence and Reflection

3.    Australian National Anthem

4.    Apologies / Leave of Absence

5.    Confirmation of Minutes

·      Ordinary Meeting - 21 February 2022

6.    Declarations of Interest

7.    Presentation of Petitions

8.    Mayoral Minute

9.    Deputations and Presentations  

10.  Call Over of the Business Paper

11.  A Committee of the Whole (if necessary)

 

12.  Committee Reports

CL22.115..... Report of the Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Committee - 16 February 2022........................................................................................................................ 1

CBD22.2..... Election of Chairperson and Notification of Council Resolution

CBD22.6..... Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Project Management Services Contract

CBD22.7..... Review of Terms of Reference - Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Committee

13.  Reports

City Performance

CL22.116..... Ongoing Register of Pecuniary Interest Returns - 1 July 2021 to 28 February 2022...................................................................................................................... 20

CL22.117..... Donations Policy Review.............................................................................. 23

CL22.118..... Policies for adoption - Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy and Statement of Business Ethics............................................................................................ 64

City Futures

CL22.55....... Exhibition Outcomes and Proposed Finalisation - Draft Amendment to Shoalhaven DCP 2014 Chapter S8 - Ulladulla Town Centre.......................................... 78

CL22.119..... Exhibition Outcomes - Planning Proposal (PP005) - Revision and Proposed Re-Exhibition - 'Deferred' Land, Warrah Road, Bangalee................................. 85

CL22.120..... Proposed Suburb Name - Moss Vale Road Urban Release Areas - Exhibition Outcomes and Next Steps......................................................................... 101

CL22.121..... Proposed Submission - NSW Government discussion paper: 'A new approach to rezonings'.................................................................................................... 118

CL22.122..... Proposed Submission - Draft Design and Place State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP)........................................................................................................ 139

CL22.123..... Employment Zones Reform - Translation Detail - Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014.................................................................................................... 150

CL22.124..... Business Assistance Provided Locally - COVID & Disaster programs..... 167

CL22.125..... NSW Regional Defence Networks Program - Regional Lead - Shoalhaven City Council........................................................................................................ 169

CL22.126..... Jervis Bay Regional Boat Ramp, Woollamia - Master Plan - Boat Maintenance Facility.................................................................................................................... 172

An addendum report titled Advocacy Update – ALGA and Shoalhaven will be circulated separately

City Services

CL22.127..... Tenders - Replacement of four timber bridges with concrete structures as part of the Fixing Country Bridges Program - Round 1............................................... 187

CL22.128..... Tenders - Panel for Tree Services for Bushfire Road Verge Cleanup...... 189

City Development

CL22.129..... DA21/1612–  Bolong Road Bolong - Lot 1 DP 531429............................. 191  

 

Shoalhaven Water

CL22.130..... Acquisition of sewer easement - 15 Abernethys Lane Meroo Meadow - Lot 601 DP1223625................................................................................................. 207

CL22.131..... Acquisition of sewer easement - 1095 Meroo Road Meroo Meadow - Lot 202 DP 1180659...................................................................................................... 210

CL22.132..... Review of Shoalhaven Water Group Policies............................................ 213  

14.  Notices of Motion / Questions on Notice

Notices of Motion / Questions on Notice

CL22.113..... Notice of Motion - Bay and Basin Revitalisation Workshop....................... 224

CL22.133..... Notice of Motion - Community Engagement in Delivery Program & Operational Plan (DPOP) process......................................................................................... 226

CL22.134..... Notice of Motion - Call in DA21/2033 - 51 Tea Tree Lane, Nowra Hill - Lot 5 DP 1259527...................................................................................................... 227

CL22.135..... Notice of Motion - Road Maintenance........................................................ 228

CL22.136..... Notice of Motion - Reaffirmation of the 45 Degree Rule Vegetation Management Policy.......................................................................................................... 229

CL22.137..... Notice of Motion - Preservation of Shoalhaven's Defence Assets and the Employment they Bring to Our City................................................................................. 230

CL22.138..... Notice of Motion - Sussex Inlet Neighbourhood Centre - Investigations... 232

CL22.139..... Notice of Motion - Shoalhaven City Council to explore options to access funds from the Emergency Response Fund (ERF) for coastal and estuarine resilience 234

CL22.140..... Notice of Motion - Request for a Report on Shoalhaven Heads Coastal Management Program...................................................................................................... 235 

15.  Confidential Reports     

Reports

CCL22.8...... Tenders - Replacement of four timber bridges with concrete structures as part of the Fixing Country Bridges Program - Round 1

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

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

CCL22.9...... Tenders - Panel for Tree Services for Bushfire Road Verge Cleanup

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

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


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.115   Report of the Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Committee - 16 February 2022

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/86263

Attachments:     1.  CBD22.6 - Draft Contract of Engagement

2.  CBD22.7 - DRAFT Terms of Reference - Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Committee  

 

CBD22.2    Election of Chairperson and Notification of Council Resolution

HPERM Ref: D22/51095

REcommendation

That the Committee:

1.    Receive the report regarding Council’s Resolution in relation to the re-establishment for information (CL22.30 Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Committee - MIN22.27);

2.    Elect James Caldwell as Chairperson for the period to September 2022, noting that will be reaffirmed by Council.

 

 

CBD22.6    Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Project Management Services Contract

HPERM Ref: D22/46158

REcommendation

That the Committee adopt the CONTRACT OF ENGAGEMENT for Project Management Services as presented (attached) noting that;

1.    The Executive that will act as the Principal’s Agent is to be;

·    The CBD Committee Chair – James Caldwell

·    A Committee Member – Alison Henry

·    The Director City Services

2.    The Contract will be managed and amended as required by the Principal's Representative – Manager of Technical Services, to achieve the Contract objective.

3.    The Project Manager will be appointed by the Principle's Representative on the recommendation of the Principal's Agent

4.    Project Updates will be provided via the Project Update Report that is received by the Committee at each meeting.

 

 

CBD22.7    Review of Terms of Reference - Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy Committee

HPERM Ref: D22/45676

REcommendation

That:

1.    Council adopt the Draft Terms of Reference as presented (POL22/145) noting that the key changes include;

a.    References to the annual budget allocation (currently $500,000) now reflect the rate-pegged increases in the budget allocation.

b.    Membership criteria that better reflects the range of stakeholders that are engaged in the activities of the Committee and the inclusion of Councillors

c.    Clauses dealing with Removal of members have been added

d.    Amendments to ‘Working Groups’ to include Sub Committees and define the key Working Groups.

2.    Pending the adoption of part 1 above, that the initial appointment of the Strategic Advisor be Joanna Gash (Former Mayor, Councillor, and Federal Member) until September 2022, following that, an expression of interest will be called to permanently fill the position.

 

 

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.116   Ongoing Register of Pecuniary Interest Returns - 1 July 2021 to 28 February 2022

 

HPERM Ref:       D21/514244

 

Department:       Business Assurance & Risk

Approver:           Kevin Voegt, Director - City Performance  

Reason for Report

To provide the Council with the Register of Pecuniary Interest Returns from newly designated persons lodged with the Chief Executive Officer for the period of 1 July 2021 to 28 February 2022 as required under Section 440AAB of the Local Government Act 1993 and Part 4.26 of the Model Code of Conduct.

 

Recommendation

That the report of the Chief Executive Officer regarding the Ongoing Register of Pecuniary Interest Returns lodged for the period of 1 July 2021 to 28 February 2022 be received for information.

 

Options

1.    As Recommended

Implications: The requirements of the new Code of Conduct will be adhered to.

 

2.    The Chief Executive Officer take appropriate action in accordance with Council’s Code of Conduct in respect of any Staff who are in contravention of the Local Government Act 1993

Implications:  Not known

 

Background

Under Section 440AAB of the Local Government Act 1993 and Part 4.26 of the Model Code of Conduct, newly designated persons are required to complete an Initial Pecuniary Interest Return within 3 months of becoming a designated person.

Section 440AAB (2) of The Local Government Act 1993 states:

Returns required to be lodged with the general manager must be tabled at a meeting of the council, being the first meeting held after the last day specified by the code for lodgement, or if the code does not specify a day, as soon as practicable after the return is lodged.

Part 4.26 of the Model Code of Conduct states:

Returns required to be lodged with the general manager under clause 4.21(c) must be tabled at the next council meeting after the return is lodged.

This report is one of a series of reports of this nature which will be provided throughout the year to align with the legislative requirements. Annual Returns were reported to Council in October 2021.

Those persons who have submitted a return within the period in accordance with their obligation to lodge an initial pecuniary interest return are listed below:

Group

Name

Designated Position Start Date

Returned

City Services

Ryleigh Bowman

27/9/2021

30/11/2021

City Development

Bridie Riordan

8/8/2021

30/11/2021

City Development

Stephanie Wood

5/10/21

29/11/2021

City Futures

Daniel Morgan

18/10/2021

1/12/2021

City Services

Durga Shrestha

5/10/2021

2/12/2021

City Development

Peter Fuller

21/8/2021

2/12/2021

City Development

Jonathan Stavert

30/8/2021

3/12/2021

City Performance

Matthew Hinks

15/9/2021

6/12/2021

City Development

Alexander Aronsson

11/10/2021

7/12/2021

Shoalhaven Water

Craig Ellis

5/10/2021

8/12/2021

City Development

Laura Marcocci

20/8/2021

9/12/2021

City Performance

Dane Hamilton

27/9/2021

9/12/2021

City Services

Phillippa (Pip) Hildebrand

30/8/2021

10/12/2021

City Lifestyles

Rose Bryant

16/8/2021

16/12/2021

City Services

Indika Wijayamanna

5/7/2021

21/12/2021

City Services

Joshua Windsor

2/8/2021

22/12/2021

City Development

Adrian Brandt

11/9/2021

6/1/2022

City Development

Levi Aydogan

30/8/2021

20/1/2022

City Development

Kerrie Keith

1/11/2021

30/11/2021

City Lifestyles

Noel Boyes

2/11/2021

20/12/2021

City Development

Gavin Pearce

15/11/2021

24/1/2022

City Development

Melissa Moyle

22/11/2021

10/1/2022

City Development

Andrew Shortle

22/11/2021

1/12/2021

City Services

Julia Simpson

29/11/2021

19/1/2022

City Services

Beorn Hulme

8/11/2021

2/3/2022

City Development

Stewart Harradence

6/9/2021

23/2/2022

Councillor

Serena Copley

23/12/2021

20/1/2022

Councillor

Evan Christen

23/12/2021

1/3/2022

 

Councillors who were newly elected to the Council on 23 December 2021 are required to submit their Initial Pecuniary Interest Returns within three (3) months of that date. The list above indicates those Councillors who have submitted their returns at the date of the report. The remainder of newly elected Councillors will be included in the next report 

Councillor Amanda Findley and Councillor Greg Watson each submitted an updated return with the Council within this period.

Advice provided to Council by the Office of Local Government in September 2015 was that ‘hard copies’ of returns are no longer required to be tabled at the Council meeting. Therefore, the register of returns for this period is listed and tabled, with electronic versions of the documents may be viewed upon request.

 

Risk Implications

A failure of meeting the obligations with respect to the Pecuniary Interest Returns by a designated officer leaves Council at risk of non-compliance with legislative requirements, conflicts of interest and limited transparency. Staff who do not complete a return may be in breach of the Council’s Code of Conduct.

 

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.117   Donations Policy Review

 

HPERM Ref:       D21/336612

 

Department:       Business Assurance & Risk

Group:                City Performance 

Attachments:     1.  Draft Donations Policy 2022

2.  Draft Guidelines & Application Form

3.  Draft Assessment Panel Guidelines

4.  Donations Equivalent to Rates - MIN93.560

5.  Collated Information on Donations, Subsidies and Grants within the DPOP   

Purpose / Summary

To provide a Draft Donations Policy and Procedures to be endorsed for public exhibition.

 

Recommendation

That:

1.    The Draft Donations Policy (Attachment 1) be placed on public exhibition for a period of four (4) weeks to obtain community feedback on the Draft Policy

2.    All current recipients of donations be advised in writing of the public exhibition and their ability to make comment.

3.    A report be provided at the completion of the exhibition period, outlining the submissions received and a Final Draft Policy and Procedures for adoption by the Council.

 

 

Options

1.    As recommended

Implications: The Policy will be placed on exhibition and returned to the Council

2.    The Council amend the Policy prior to exhibition

Implications: Not known

3.    The Council adopt the Policy without exhibition

Implications: There is no requirement for public exhibition of this Policy under legislation, however it is recommended to allow the Council to consider input from the community prior to adoption of the Policy.

 

Background

Council’s Internal Audit Coordinator presented a report in December 2020 on Council’s Donations Policy and Procedures framework to the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee (ARIC). The objective of the internal audit was to assess whether there were effective controls in place around the management of grants processes including:

·        Dealing with requests for donations and accounting for approved donations including assessment and acquittals.

·        Meeting legislative and approved budgetary requirements.  

·        Whether Council policy, procedures and guidelines are appropriate, current and complied with

·        Whether processes reflect good practices and take into account opportunities for business improvement.   

 

The audit identified several risks and concluded that the Donations Policy and Procedures needed to be reviewed and updated to provide improved access and transparency in several key areas.

There were some deficiencies identified in not meeting compliance with the expectations of the Office of Local Government guidelines for donations. This included forms of application, assessment criteria, and processes and procedures for ensuring public notice is given outside the DPOP budget process.

The Internal Audit made seven recommendations which were endorsed by the ARIC, who subsequently endorsed the draft Donations Policy attached to this report.

 

Previous Review of Donations Policy

In 2019 a Draft Donations Policy was considered but was not adopted by Council (MIN19.234), which instead resolved:

That the Draft Donations Policy be deferred to a Councillor Workshop and determine who should receive a permanent/allocated donation with the view to implementing a new policy in the 2020/2021 financial year.

At this workshop, held in November 2019, Councillors expressed a desire for the Donations Policy (then POL12/299) to be retained, with the addition of a requirement for all recipients of donations to submit an evaluation report prior to payments in further years. POL12/299 was amended accordingly and Council adopted the revised Policy POL16/181 in March 2020 (MIN20.172). This is the current Donations Policy.

The unadopted 2019 draft included many of the provisions recommended or endorsed by the Internal Audit. That draft has now been updated (see Attachment 1) and is presented to Council for approval to be placed on public exhibition and consequent consideration for adoption prior to the end of the 2021-22 Financial Year.

 

Revised Format

The addition of separate categories and assessment criteria, as recommended by the internal audit and ARIC, has expanded, and complicated the Donations Policy to the extent that separating the Policy from the operational Guidelines and Application Form is suggested.

This reformat is proposed to acknowledge feedback received from Councillors, during the previous review process, that if the documentation remains combined it could be onerous for some members of the community to manage.

The attachments to this report are:

1.       Draft Donations Policy 2022. 

2.       Draft Guidelines & Application Form.

3.       Draft Assessment Panel Guidelines. The expanded assessment criteria primarily inform the deliberations of the Assessment Panel, rather than the applicants, for whose guidance a condensed version of the criteria has been retained in the draft Policy. 

 

Recommendations of the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee

Recommendation 1: Compliance with Office of Local Government Guidelines

The Donations Policy to be further developed as appropriate to incorporate all the important matters identified by the Office of Local Government, that is, forms of application, assessment processes including criteria, public notification procedures and follow up evaluation procedures.          

The Office of Local Government (OLG) reiterated the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 in relation to financial assistance, in its Circular 06-32 – Provision of financial assistance under Section 356. The ARIC agreed that Council must revise its Donations Policy to meet the legislative requirements and improve transparency in its application.

The revised draft Policy and Procedures reintroduces the following provisions:

·    A defined advertising period and application deadline, to improve public notification;

·    An Assessment Panel, comprising of representatives from Council and staff, to assess incoming applications and make recommendations to Council;

·    Assessment criteria specific to different categories, for use by the Panel;

·    Explicit requirement for applications to be made in accordance with the Policy.

 

Recommendation 2: Alignment with Community Strategic Plan

To ensure alignment with the Council’s Community Strategic Plan further consideration be given to the proposals previously put forward by management to amend and update the Donations Policy relating to donation categories and an annual application process.

The revised draft Policy and Procedures make demonstrating a project’s alignment with identified key priorities of the Community Strategic Plan an integral factor in the assessment criteria for each of the categories. This approach has been taken in consultation with Council’s Corporate Performance Reporting Manager.

The proposed Assessment Panel is tasked with recommending those applications which adequately demonstrate this alignment.

 

Recommendation 3: Donations Policy Framework

Council’s donations policy approach to be updated to incorporate categories of donations with relevant assessment criteria and to require a publicly advertised application lodgement process to be submitted.

This audit finding focused on procedures and governance of the Policy. The Internal Audit considered that “establishing categories of donations with relevant assessment criteria and requiring an annual application to be submitted through public notification would create an improved governance and internal controls environment.” The revised Draft Policy incorporates these procedures.

 

Recommendation 4: Funding Support Programs  

Consideration be given to transferring the following established funding areas within allocation donations to be administered separately from the Donations Policy framework, to take effect from the DPOP 2021-2022 period:

a)   Community Consultative Bodies.

b)   School Citizenship Awards.

c)   Surf Life Saving Clubs providing Patrolling services.

d)   Illawarra Academy of Sport.

These represent allocated donations that are offered to all known eligible recipients within the Local Government Area for a specified program, respectively: all recognised CCBs; all High Schools; all Surf Life Saving Clubs; and the Illawarra Academy of Sport as the sole entity in its category. These groups of donations are now being administered by the City Lifestyles Directorate.

 

Recommendation 5: “Rates Subsidy” Assistance

A review be undertaken of the current “Rates Subsidy” donations with a view to considering their ongoing funding as part of an established program category or categories for financial assistance, where applications are sought from all like community organisations for assessment against agreed criteria.

Council provides a “Rates Subsidy” to 18 community organisations such as local community associations, sporting groups, community health and local RSL sub-branches with an annual total value of more than $32,000. This is a long-established category of donations that pays the rates levied on premises meeting certain criteria, dating back to at least 1979.  Attachment 4 sets out an example of the annual Council resolution (MIN93.560) to “donate the sum equivalent to the rates levied” to a list of community halls and other specified premises. Several of the recipients have changed over the years, but there has been no reassessment of the composition of the list.

Other similar organisations occupying “land that belongs to a public benevolent institution or public charity and is used or occupied by the institution or charity for the purposes of the institution or charity” are exempt from paying rates under 556(1)(h) of the Local Government Act 1993. The Rates Subsidy is extended to community organisations that do not qualify for exemption; for example, where the land is held under a permissive occupancy arrangement.

The Rates Subsidy category does not currently require an application process for recipients that would assure continuing eligibility. Council’s Internal Audit determined that this category risks grants not being made in a transparent manner, finding that any financial assistance provided to the listed community groups should form part of an annual donation assistance program with established criteria, where all like community organisations have an opportunity to apply.

Staff have reviewed this category and proposed that:

·    Council should review the list of recipients at each term, with an annual confirmation subject to receipt of an acquittal.

·    Recipients should be required to demonstrate they’re not for profit or charitable status.

·    Applications be opened to occupiers who may not own their own land.

Council is accordingly requested to endorse the amendments to the Rates Subsidy category as included in the draft Donations Policy, on the understanding that Council will be provided with the opportunity to review the list of recipients on the Policy’s adoption.

 

Recommendation 6: Cessation of Allocated Donations

Having regard to audit findings 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0, Council to cease the listing of “allocated donations” within the annual DPOP / Budget process.  

The Allocated Donations previously mentioned are historically the beneficiaries of Council resolutions to fund these programs, either in perpetuity, or for a specified year and then let stand in the DPOP in ensuing years. The Allocated Donations for 2021/22 were resolved in in accordance with previous practice, pending the present review of the Policy and process.

The Donations Policies prior to 2012 required that “The granting of all donations, sponsorships and subsidies will be subject to a fresh written application being lodged with Council each year.” This changed for POL12/299, which was adopted at Ordinary 21 June 2013, to require fresh written applications only for Unallocated Donations (MIN13.589).

A significant proportion of existing donations will continue as “Allocated Donations” and be administered by the City Lifestyles Directorate, per Recommendation 4 above. Reinstituting application procedures for all other applicants will maintain an overall equitable and transparent approach to financial assistance and will allow Council to better monitor how ratepayers’ funds are being expended.

 

Recommendation 7: Business Improvement Opportunity

A cost benefit analysis be undertaken as to the merits or otherwise of implementing a web-based online donations/grants software system.

Council staff have been progressing a common web-based donations / grant software package in accordance with this recommendation, involving the Community Connections, Governance, Tourism and Arts and Culture business units, to workshop the acceptance of submissions via an online database such as SmartyGrants. Staff were strongly in favour of this recommendation, which will bring efficiency benefits to both staff and community users.

The timeline for adoption of a revised Policy is proposed as follows:

Date

Action

17 February 2022

Briefing of Councillors conducted providing an overview of the Donations Policy review to date, ARIC recommendations and seeking comments on the timetable for the policy.

14 March 2022

Current report to Council’s Ordinary Meeting

15 March - Late April 2022

Public exhibition of Draft Policy – Current recipients will be provided a Draft of the Policy and encouraged to make a submission

May 2022

Report to Council’s Ordinary Meeting following exhibition for Policy adoption

May /June 2022

Advertising for 2022/2023 Applications

July 2022

2022/2023 Donation Application period – Including workshops for potential applicants

August 2022

Assessment Panel Reviews Applications

Late August 2022

Report of Recommended recipients Council’s Ordinary Meeting

September 2022

Applicants advised of funding and payments made

 

Attachment 5 provides a breakdown or explanation of all other Donations, Subsidies and Grants within Council’s DPOP which was requested by Councillors at a recent briefing on this matter.

 

Community Engagement

Given the implications of this Draft Policy on community groups and organisations it is proposed that it be publicly exhibited prior to Council considering it for final adoption.  All current recipients will be invited to make submissions.

Once the Council has adopted a new Policy, workshops will be organised to inform potential applicants of the application process.

 

Policy Implications

It is noted that in addition to donations, there are several grants and opportunities for funding by Council. The draft Policy is framed to re-work the current ‘allocated’ and ‘unallocated donations. 

It is recommended that the Council consider resourcing a review of those other grants and funding opportunities made available by the Council to present a combined presence or portal facilitating the sharing of information and access to those funds.

 

Financial Implications

It is envisaged that the budget for donations will remain at the current levels, with the funding being split across the categories within the Policy.

 

  


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.118   Policies for adoption - Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy and Statement of Business Ethics

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/56190

 

Approver:           Kevin Voegt, Director - City Performance 

Attachments:     1.  Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy

2.  Statement of Business Ethics   

Reason for Report

This report seeks Council’s adoption of the Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy (POL21/68) and the Statement of Business Ethics (POL21/69).

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Adopt the Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy presented as Attachment 1 to this report.

2.    Adopt the Statement of Business Ethics presented as Attachment 2 to this report.

 

Options

1.    As recommended

Implications: The Policies will be adopted

 

2.    Council gives alternative direction to staff.

Implications:  The Policies will be modified as directed by Council.

 

Background

The Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy (POL21/68) was last adopted by the Council on 27 October 2015 and the Statement of Business Ethics (POL21/69) on 13 June 2017. Both policies were due for review and to be submitted to the Council for adoption after the December 2021 election.

Revised draft polices were submitted to the Executive Management Team for their consideration and endorsement on 19 October 2021. Amendments to these policies had been made to reflect the recommended action proposed under the Fraud Health Check Assessment conducted at Council in the 2020/21 period and the corruption prevention recommended action proposed for all councils from the Independent Commission Against Corruption’s (the ICAC) Investigation Report on the former Canterbury City Council issued in March 2021.

The key amendments proposed in the Fraud Health Check Assessment and the ICAC Investigation Report were:

·    In next reviewing Council’s Fraud Control Policy, to ensure that the policy adequately addresses the level of internal and external fraud risks and the ten attributes of fraud control identified by the Audit Office of NSW; and it is appropriately linked to other ethical behaviour polices including the fraud and corruption internal reporting policy. (Fraud Health Check Assessment).

 

·    The Council’s Statement of Business Ethics Policy be strengthened to include a statement that Council does not tolerate corrupt or fraudulent behaviour and fraudulent dealings. (Fraud Health Check Assessment)

 

·    To review and update Council’s consultancy service agreements and contents of Statement of Business Ethics as proposed by the ICAC, namely outlining Council’s ethical obligations and their ethical responsibilities, how to make disclosures under the Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994 and the jurisdiction of the ICAC Act. (The ICAC’s Investigation Report into the conduct of public officials of the former Canterbury City Council)

 

On 19 October 2021, the Executive Management Team endorsed the revised policies as provided as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 to this report.

On endorsement by the Executive Management Team, the Chief Executive Officer approved that the policies be implemented across the organisation to ensure that Council staff, contractors, consultants and community representatives are aware of their obligations. The policies are currently listed on Council’s website in the “policies” section:

https://www.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/Council/Access-to-Information/Policies

Council’s Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee has received reports in 2021 on these matters. The Committee has endorsed actions arising from the Fraud Health Check Assessment and from the corruption prevention recommendations from the ICAC Investigation Report on the former Canterbury City Council.   

In seeking their adoption, Council may consider any further modifications to these policies.

 

Community Engagement

It is not considered to require general community consultation before the adoption of these policies.

 

Policy Implications

The revised policies are intended to strengthen and promote ethical conduct and mitigate risks of fraud or breaches of the Code of Conduct.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.55     Exhibition Outcomes and Proposed Finalisation - Draft Amendment to Shoalhaven DCP 2014 Chapter S8 - Ulladulla Town Centre

 

HPERM Ref:       D21/458853

 

Department:       Strategic Planning

Approver:           Gordon Clark, Director - City Futures 

Attachments:     1.  Submissions Summary (under separate cover)

2.  Proposed DCP Chapter S8: Ulladulla Town Centre - Post Exhibition Version (under separate cover)

3.  Copies of Submissions (councillors information folder)   

This item was deferred from the Ordinary Meeting 7 February 2022.

Reason for Report

Present the outcomes of the public exhibition and outline the issues raised and enable the proposed Amendment to the Development Control Plan (DCP) to be finalised.

The proposed amendment seeks to update the DCP provisions after the building heights and zoning over the southern part of Ulladulla town centre were changed in the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) in June 2020 (LEP Amendment No. 33). The proposed DCP amendment also includes other minor ‘housekeeping’ updates.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Adopt and finalise proposed Amendment No. 45 to Shoalhaven DCP 2014 Chapter S8: Ulladulla Town Centre as provided in Attachment 2, incorporating two (2) changes resulting from the public exhibition as discussed in this report.

2.    Publicly notify the adoption of the DCP amendment in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations.

3.    Advise key stakeholders, including relevant industry representatives, the Ulladulla and Districts Community Forum CCB and those who made a submission, of this decision and when the DCP amendment will be made effective.

4.    Add the following issues/possible changes raised in submissions to the scope of works for the future proposed housekeeping amendment to DCP Chapter S8, and receive a report on the future draft amendment, to consider the detail, prior to placing it on public exhibition:

a.    Review the effectiveness/appropriateness of the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) incentives for consolidated lots, including whether the incentive FSR should apply to smaller lots.

b.    Consider including additional development objectives in the Context statement for Precinct 3 Recreation and Special Activities.

c.    Review the appropriateness of the requirement for 25% of site area to be deep soil planting in the commercial core precinct (specifically the Harbour Triangle sub-precinct).

 

d.    Update maps and figures to reflect the final harbourside walkway project alignment within the Harbour Triangle Precinct.

e.    Review planned pedestrian paths across the DCP area as part of the general review of planned infrastructure improvements.

f.     Review the Height of Buildings map relative to the riparian corridor and buffer from the top of Millards Creek bank.

 

 

Options

1.    As recommended.

Implications: This is the preferred option as it will enable the DCP Chapter to be updated to reflect current building heights and zones in the southern part of the Ulladulla Town Centre, which took effect in June 2020. It will also enable other minor updates/corrections of a ‘housekeeping’ nature to be made to resolve inconsistencies with the LEP, update references to external policy / guidelines and to enhance the overall readability of the Chapter.

Other issues raised in submissions will be added to the scope of works for the future proposed housekeeping amendment to DCP Chapter S8 which will address issues across the broader Ulladulla town centre area.

 

2.    Adopt an alternative recommendation.

Implications: This will depend on the nature/extent of any changes. Could delay the finalisation of the update of DCP Chapter S8 to reflect current LEP building heights and zones in the southern part of the Ulladulla Town Centre and other minor updates/corrections to the Chapter.

 

3.    Not adopt the recommendation.

Implications: DCP Chapter S8 will remain unchanged and will be inconsistent with the current LEP building heights and zones over the southern part of Ulladulla town centre. This may cause uncertainty and confusion for developers and the community and lead to undesirable development outcomes. Other necessary updates and corrections to Chapter S8 would not be made.

 

Background

On 13 July 2021 Council considered a draft amendment to DCP Chapter S8: Ulladulla Town Centre for public exhibition and resolved (MIN21.446) to:

1.       Endorse the draft proposed Amendment to Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 Chapter S8: Ulladulla Town Centre, as provided in Attachment 1 and place the Draft Amendment on public exhibition for a period of at least 28 days as per legislative requirements.

2.       Receive a further report on the Draft Amendment following the conclusion of the public exhibition period to consider feedback received, any necessary adjustments, and the finalisation of the Amendment.

3.       Advise key stakeholders, including affected and adjoining landowners, the Ulladulla & Districts Community Forum and development industry representatives, of this decision and the public exhibition arrangements in due course.

4.       Endorse the preparation of a further housekeeping amendment to Chapter S8 to review and update other matters that are relevant to the broader Ulladulla town centre area including general context, built form and desired character, maps and figures, and other minor matters identified during the review, with the Draft Amendment to be reported to Council for consideration prior to public exhibition.

 

The endorsed draft Amendment has a general focus on the southern part of Ulladulla town centre (land identified in Figure 1) and proposes to update the DCP provisions to reflect the LEP building height and zoning controls that came into effect in June 2020. These changes to the LEP implemented a general increase in building heights and also rezoned nine (9) properties on the corner of Deering Street and St Vincent Street from B5 Business Development to B4 Mixed Use.

An aerial view of a city

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Shoalhaven LEP 2014 (Am No. 33) Subject land

 

The endorsed draft DCP Amendment includes a number of other minor housekeeping updates/changes to resolve issues identified during the initial review of Chapter S8.

In accordance with the Council resolution, a future housekeeping amendment to Chapter S8 will be prepared to address updates and issues applicable to the broader Ulladulla town centre area.

 

Community Engagement

The draft DCP Amendment was publicly exhibited from 18 August to 17 September 2021 inclusive (30 days). The exhibition material available on Council’s exhibition webpage included:

·        Public notice

·        Explanatory Statement

·        Draft Amended DCP Chapter S8: Ulladulla Town Centre

·        Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) document

 

Key stakeholders, including all landowners within and adjacent to the Ulladulla town centre (as shown in Figure 1 of the DCP), the Ulladulla & Districts Community Forum CCB and development industry representatives, were directly notified of the exhibition arrangements. 

Submissions

Nine (9) submissions were received during the public exhibition period, comprising eight (8) public submissions and one (1) internal submission from Council’s Development Services unit.

A summary of the submissions is provided in Attachment 1. Copies of submissions are provided in the Councillor’s information folder.

Most of the submissions raised issues with DCP provisions that apply to the broader Ulladulla town centre area which are generally currently outside the scope of this housekeeping DCP Amendment. It is thus recommended that some of those issues, which are considered to be of a minor ‘housekeeping’ nature, be added to the scope of works and considered as part of the future broad housekeeping amendment, that is discussed later in this report.

Two (2) public submissions objected to the proposed addition of new Acceptable Solution A2.2 (shown below in italics) to the existing Performance Criteria P1 relating to important views and vistas.

 

Performance Criteria

Acceptable Solutions

P1  Maintain important views and vistas.

A2.1     Views along public streets to the water and distant surrounding landscape are protected and embellished through framework planting and the like.

A2.2     Any reduction in views from the public domain or private property is not to be severe or devastating based on the following NSW Land & Environment Court Planning Principles:

·    Views - General principles.

·    Views - Impact on public domain views.

Note: Where compliance with the objective, performance criteria and acceptable solution is achieved, the expectation of there being no change to existing views is considered unreasonable.

 

Given the nature of the area, it is considered appropriate that development proposals consider the significant views and vistas that are present throughout Ulladulla town centre, in line with current established Land & Environment Court Planning Principles. This was a recommendation of the related Ulladulla Building Heights Review Report (2017) and is consistent with other existing DCP Chapters (e.g. G13: Medium Density and Other Residential Development; G12 Dwelling Houses and Other Low Density Residential Development). Thus, it is recommended that Acceptable Solution A2.2 be retained as exhibited in the proposed DCP Amendment.

It is also recommended that the following issues arising from submissions be resolved as part of the current proposed DCP Amendment. The proposed resulting changes have been included in the post-exhibition version of proposed DCP Chapter S8 at Attachment 2:

·        Issue: The reference to the pathway in the drainage reserve from North Street to Church Street, Ulladulla in Maps 2, 3 and 6 should be removed.  This was noted in an internal submission from Council’s Development Services Department, which recently assessed a DA on land that adjoins the reserve.  Flood modelling as part of the DA indicated that it was not suitable for a future pedestrian pathway. 

 

Proposed change: Remove pathway from Maps 2, 3 and 6 in the DCP Chapter.

 

·        Issue: Table 2 ‘Building Heights and Floor Space Ratios’ need to be updated for ‘Residential unit living Precinct 4’ to reflect those in the.

 

Proposed change: Update Table 2 in the DCP Chapter accordingly to ensure consistency.

 

Proposed Future Housekeeping Amendment

 

As noted in the exhibition material, Council has resolved to undertake a further future housekeeping amendment to the DCP Chapter to review and update matters that are relevant to the broader Ulladulla Town Centre area. It is planned to commence the future amendment following the review of the Milton-Ulladulla Structure Plan (expected to be completed in mid-2022).

 

The following issues have already been foreshadowed in the scope of works for the future housekeeping amendment, as noted in the public exhibition material:

 

1.       Context / built form / character statements for each Town Centre precinct in section 3. In particular:

a.  Consider whether the maritime theme / identity should be retained and, if so, include criteria / guidance for built form, building appearance, materials and finishes (the maritime theme can be widely interpreted at present);

b.  Imagery to illustrate best practice examples, desired building forms etc.

2.       Consequential updates to built form and character controls throughout the chapter.

3.       Review and update maps, figures and provisions where needed, for example:

a.  Map 6 Infrastructure Improvements Concept Plan (update where works have been completed, have changed or are no longer required);

b.  5.4.4 Soil and Stormwater Management – given the recent update of DCP Chapter G2 Sustainable Stormwater Management and Erosion/Sediment Control, the provisions in 5.4.4 are possibly redundant or may need revision.

4.       Section 5.2.4 Building roofscapes: Consider limiting the height of building parapets and other roof features that exceed the LEP building height limit. Under LEP clause 5.6 architectural roof features are permitted to exceed the maximum building height but there is no limit on how far they may exceed it by.

5.       Section 5.2.2 Building form / orientation: review the controls to be more flexible and encourage creative design solutions.

 

As noted above, a number of the public submissions raised issues which were generally outside of the scope of the current proposed DCP amendment.  It is thus recommended that those issues listed below, which are considered to be of a minor ‘housekeeping’ nature, be considered as part of the future broad housekeeping amendment:

 

1.       Section 3.1.1 Precinct 1 Commercial Core and Table 2 Building Heights and Floor Space Ratios: Review the effectiveness/appropriateness of the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) incentives for consolidated blocks, including whether the incentive FSR should apply to smaller lots (from submission No 2 and 8). Two submissions raised concerns that the existing controls disadvantage smaller lots (1000-1600sqm) and have not resulted in much consolidation of lots within the town centre.

2.       Section 3.3 Precinct 3 Recreation and Special Activities: Consider including additional development objectives in the Context statement for Precinct 3 Recreation and Special Activities (as suggested in submission No 4):

a.   Demonstrate the compatibility of the proposed uses within a mixed-use development context with specific reference to adjoining and adjacent development such as leisure and entertainment uses.

b.   Allow for a combination of temporary and short-term accommodation such as hotel and motel accommodation, serviced apartments and the like (also see Chapter G15 – Tourist and Visitor Accommodation).  Accommodation must not dominate use of the site.

c.   Compatible retail/commercial uses including restaurants and cafes, gift shops, galleries, personal services, leisure and indoor recreational facilities and the like.

d.   Increase activity levels in the Town Centre outside of business hours and improve the quality of the urban environment adjacent to the retail area.

e.   Promote shared use of privately funded facilities, new developments are encouraged to design future infrastructure so that it can be shared, particularly by adjoining users.

3.       Section 5.2.1 Ecologically Sustainable Development: Review the appropriateness of the requirement for 25% of site area to be deep soil planting in the commercial core (specifically the Harbour Triangle precinct), as raised in submission No 8.

4.       Section 5.1.2 Building Setbacks and Section 5.1.5 The Public Domain and Section 5.1.6 Land Adjoining the Harbour Foreshore: Update relevant controls, maps and figures to reflect the final harbourside walkway alignment within the Harbour Triangle precinct (from submission No 8).

 

5.       Pedestrian paths: Review planned pedestrian paths across the DCP area as part of the general review of planned infrastructure improvements (submission No 2)

 

6.       Height of Buildings adjacent to Millards Creek: Review the height of buildings map relative to the riparian corridor and buffer from the top of Millards Creek bank (potential LEP housekeeping amendment as well) (submission No 5).

 

The remaining issues raised in the public submissions, as listed below, are considered to be outside the scope of both the current and future proposed housekeeping DCP amendments.

 

·        Planning controls in the Harbour Triangle Precinct (HTP): submitter No 8 raised concerns that property in the Harbour Triangle Precinct is unfairly encumbered by a network of height controls, setbacks, planned pedestrian thoroughfares, heritage constraints and contributions which makes it unviable to develop. Seeks a review and reconsideration of a range of controls – building height, residential uses above the ground floor, rationalisation of pedestrian thoroughfares, removal of landscaped area requirement.

 

Comment: The changes sought to controls are generally beyond the scope of the proposed housekeeping DCP amendments and would ideally be undertaken as part of a more detailed holistic review of planning controls over the wider precinct / town centre. This would also possibly require a Planning Proposal given that building height, floor space ratio and heritage provisions are set in the LEP. It is noted that there is a considerable history behind the existing controls. Council has the option of undertaking a more holistic review in the future. At this point however no changes are proposed as part of the housekeeping amendments. It is however noted that there are no controls (LEP or DCP) which preclude residential uses on the ground floor under the land’s B4 Mixed Use zoning.

 

·        Infrastructure (7.11) contributions:  Contributions applicable to development under Shoalhaven Contributions Plan (CP) 2019 was raised in Submission No 8 as a general encumbrance to development. 

 

Comment: Council reviews and updates the CP on an ongoing basis to (among other things) rationalise the number of contributions projects and remove those that are not viable. Several contributions projects formerly applying to the Ulladulla town centre were removed in historic CP amendments. A major review of the CP was undertaken as recently as 2019 which resulted in further projects removed. There are no immediate plans to review the CP for this area.

 

·        Development of a CBD beautification masterplan for the public domain.  This was suggested in Submission No 8 as something that Council should undertake. 

 

Comment: The DCP encourages street beautification measures in conjunction with development, utilising any relevant streetscape master plan which may apply.  DCP Chapter G18: Streetscape Design for Town and Village Centres does apply to some streets within the Ulladulla Town Centre and aims to promote and guide the revitalisation of nominated centres, including Ulladulla.  However a broader beautification masterplan is not currently planned to be undertaken by Council for the Town Centre. There are however plans being prepared for granted funded projects adjacent to the harbour and related to the broader harbour walkway.

 

Policy Implications

The proposed amendment will update DCP Chapter S8 to reflect the changes to building heights and zones in the southern part of the Ulladulla Town Centre which took effect in June 2020 through Amendment No.33 to Shoalhaven LEP 2014. It also includes minor updates/corrections of a ‘housekeeping’ nature to resolve inconsistencies with the LEP, update references to external policy / guidelines and improve the operation of the DCP.

It is proposed to prepare a broader housekeeping amendment to Chapter S8 in the future to address issues that are applicable to the broader Ulladulla town centre area.

Financial Implications

Finalisation of the Amendment to the DCP will be undertaken within the existing Strategic Planning budget.

 

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.119   Exhibition Outcomes - Planning Proposal (PP005) - Revision and Proposed Re-Exhibition - 'Deferred' Land, Warrah Road, Bangalee

 

HPERM Ref:       D21/523566

 

Department:       Strategic Planning

Approver:           Gordon Clark, Interim Director - City Futures 

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

2.  Agency feedback - PP005 Warrah Road   

Reason for Report

·    Provide feedback on the outcomes of the public exhibition and Government Agency consultation in respect of the Planning Proposal (PP005) for land with a ‘deferred’ zoning at Warrah Road, Bangalee.

·    Present a revised version of the PP that was triggered by concerns raised by the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) and to seek endorsement for re-exhibition. 

·    Seek ‘in principle’ support for the transfer/dedication of approximately 45 ha of proposed C2 Environmental Conservation land to Council with a single, fully costed and funded Biodiversity Stewardship Agreement (BSA).  Previously the C2 land was proposed to be contained in three (3) privately owned ‘caretaker lots’.

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Endorse the revised proposal and modified Local Environmental Plan (LEP) maps contained in this Report and prepare an updated Planning Proposal (PP) that also includes:

a.    Information about the proposed biodiversity certification of the development land and proposed conservation arrangements for the environmental land as outlined in recommendation 2 below;

b.    A revised subdivision concept plan 2022;

c.    Current agency comments.

2.    Endorse, in principle, the transfer/dedication of the proposed C2 Environmental Conservation zoned land (part of Lot 24 DP 714096) to Council at the appropriate point in the future with a single, fully costed and funded Biodiversity Stewardship Agreement (BSA), registered on Title.

3.    Forward an updated PP to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) with a request for a further Gateway extension to permit re-exhibition and finalisation of the PP. 

4.    Publicly exhibit the updated PP in accordance with legislative requirements and consult relevant agencies (provided Gateway extension is issued), with costs accrued to date to be invoiced and paid by the Proponent prior to exhibition commencing. 

5.    Concurrently exhibit the Biodiversity Certification Application (BCA) and updated BCAR with the PP for 30 days in accordance with s8.6 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

 

6.    Receive a future report on the outcomes of the re-exhibition and proposed finalisation process.

7.    Advise the proponent and previous submitters of this resolution.

 

 

Options

Options to progress the PP are limited.

1.    As recommended

Implications

This is the preferred option as it is realistically the only way to progress the proposal to meet the requirements of Government Agencies.  The revised PP is an improved planning outcome and is supported by DPE, RFS, Biodiversity & Conservation Division of DPE (BCD) and relevant Council Section.  The revised PP also responds to concerns raised in community submissions about bushfire risk, alternate access and environmental protection. 

The revised footprint and proposed arrangements for the proposed C2 Environmental Conservation zoned land achieves a more balanced/robust development/conservation land supply outcome and is also consistent with the ‘Planning for Bushfire Protection’ 2019 (PBP 2019) guidelines. Due to the extent of changes, the PP needs to be re-exhibited.  The Proponent supports the revised proposal.

 

2.    Seek to finalise the PP as exhibited

Implications

Not recommended.  The PP cannot be finalised as exhibited due to the concerns raised by the RFS (making it inconsistent with the s 9.1 Ministerial Direction that applies to bushfire prone land).

 

3.    Propose an alternative/not adopt/defer the recommendation

Implications

Not recommended.  There is insufficient time for an alternative proposal to be negotiated before the Gateway is due to expire on 25 May 2022.  Changes to the proposal at this stage could delay the process and might not be supported by the key government agencies and/or proponent.  A potential yield of 200 residential lots may not be realised.  The environmental land would remain in private ownership and its future long term management would not be secured.

 

Location and Current Zoning

The subject land (Figure 1) has an area of approximately 80 ha and is located at Bangalee, approximately 3.5 km northwest of Nowra town centre. It is identified as Lots 21-24 DP 714096 and is predominately vegetated with cleared and partially cleared areas in the east as shown in aerial photo below. Most of the partially cleared area is subject to a Remediation Order under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. 

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 1 – Aerial Photo and boundaries of Subject Land

The subject land is bordered by existing land zoned R5 Large Lot Residential to the north, R2 Low Density Residential to the east and small rural holdings zoned C2 - Environmental Conservation and C3 - Environmental Management to the south and west.  The remaining part of the original Crams Road URA zoned R1 (General Residential) adjoins the land to the south separated by a Crown Road (see Figure 2).  

The zoning of the subject land was ‘deferred’ from Shoalhaven LEP 2014 and therefore the provisions of Shoalhaven LEP 1985 continue to apply. Under Shoalhaven LEP 1985, the site is currently zoned Rural 1(d) (General Rural).

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 2 – Shoalhaven LEP 2014 (Note: subject land is currently deferred from SLEP 2014)

Background

The PP has a long and complex history dating back to Nowra-Bomaderry Stricture Plan (NBSP) and draft Shoalhaven LEP processes, including in 2013 when the proponent made a submission to the draft Shoalhaven LEP.  The history is fully documented in the exhibited PP here

Council resolved to submit a PP for Gateway determination in December 2015 after considering an independent review of conflicting biodiversity assessments. A favourable Gateway determination was originally issued by the NSW Government in July 2016.  This PP is one of five “Legacy” PPs for which the original Gateways were terminated by DPE on 15 December 2020 (see more information about the Legacy PPs in Council report DE21.5 here).

A new Gateway determination was issued for this PP on 25 February 2021 with a 12-month timeframe and an expiry date of 25 February 2022.   A Gateway extension request was sent to DPE on 17 January 2022 based on a project plan with an estimated completion date of August 2022.  However, on 24 January 2022, a revised Gateway was issued with an extension of only three (3) months until 25 May 2022.   DPE advised:

“This 3-month timeframe will allow Council sufficient time to complete the updated reports and revise the planning proposal and to confirm whether the elected Council supports an altered planning proposal. Should Council seek a Gateway determination alteration for a revised planning proposal, then a request for a further extension of 3 months to finalise the plan could be considered”.

 

Copies of all Gateway determinations for the PP are available in the document library on the Get Involved Web-Page.

 

 

Outcome of Public Exhibition and Agency Consultation

 

Public Exhibition: May-June 2021

The PP was publicly exhibited between 12 May and 25 June 2021.  During the exhibition:

·    Council’s ‘Get Involved’ project page was maintained to assist community engagement on this PP and accompanying biodiversity certification application (which is discussed later in this report).  All exhibition documentation, relevant Council reports and resolutions, technical studies, Gateway determinations, agency comments, the Biodiversity Certification Application (BCA) and Biodiversity Conservation Assessment Report (BCAR) were (and remain) available for viewing. 

 

·    Information ‘drop-in’ sessions were held between 4 pm and 6 pm on 8th and 9th June 2021 at the North Nowra Community Centre, following an online registration process (to help manage COVID risks). Twenty-four (24) registrations were received, and eighteen (18) individuals attended at least one session.  No follow-up enquiries were received.

 

A total of twenty-four (24) submissions were received during the public exhibition period and a breakdown of submissions is provided in the following table:

Basic summary

Number

Comment

In support

6

Only one appears to have a connection with Shoalhaven and none were connected to Bangalee

Bangalee landowners

16

Objections – 3 of 16

Concerns and comments – 13 of 16

Other 

1

Objection - from Sydney - appears to have no connection with the Shoalhaven or Bangalee

Neutral

1

Jerrinja Tribe – consultation concerns addressed via direct correspondence as detailed (Attachment 1).

 

A detailed summary of submissions is provided as Attachment 1.  The key issues raised are summarised below.  The resultant proposed changes are discussed in the next section of this report.

 

Lot size:

·    There was generally no support for the 500 m2 minimum lot size (LSZ).  There was, however, considerable support for the status quo i.e., Large Lot Residential ≥1,000 m2 was preferred.  One submission noted that the entire locality of Bangalee was rezoned (from R2 to R5) as recently as August 2020 to reflect the existing development (PP027). 10 submissions.  

Comments on the concerns about minimum lot sizes are provided in Attachment 1 Summary of Submissions (see responses 1.4 to 1.8).

·    With a few exceptions, lot sizes in the Bangalee area range from 2,000-5,000 m2.  Several submitters, whilst not opposed to the PP, suggested a transition be provided between the existing development and the possible smaller lots within the subject land. Note: the exhibited PP did provide a transitional 2,000 m2 LSZ between the existing 2,000 m2 area to the north and the proposed 500 m2 LSZ to the south.

An R5 zoning for this entire Urban Release Area (URA) is not considered appropriate as the zone objectives would frustrate the delivery of planned regional land supply as anticipated by the NBSP.  Projected yield has already been substantially reduced due to the environmental/biodiversity constraints of the land.  Only 25 ha of the 80 ha parcel of land is suitable for development. An R5 zone would significantly reduce the projected yield of 200 lots and potentially render the proposal uneconomic.

However in response to community concerns, it is proposed to create a transition/buffer area between existing development in Bangalee and smaller R2 lots by zoning part of the URA to R5 Large Lot Residential zone and applying a minimum lot size of 2,000 m2

Not all submitters will be satisfied with the proposed changes.  However, it is considered that the revised proposal goes some way to respond to the concerns raised about minimum lot size without rendering the entire proposal uneconomic and thereby, failing to deliver much needed new housing in the region.

If Council supports the revised proposal for re-exhibition, the community will have the opportunity to provide further feedback on the proposed minimum lot sizes.

 

Traffic and access 

·    Specifically, the need for an alternate and / or secondary access other than Warrah Road and concerns about bushfire risk and evacuation arising from the increased population, additional traffic, and access issues. 8 submissions

·    Increased traffic on Warrah Road, Bimbimbie Avenue and Moondara Drive was highlighted.   Access via a new roundabout at the intersection of Warrah/Illaroo Roads was suggested as an alternative.  However, construction of this northern extension of Warrah Road is of significant concern to at least three of the four immediately adjoining landowners.  

Of greatest concern, however, was bushfire risk and the lack of an alternate/secondary access in the event of an emergency evacuation.   This issue was also central to concerns raised by RFS and was a key consideration in revising the proposal.

An alternative access option via Pitt Street is illustrated in the sketch plan – available via the link in Attachment 2.  Access via the northern extension of Warrah Road through to a roundabout at the intersection with Illaroo Road could also be further explored to reduce traffic impacts on Moondara Drive and Bimbimbie Avenue.  This access option addresses one of the key RFS concerns. 

All access options would be further considered at DCP stage if Council supports the revised proposal and if/when the land is rezoned, and community will be invited to engage in this process.

 

Environmental – loss of bushland and wildlife habitat. 

·    Impact on threatened species caused by previous clearing and proposed development. 6 submissions.

·    The proposal to protect the environmental and biodiversity values of the site along with development is well documented in this report and its attachments. If Council supports the recommendations and the land is rezoned, the environmental values of the C2 zoned land will be better protected, particularly when the Biodiversity Stewardship Site is ultimately established. As noted by BCD, on balance, the biodiversity package is robust.  It is also consistent with the requirements of PBP 2019 and also facilitates the delivery of planned regional land supply.

 

State and local infrastructure

·    The need for major infrastructure to be provided prior to development and the need for additional social infrastructure in the area, e.g., footpaths, public open space and a playground. 5 submissions.

The provision of State Infrastructure has been commented on in the Summary of Submissions at Attachment 1 (see responses 1.2 and 1.3).

·    No land will be able to be ‘released’ for actual development until the provisions of Part 6 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 have been satisfied.   Council has also resolved (MIN19.289) that release of this land should not occur until both the Princes Highway Shoalhaven River Bridge duplication and the Far North Collector Road have been completed.

The need for social infrastructure to support the proposed URA such as public open space, a playground and shared paths, etc was also raised in submissions.   These issues are commented on in the Summary of Submissions at Attachment 1 (see responses 2.4 – 2.6).

A key issue to arise is the need for a local park.  City Lifestyles (Strategic Asset Planning) supports the dedication of a minimum of 4,000 m2 as public open space within the proposed URA for use by both future (approx. 500) and existing residents.  A local park is considered to be justified based on projected population increase as there are no suitable existing parks in Bangalee or its immediate surrounds. Ideally, a park would be centrally located to be accessible to all residents of Bangalee.    

A detailed site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) must be prepared before the land can be ‘released’ for subdivision in accordance with Part 6 of the Shoalhaven LEP 2014.  The community will be invited to engage in this process. The DCP will provide more detailed planning provisions and will help achieve beneficial outcomes, for example, those relating to local/social infrastructure provision (e.g., a local park, cycleways, shared paths, and sustainability infrastructure such as high-quality stormwater management, and subdivision design).  Council may also prepare/consider other supporting documents (such as a Voluntary Planning Agreement and Contributions Plan Amendment). In this case, the community will also be engaged if/when these documents are prepared.

 

Schools

·    Impact of additional population on the capacity of local primary schools. 3 submissions.

·    Council continues to liaise with the NSW Department of Education (DE) in relation to the educational needs of the Shoalhaven more broadly.   DE is aware of the regional significance of the Nowra-Bomaderry Growth Area and the projected population increase.   Future needs and the capacity of existing education facilities in the area are being monitored by DE.  Initially, DE intends to meet the increased demand for schooling by completing upgrades to one or more existing schools.

 

Agency Consultation

As required by the Gateway determination, consultation was undertaken with a range of government agencies between July and October 2021.  Attachment 2 is a summary of the agency feedback.  

Crucially, the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) objected (after the exhibition) on the basis that the proposal did not meet the subdivision requirements of PBP 2019 and therefore was not consistent with Ministerial Direction 4.4 under s 9.1 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979

This PP cannot be progressed unless this objection is resolved, and this triggered Council to seek assistance from DPE’s Planning Delivery Unit (PDU).

 

The Revised Proposal

Essentially, the revised proposal is the outcome of discussions lead by the PDU with the RFS, DPE’s Biodiversity & Conservation Division (BCD), DPE’s Regional Office, the Proponent and Council’s Strategic Planning Team.

The PDU’s role was critical in bringing together these parties, allowing the proposal to be reshaped to help overcome concerns.  There are no outstanding agency objections relating to the revised PP presented in this Report.

 

The revised development footprint is substantially different from the exhibited PP but presents a better potential planning outcome, as illustrated in Figure 3 below.  

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 3 – Comparison – Exhibited proposed zoning (LHS) and revised proposed zoning (RHS)

The key changes to emerge and frame the revised proposal are:

·    A regular boundary and manageable interface between the proposed residential zones and environmental land that will facilitate consistency with the subdivision requirements of PBP 2019 and therefore Ministerial Direction 4.4.

·    Two small pockets of R5 zoned land with dwelling entitlements have been removed. The R5 land had been proposed to accommodate dwellings associated with three (3) ‘caretaker lots’ for the C2 land.

·    A buffer/zone of transition between the existing development in Bangalee and smaller R2 lots is proposed to be created by applying an R5 zone to the north of the URA, with a minimum lot size of 2,000m2.

·    Approximately 300 linear metres of the former Crown Road necessary for perimeter road access to the development is proposed to be included in the R5 Large Lot Residential zone.

·    A minimum lot size of 700 m2 is proposed to apply along the R2/C2 interface to ensure that the bushfire Asset Protection Zones (APZs) can be accommodated.

·    C2 Environmental Conservation land is proposed to be increased by 2 ha to 45 ha.

·    Minimum lot sizes in the revised proposal are proposed to be simplified and reduced to four as follows:

R2 zone – 500 m2 and 700 m2

R5 zone – 2000 m2

C2 and RU2 zones – 40 ha

 

As a result, four (4) of the exhibited proposed LEP Map changes have been modified to reflect the revised proposal, these are:

·    LZN – Land use zones (Figure 4)

·    LSZ – Minimum Lot Size (Figure 5)

·    HOB – Height of Buildings (Figure 6)

·    Proposed URA (Figure 7)

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 4 – Existing (LHS) and proposed (RHS) land use zoning (LZN) under SLEP 2014

 

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 5 – Existing (LHS) and proposed (RHS) minimum lot size (LSZ) under SLEP 2014

 

A picture containing diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 6 – Existing (LHS) and proposed (RHS) height of buildings (HOB) under SLEP 2014

 

Map

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Figure 7 – Existing (LHS) and proposed (RHS) urban release area (URA) under SLEP 2014

If supported, the revised proposal does, however, need to be re-exhibited due to the extent and nature of changes. 

 

An updated PP document will need to be prepared and forwarded to DPE with a further Gateway extension request prior to re-exhibition of the PP.

 

Biodiversity Certification

Biodiversity certification offers a streamlined biodiversity assessment process under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 for areas of land that are proposed for development. The process identifies both areas that can be developed after they are ‘certified’, and measures to offset the impacts of development. Where land is ‘certified’, development may proceed without the usual requirement for site-by-site assessment as part of the development application (DA) process.

An application for Biodiversity Certification (BCA) and the associated Biodiversity Certification Assessment Report (BCAR) were exhibited concurrently with PP in accordance with ‘best practice’.   No submissions were received in relation to the BCA/BCAR.

An updated BCAR was received on 14 January 2022, reflecting the revised PP. In addition to recalculation of the biodiversity credits, the revised BCAR proposes to transfer/dedicate the C2 land to Council. The exhibited PP and BCAR proposed the C2 land to be split into three (3) caretaker lots / Biodiversity Stewardship Sites (which would have remained in private ownership). 

If the revised proposal is supported, the BCA and updated BCAR will be re-exhibited concurrently with the PP.  The NSW Minister for Environment & Heritage will determine the BCA in consultation with the NSW Minister for Planning and Homes.  The application will be assessed and determined in accordance with the biodiversity certification provisions of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

Ultimately, if the development area is biodiversity certified, the biodiversity credits calculated in the BCAR would have to be secured by the developer and retired

Proposed Land transfer to Council with Biodiversity Stewardship Agreement

Critical to BCD’s support for the revised proposal is for all the land proposed to be zoned C2 Environmental Conservation to be transferred/dedicated to Council with a single fully funded Biodiversity Stewardship Agreement (BSA) registered on the Title. In contrast, the exhibited proposal was for the C2 land to be the subject of three separate BSA’s and split into the three (3) privately owned caretaker lots.

BCD stated that: “… on balance, the biodiversity package is considered more robust and assists integrating the bushfire requirements of the RFS while assisting SCC to achieve regional land supply.”    

The biodiversity stewardship site would have to be managed in accordance with the agreement, which aims to improve the land’s biodiversity values.

An application for a BSA must be lodged with the Biodiversity Conservation Trust (BCT) and the application must be supported by a BSA Report prepared by the proponent.  The BSA will calculate the amount of the deposit that must be made to the Biodiversity Stewardship Payments Fund for ongoing management of the site (total fund deposit - TFD). The Payments Fund would pay Council scheduled management payments from the TFD as determined in the BSA Report and by the Fund.

City Development (Environmental Services) supports the revised proposal and transfer/dedication of C2 land to Council with a single BSA.  Key comments received were:
 

•     The revised possible development footprint is supported. This revised layout is more condensed than the previous design and is beneficial as this design allows a greater width of wildlife corridor to be conserved by the C2 zoned area proposed to be managed under a Biodiversity Stewardship Site Agreement.

•     It is understood that for the ‘suggested option’ all areas outside of the revised possible development footprint (R2) and the RU2 proposed area would be zoned C2 and managed under a Biodiversity Stewardship Agreement.  This is supported.

•     The R2 zoned development footprint would become a revised biodiversity certification area. Comments provided by the BCD in relation to revising the BCAR to reflect this new alignment, in accordance with BAM 2020 are supported.

•     It is understood that in order to support the PP, BCD require that all the land proposed to be zoned C2 Environmental Conservation be dedicated to Council with a fully funded BSA registered on the Title.  This is supported. It would be expected that the credits generated by the BSA would be retired by the developer as part of the offset for the biodiversity certification area.    

Council’s in principle agreement, is sought to accept transfer/dedication of the proposed C2 Environmental Conservation land.  The BSA would ensure that the C2 Environmental Conservation land is managed for its biodiversity and conservation values in perpetuity.  Fundamentally, the negotiated land transfer and BSA is an improved biodiversity outcome to the exhibited proposal.

Transfer of the land and accompanying funding would be set out in the Biodiversity Certification Agreement as part of any conferral by the NSW Minister for the Environment and Heritage under Part 8, Division 2 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. The timing of transfer is yet to be determined but it would potentially be a set period after Part 6 of the LEP (requirements relating to Urban Release Areas) is satisfied, or some other key point in the process (e.g., prior to release of subdivision works certificate).  Council and BCD will continue to work closely on this timing aspect.

Further reports on the mechanism for and the environmental/financial benefits arising from transfer of the land to Council will be prepared in due course when the appropriate milestones are reached.

 

 

Conclusion

In conclusion, the revised proposal and associated proposed transfer/dedication of C2 land with BSA (Option 1) is a superior planning outcome compared to the exhibited PP.

The revised proposal responds to most issues and concerns raised during community consultation (drop-in sessions) and submissions received during the original exhibition.  The revised proposal has the support of the key NSW Government agencies as well as the support of the relevant sections within Council. 

The extent of the changes is such that re-exhibition (concurrently) of the PP and BCA is necessary. Proceeding with this approach will allow this longstanding matter to be resolved and achieve the best overall planning outcome.

 

Community Engagement

The revised PP option will need to be re-exhibited due to the extent of changes.  The community will have a further opportunity to consider the revised proposal as a result. 

The Warrah Road ‘Get-Involved’ project page will be updated to keep the community informed and to seek submissions on the revised PP and BCA.

 

Policy Implications

No implications for existing policy arise from the revised proposal or re-exhibition of the PP.

The transfer/dedication of the C2 Environmental Conservation land to Council (with a fully funded BSA registered on Title) is facilitated via the Biodiversity & Conservation Act 2016 and as such, there is no intersect with existing policies of Council.  This is a shift in Council’s general approach; however, the proposal will result in a good conservation/management outcome and importantly the proposal will be fully funded, meaning Council will not need to expend funds for ongoing management.   

Land transferred/dedicated would be classified as ‘Community land – Natural Area Bushland’ in accordance with Section 31 and Section 36 of the NSW Local Government Act 1993 and Section 102 of the NSW Local Government (General) Regulation 2021.  Classification of the land would be addressed when further reports on the land transfer/dedication and establishment of BSA are presented to Council in due course.

The preparation of a Development Control Plan relating to the land will need to be prepared at the appropriate point, noting that Council’s long held position is that land release will not occur until the new bridge crossing and the Far North Collector Road have both been completed.

 

Financial Implications

Council has fees and charges in place for progressing proponent-initiated Planning Proposals. These seek to recoup costs incurred by Council in progressing the matter, including the costs associated with staff time.  Costs incurred to date (as prescribed in Council’s adopted Fees and Charges) will need to be invoiced to, and paid by, the Proponent before the PP proceeds to exhibition. 

The provision of a fully costed and funded BSA would ensure that the future cost of managing the biodiversity stewardship site would be met by the sale of Biodiversity Credits generated under the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme. Rates would also not be payable. If any implications should arise that need to be considered, these would be canvassed when further reports on the establishment of the BSA are prepared.

 

 

Note: Below are the links contained within Attachment 2

16 July 2021 response

“Suggested Option”

“Subdivision Concept Plan”

https://getinvolved.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/warrah-road-bangalee-planning-proposal).

18 October 2021

updated BAR

Subdivision Concept Plan

upated BCAR

advice

Comments

 

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.120   Proposed Suburb Name - Moss Vale Road Urban Release Areas - Exhibition Outcomes and Next Steps

 

HPERM Ref:       D21/552165

 

Department:       Strategic Planning

Approver:           Gordon Clark, Interim Director - City Futures 

Attachments:     1.  Summary of Submissions - Table of Issues and Staff Responses

2.  Submission from Cambewarra Residents & Ratepayers Association   

Reason for Report

Advise of the outcomes of the public exhibition of proposed suburb names for the Moss Vale Road Urban Release Areas and seek direction on the steps to finalise new suburb arrangements - name and boundary.

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Nominate “Badagarang” as the proposed name for the Moss Vale Road Urban Release Areas and submit it to the NSW Geographical Names Board for consideration at their next official Board Meeting.

2.    Promote the suburb boundary outlined in red in Figure 3 of this report as the recommended boundary for the new suburb and:

a.    Provide the recommended suburb boundary and community feedback on boundary options for the Board’s consideration.

b.    Request that they collaborate with Council, affected landowners and relevant stakeholders in the settling of the new suburb boundary.

 

Options

1.    As recommended.

Implications: This is the preferred option as it progresses suburb naming arrangements for the new Moss Vale Road urban release areas, helping to differentiate between urban and rural areas with a different character, contribute to the new communities’ identity, and assist with service provision (emergency, postal and delivery services).

It recognises the outcomes of the community consultation, with a preference over the alternative name of “Gumbeengang” (as it is more difficult to spell and pronounce). This option also aligns with the policy preferences and recommendations of the NSW Geographical Names Board (GNB) to use Aboriginal themed names. It also responds to the collaboration and consultation activities undertaken with the Nowra Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC) and Council’s Aboriginal Advisory Committee.

2.    Consider alternative suburb naming arrangements, such as retaining existing suburb names and boundaries (Cambewarra and Meroo Meadow) with adjusted suburb boundaries to better align with the release areas or establishing new suburb arrangements for only the northern release area.

Implications: This option whilst not preferred, recognises that new residential lots in the southern release area have been marketed and sold (off-the-plan) with a Cambewarra address. However, it does not provide logical suburb naming arrangements for the new urban areas, differentiate between urban and rural areas with different development outcomes, contribute to the new communities’ identity, or assist with service provision (emergency, postal and delivery services).

3.    Investigate alternative suburb naming options.

Implications: This option would delay the settling of new suburb naming arrangements for the release areas by approximately 9-12 months, potentially causing confusion for an increasing number of landowners as the development of the southern release areas continues and the delivery of the northern release commences. The community consultation exercises required to set new suburb arrangements would be more complex and involve a greater number of people. The two names tested with the community were selected in consultation with the Names Board and endorsed by the Nowra LALC and Council’s Aboriginal Advisory Committee. Opportunities to identify other suitable names may be limited.

Background

Council is guiding the delivery of a new urban area/suburb in Nowra-Bomaderry, currently known as Moss Vale Road North and Moss Vale Road South (Figure 1). Together, these release areas are anticipated to provide up to 3,500 contemporary homes in a new urban environment. The new urban area is anticipated to be delivered over the next 10-15 years and will contain a retail centre providing space for retail and services and a range of housing types. The new community will be supported with a range of infrastructure, including a road network connected to Moss Vale Road (via two roundabouts), water, sewer, and open space.

Map

Description automatically generatedFigure 1: Location of the Moss Vale Road urban release areas                                            and existing locality boundaries.

 

The release areas are located in, and stretch across, the existing suburbs or localities of Cambewarra and Meroo Meadow. The GNB has confirmed its preference for new suburb arrangements for the new urban area to:

·    Distinguish between the development outcomes of the new urban area and adjoining rural areas, helping to maintain the existing Cambewarra and Meroo Meadow localities, while contributing to the identity of the new community.

·    Recognise the significance and functions of the combined new urban area, noting its size, an emerging community, and the potential number of homes and other uses.

·    Provide clear and consistent addressing for future residents to assist with the provision of emergency, postal and delivery services.

The GNB administers the process for new suburb naming arrangements, providing detailed guidelines in their Place Naming Policy to ensure that new names are unique, culturally appropriate, and easy to use. The Policy encourages the use of traditional Aboriginal names for local plant and animal species, and landscape and cultural features. It does not favour the use of family names, prevents the duplication of existing names already in use anywhere in Australia, and precludes the addition of prefixes or suffixes to existing names (for example, North, South, Heights, Downs, etc.).

An initial selection of twelve (12) names were identified with the assistance of the Shoalhaven Historical Society and Nowra LALC. These names were selected from the local Aboriginal language group (Dharawal) following a review of a broad range of Aboriginal history and language resources. The names were tested against the GNB’s Policy and reduced to two (2) suitable options through consultation with the Nowra LALC and Council’s Aboriginal Advisory Committee.

Given the framework of requirements governing a suitable suburb name, the GNB’s expectation for Council to lead the naming process, and to respect of the work undertaken with local Aboriginal representative groups, the following names were tested though community engagement:

·    Badagarang (Bada-garang) – Dharawal for Eastern Grey Kangaroo, a Dharawal totem.

·    Gumbeengang (Goombee-nyang) - Traditional name for Cambewarra Mountain.

Council endorsed the public exhibition of these two names in July 2021, with the exhibition occurring in October and November 2021. The exhibition also provided the opportunity for comment on potential suburb boundaries.

While the limitations in naming options are noted, the exhibition of too many names may not have provided meaningful feedback and inviting community suggestions has often been found counterproductive, especially with an increasing number of stakeholders. In addition, any suggested names would still need to be vetted against the GNB’s policy and potentially endorsed by the Nowra LALC and Aboriginal Advisory Committee.

Outcomes of Public Exhibition

139 submissions were received in response to the exhibition of the two naming options, including two written submissions from developers operating within the southern urban release area.

Just under half of the respondents (69 people) supported one of the two options, with Badagarang being the preferred option of the two (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Submission responses to naming options

70 submissions did not support either name, with most of these respondents (50 people) identifying spelling and pronunciation difficulties as the primary reason. Other respondents provided feedback on the following:

·    The origin of the names/use of an Aboriginal name.

·    Limited choice or opportunities for community input.

·    Unsuitable or unappealing names.

·    Potential for slang or misunderstanding.

·    Purchase of land marketed as being located within or associated with Cambewarra.

Some submissions suggested alternative names or the retention of current names. Two (2) submissions misunderstood the exhibition and objected to the development of the release areas in general, while five (5) others contained comments considered to be inappropriate or offensive.

A detailed summary of the issues raised in response to the exhibition and the evaluation of the issues is provided in Attachment 1.

Response to Submissions

The recommended name – Badagarang – is of the Dharawal language group, the local Aboriginal language for the area. It has a meaningful cultural connection to the traditional custodians of the land. A range of alternative names, or themes for names, were investigated earlier with the Nowra LALC and Shoalhaven Historical Society. The Historical Society cautioned against the use of European names because of the complexity of the history of the area, and instead supported the use of an Aboriginal name. The names were tested against the GNB’s policy, which rules out the use of family names and the variations of existing or nearby names. This name was also considered and endorsed by the Nowra LALC and Council’s Aboriginal Advisory Committee.

Some initial unfamiliarity with the spelling and pronunciation of the name is anticipated and the GNB’s policy notes “traditional names may at first appear to be complex but will, over time, become more familiar and accepted by the community”. Adoption of an Aboriginal name is consistent with many of Shoalhaven’s current suburbs. These have Aboriginal names and have been accepted by the community and are in daily use, for example, Cambewarra, Meroo Meadow, Bomaderry, Bangalee, and Nowra.

The remainder of the suburb naming process, administered by the GNB (independent of Council) will provide further opportunities for community feedback, including a further public consultation period. If alternative names are proposed during this process, the GNB will evaluate them against its policy and consult with Council. Alternative suggestions that have been provided by the community to date are considered unsuitable, due to their use in marketing material for new subdivisions, their relevance to a small area/limited landholdings within the release areas, or their duplication or similarities with nearby suburbs or existing localities elsewhere in NSW and Australia.

The feedback from the developers operating in the southern urban release area provided comment on behalf of a number of purchasers. This promoted the retention of the existing Cambewarra suburb name. A copy of the feedback is provided in Attachment 1. While it is appreciated that some people may have bought into the area because of the name of the locality, the ‘rural charm’ of Cambewarra as it currently exists is not representative of the final development outcome, which will be urban in nature. Changing the name of the release areas does not change the location of the property, nor its value; it is amending the administrative suburb boundary. The value and character of an area evolves over time and is not dependent solely on suburb boundaries or names.

While it may seem appropriate to retain the current locality names for the time being, it is important for the areas to develop their own identity, which will be noticeably different to the surrounding rural areas. A new name will help contribute to this sense of identity, as well as preserving the existing established localities of Cambewarra and Meroo Meadow.

Suburb Boundaries

The public consultation also provided an opportunity for feedback on an indicative new suburb boundary (Figure 3). This map generated significant feedback from the Cambewarra community, including a petition, in relation to the potential option to extend the new suburb west to meet Good Dog Creek, a natural or geographic boundary (yellow shading). Concerns raised related to potential:

·    Loss/Change to Cambewarra’s rural/farming history,

·    Removal of/Encroachment into Cambewarra Village’s scenic protection area, and

·    Further urban development in the future.

A community meeting was held on 23 November 2021 to clarify the purpose of the exhibition and discuss these concerns. The meeting was attended by approximately 60 people and Council staff. Written feedback was provided by the meeting participants (Attachment 2). To address the concerns, it’s recommended the boundary identified in red be nominated as the starting point for a new suburb boundary, i.e., not extended west to meet Good Dog Creek. All feedback will be provided to the GNB to inform its setting of any new suburb boundary. 

The administrative process to identify new suburb boundaries does not provide the opportunity to change planning controls or development outcomes. The current land use zones and controls protecting identified scenic values remain unchanged.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 3: Indicative new suburb boundary (outlined in red).

Next Steps

The preferred name, recommended boundary, and a copy of community feedback will be submitted to the GNB to inform its process to settle the name and final suburb boundaries. Regular updates on this process will be provided to Council.

Community Engagement

Community engagement activities have consisted of the public exhibition of the two naming options identified through earlier collaboration with Nowra LALC, Council’s Aboriginal Advisory Committee and Shoalhaven Historical Society.

The naming options were exhibited from 27 October to 28 November 2021 (33 days). The exhibition was supported with a webpage providing explanatory information, maps of potential boundaries, and an overview of the naming process. An online survey was also provided to collect feedback. Council’s newsletters (staff and community) and social media outlets were also used to promote the opportunity to provide feedback.

Written notification of the exhibition was sent to landowners (affected and adjoining), LALCs, peak industry bodies and relevant Community Consultative Bodies. Developers operating in the southern release area were also notified and requested to inform purchasers and interested persons of the opportunity to provide feedback. Although Council holds the mailing information for current landowners it does not have access to the personal information held by the developers. It is unclear how many future/prospective owners were notified of the exhibition by the developers.

Council received 139 submissions on the naming options, including two written submissions from developers operating in the southern release area. Additional feedback was also collected from the Cambewarra Residents and Ratepayers Association in relation to the exhibited suburb boundary.

Policy Implications

There are no policy implications. However, the gazettal of a new suburb name will require updates of the information held in Council’s Geographic Information Systems and with the NSW Land Registry Services.

Risk Implications

The development of the southern urban release area is now underway and will be followed by early releases in the northern urban release area in coming years. If the settling of new suburb arrangements requires more time, the number of landowners and other stakeholders will increase, potentially making it harder to reach agreement on suburb arrangements.

As such it is critical to move forward with this and set the arrangements as early as possible to provide certainty for the new and emerging community and avoid the confusion of future address changes.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.121   Proposed Submission - NSW Government discussion paper: 'A new approach to rezonings'

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/36451

 

Department:       Strategic Planning

Approver:           Gordon Clark, Interim Director - City Futures 

Attachments:     1.  Discussion paper - A new approach to rezonings (under separate cover)

2.  Draft submission - Discussion paper - A new approach to rezonings   

Reason for Report

·    Advise of the release of a Discussion Paper by the NSW Department of Planning & Environment (DPE) proposing significant changes to the rezoning process (Attachment 1).

·    Obtain endorsement for the proposed Council submission (Attachment 2).

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Receive the report on the ‘Discussion paper - A new approach to rezonings’ (Attachment 1) released by the NSW Department of Planning & Environment (DPE), for information.

2.    Raise strong concerns with the proposed approach and endorse the attached submission (Attachment 2), with any adjustments resulting from the consideration of this report and advise DPE accordingly.

3.    Provide a copy of Council’s submission to Local Government NSW and support them in any advocacy/representations they undertake associated with this matter.

4.    Strongly request that DPE undertakes further detailed and meaningful consultation and dialogue with Councils on the proposed changes to the rezoning process before they are finalised and implemented.

5.    Receive future reports, if required, to enable further consideration of or comment on the detail of the proposed reforms to the rezoning process.

 

 

Options

1.    As recommended.

Implications: This is the preferred option and will enable Council to provide an endorsed submission highlighting concerns and matters that should be considered.

 

2.    Make changes to the draft submission (Attachment 2) and submit.

Implications: Any minor changes will be incorporated into the endorsed submission and forwarded to DPE, noting that the official deadline for submissions was 28 February 2022. More substantial changes may delay the provision of an endorsed submission.

 

 

3.    Not make a submission.

Implications: Not recommended. The Discussion Paper proposes to radically change the rezoning/LEP amendment process, which would have significant and potentially long lasting implications. 

While some aspects are positive, others are highly concerning. The overriding concern is that the number of ‘spot’ or ‘one off’ rezonings will increase, at the detriment to strategic planning and generally achieving good outcomes for the community.

 

Background

The NSW Government is continuing with a suite of reforms that aim to improve the planning system and reduce timeframes, including in relation to the Planning Proposal (rezoning) process.

On 15 December 2021, the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) released two related sets of documents:

1.   New LEP Making Guideline which became effective immediately, replacing the following:

Local Environment Plans: A guide to preparing local environmental plans (2018); and

Planning Proposals: A guide to preparing planning proposals (2018).

2.   Discussion Paper / broad review of the rezoning process. Among other things, this could ultimately lead to legislative changes to the current PP process (and presumably changes to the LEP making guideline). The Discussion Paper is provided as Attachment 1.

 

Structure of this Report

While the Discussion paper (Attachment 1) is the focus of this report, this cannot be considered without first considering recent changes to the PP (rezoning) process which came into effect via the new LEP Making Guideline on the same day that the Discussion Paper was released.

As such the new LEP Making Guideline is discussed first, before addressing the Discussion Paper ‘A new approach to rezonings’.

 

What is a planning proposal (PP)?

A Planning Proposal (PP) is a document (including supporting information) that explains the intended effect of a proposed or requested amendment to the local environmental plan (LEP). LEP amendments can involve changes to land use zoning (rezoning) and/or other LEP map layers, and/or changes to the written instrument.

A PP includes a plain-English description of the intended outcomes, identifies and assesses the potential impacts that the changes to the LEP may have and provides justifications for making the LEP. Note: PP can be initiated by Council or by a proponent(s). Proponent-initiated PPs are currently required to be considered by the Council early in the process. 

The statutory requirements for the PP process are set out in Division 3.4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.  The guidelines for preparing PPs provide additional supporting detail on both the statutory and non-statutory aspects of the PP process.

The PP process was introduced in 2009, part way through the rollout of the Standard Instrument LEP format across NSW. A key element was the introduction of a ‘gateway’ or checkpoint before resources are committed to carrying out investigative research, preparatory work and consultation with agencies and the community.

The gateway step was introduced to enable PPs that lack strategic planning merit to be stopped early in the process before time and resources are committed

The process was designed to allow costly / time consuming technical studies to be completed ‘post gateway’ if a request has merit and, to accommodate refinements to the proposal based on the outcomes of these studies. Any necessary studies and/or other conditions would be listed in the Gateway determination issued by DPE as matters to be completed/addressed before the PP could proceed further and be publicly exhibited.

As such, it is no surprise that the ‘pre-exhibition’ stage of the PP process was the most time-consuming stage in the PP process - see Figure 1.

Chart, bar chart, waterfall chart

Description automatically generated

Figure 1 – Comparison of time involved in each stage of the PP process (Source: Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, 2021)

 

1.   Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline (December 2021)

Aspects of the new LEP Making Guideline that differ from the previous guidance, including:

·    Guidance and supporting information to improve ‘pre-lodgement’ consultation (but still not currently a statutory requirement) including:

Preparation of a scoping study

Initial government agency consultation

·    Supporting studies now required up front, which is opposite to the original intent of the Gateway step.

·    Councils can reject a PP within 14 days of lodgement if it is 'unclear'. The Guideline however does not elaborate on the criteria for rejection.

·    Encourages infrastructure requirements and funding to be investigated early, and if a Contributions Plan amendment is required, this should be progressed in conjunction with the PP process.

·    Council will no longer be the Planning Proposal Authority (PPA) for proponent-initiated PPs if the PP was not supported by Council.

·    Includes more practical and detailed guidance on each step in the PP process, both for Council and proponent initiated PPs.

·    Breaks PPs down into categories: Basic, Standard, Complex and Principle (further detail is provided later in this Report).

·    Non-mandatory maximum timeframes for each stage and the overall process, for each category of PP: 46 weeks for basic, 70 weeks for standard, and 88 weeks for a complex proposal or principal LEP. These seek to reduce assessment timeframes by 33%.

·    Changes to rezoning review process.

·    Linking the PP process to the NSW Planning Portal.

·    Recognition that PPs can be amended after lodgement.

·    Changes to the ‘strategic merit test’:

The presumption against satisfying the test, where a rezoning review request looks to amend LEP controls under 5 years old, has been removed.

New guidance about 'changes in circumstances' that would satisfy the test for a PP not aligned with existing strategies.

 

Except where a Gateway determination had already been issued prior to 15 December 2021, the Guideline applies to all new PPs.

2.   Discussion Paper - A New Approach to Rezonings

What are the issues with the current system?

The Discussion Paper outlines options to reshape the rezoning process “…within a plan-led system…” after consulting with local government, the development industry and state government. Table 1 shows the different issues/problems raised by Councils regarding the current system.

Table 1 – Key issues with Planning Proposal process (prior to 15/12/21) according to DPIE consultation[1]

Councils

Development stakeholders

Poorer quality of PPs and not addressing key issues

Extensive timeframe to obtain a PP outcome/decision

Slow response and reduced engagement by Government agencies predominantly due to capacity

Local political influence and local councils changing the PPs unilaterally

Many PPs are contrary to Councils’ vision and strategic alignment to local strategies

Extensive studies, detail and costs prior to Gateway

Significant pressure and reduced capacity of Council resources

Resolving issues and time taken of the consultation with Government agencies

Lengthy timeframes to resolve conflicting planning matters

Lack of transparency of the Gateway process and many have such detailed conditions

Timeframe to do digital mapping and use of portal

Voluntary Planning Agreement negotiations with Councils

Rezoning review process takes away Council’s decision making

Rezoning review does not allow for minor changes and hence PP process has to start again.

No timeframe requirements for PPs

 

Not all PPs are the same but it’s the same process

 

Summary of the proposed new approach

The Discussion Paper proposes to fundamentally change the current PP / rezoning process, essentially based on the development application (DA) process. The proposed process is summarised below for a proponent-initiated PP / rezoning (for which the changes are most profound):

1.   Pre-lodgement consultation would be mandatory, but the 'Gateway determination' step, which has historically been used to provide an early merit assessment based on preliminary information, will be removed.

Proponents submit a scoping report.

Rezoning authority (for the purpose of this report this is referred to as ‘Council’) reviews and seeks State Government agency feedback.

Council provides written feedback to the proponent outlining: if the application is consistent with strategic plans, any recommended changes, and the proposal’s nominated category (basic, standard or complex) – including any technical studies needed to support the application.

 

2.   Proponent lodges the rezoning application on the NSW Planning Portal. Council has 7 days to undertake an ‘adequacy check’ – this is not a merit assessment. Council will nominate the category (i.e., basic, standard, complex or principle).

 

3.   Public exhibition starts immediately on the NSW Planning Portal - between 14 to 42 days, depending on the application’s category (determined in the previous step).

 

4.   Post exhibition – proponent is responsible for preparing response to submissions. Discussion Paper suggests information requests by the Council will be strongly discouraged.

 

5.   Council either refuses or approves the application.

 

6.   Discussion Paper proposes to create a potential appeal right for proponents; either to the NSW Land and Environment Court (LEC) or to an Independent Planning Commission.

 

Discussion Paper also seeks feedback on a ‘planning guarantee’, similar to one introduced in the UK in 2013, whereby proponents would receive a partial refund on fees if their application was not processed within an arbitrary timeframe. Even if a fee refund is given, assessment and determination continues.

The mechanism is being looked at to encourage more efficient processing of rezoning proposals and as a result a planning guarantee scheme is being considered for NSW. The Discussion Paper suggests an option based on four elements: the assessment clock; timing; refund amount; and extension of time agreement.

At this point, the reforms are aimed at being in place by mid-2022.

 

Key changes and implications

·    The current key Gateway step (which requires Council and DPE to decide whether a proposal has sufficient merit to progress) will be replaced by a mandatory pre-lodgement process that is coordinated by Council staff in consultation with relevant State Government agencies.

 

·    The elected Council would only consider proponent-initiated proposals after exhibition by the proponent. Currently, Council decides early whether or not to forward a PP to DPE for a Gateway determination, and if the PP proceeds, considers the PP after public exhibition and decides whether or not to finalise the PP. (In some cases, the PP may currently need to be reported to the elected Council at additional points, e.g., to consider the outcome of a key study to help shape the proposal.)

 

·    Similar to above, the community would generally not be aware of a proposal until it is exhibited on the Portal (which would automatically commence when a Council officer completes the adequacy checklist on the Portal). Currently Council initially notifies adjoining landowners etc if a proponent rezoning/planning proposal application is received.

 

·    Reduced timeframe for Council to notify community stakeholders, that is the formal exhibition would start as soon as the documentation is determined to be adequate (within 7 days of lodgement). It could then be one to two weeks before adjoining landowners etc. receive written notification. Council would potentially not have the discretion to extend exhibition periods. Currently, Council makes arrangements to notify affected landowners, prepares a public notice and other exhibition material (e.g., explanatory statement, frequently asked questions) prior to commencing an exhibition.

 

·    Rezoning/PPs would only be exhibited on the NSW Planning Portal. Council would no longer exhibit proposals.  Given the limitations and issues with the Planning Portal, it is questionable whether this will actually improve community engagement or be more problematic.

 

·    Proponents would be responsible for:

 

Preparing all the supporting studies. Currently, Council has the ability to manage any key or sensitive studies that should be done at arm’s length from proponents, e.g., independent peer reviews.

Preparing all exhibition material, including any proposed mapping changes (which requires a detailed understanding of the LEP, mapping conventions etc). Currently, Council has control over the exhibition material, and any proposed LEP map changes are prepared by Council using information supplied by the proponent.  This ensures that the exhibited map changes are consistent with mandated conventions and the LEP and use correct mapping data.

Assessing and responding to submissions. This is currently managed by Council.

 

·    DPE would generally not be directly involved anymore in proponent-led proposals (other than commenting on the proponent’s scoping study).

 

·    Council would assess the merit of the proposal once only; post-exhibition and this decision could be appealed by the proponent.

 

Proposed Submission - Summary of comments

A summary of the points in the proposed submission (Attachment 2) is provided below. DPE’s deadline for submissions was 28 February 2022. As such the draft submission was sent as a ‘placeholder’ until an endorsed version can be provided following this meeting.

 

 

Comments on Part A Background (Discussion Paper: pages 5 – 10)

·    The intention to make the process more efficient is strongly supported, but this should not be at the expense of achieving good outcomes for the community.

 

·    The focus on “uniformity” ignores individual circumstances and diminishes local Council autonomy – as has been the concern with other proposed planning reforms,  one size does not fit all.

 

·    Rezoning proposals can range from very straightforward/non-contentious to very complex/highly contentious, and not all are actually “rezonings”. The process for highly complex proposals is often more iterative, as new information comes to light and the views of other stakeholders emerge and are taken on board. The iterative nature of more complex proposals is often essential to get good responsive outcomes.

 

·    Terminology needs to be considered: “rezoning” is more easily understood by the public if the land use zoning is proposed to be changed, but is misleading if the proposed LEP amendment does not include an actual zoning change. People often also confuse “planning proposal” with development application.

 

·    Contributing to the problem is that a lot of key development standards are in the NSW Standard Instrument (SI) LEP when they were not previously (e.g. building height was previously largely managed via DCP’s). Hence, if a proposed variation has merit, but cannot be considered/approved under clause 4.6 (variation to development standards) a PP will be needed.

 

·    Any discussion on the rezoning process should also consider opportunities to move some development standards out of the SI LEP and back into DCP’s, while also reinstating the weight given to DCP’s in the development application assessment process.

 

·    ‘Spot’ rezonings can be time consuming and divert resources from strategic planning and too many of them suggests the planning system is reactive rather than plan-led.

 

·    PPs are not the same as development applications (DAs); PPs often deal with complex issues and information that emerge as the process progresses. PPs are less amenable to imposed arbitrary timeframes.

 

·    “Process” should not be the master of the outcome; the very nature of a PP (as opposed to a development application) should be expected to result in different approaches between Councils and between proposals. Amending an LEP was never intended to be a process that is undertaken lightly.

 

·    It is argued that reporting a rezoning/planning proposal to Council twice is very appropriate to enable consideration of the matter ‘in principle’ early and up front and then to consider community input. This should not be viewed as a “delay” but due process. Limiting Council consideration/involvement is a concern. 

 

·    The Gateway process was good in principle, but the new LEP Making Guideline now effectively shifts all of the work (and cost) to the pre-lodgement / pre-gateway stage.  This will superficially speed up the process by moving the most time-consuming stage into the informal process.

 

·    Transparency – this takes time which the new LEP Making Guideline and proposed new approach seek to limit and constrain.

 

·    While it is important to recognise the role of proponents, it is also critical that the accountability and responsibility for LEPs remains with councils.

 

·    Poor response times from under-resourced Government agencies whose input is mandated by the Gateway is a common frustration and cause of delays. Agency responses are sometimes too detailed (i.e., treating a PP as if it is a development application) or do not recognise existing strategic planning background.

 

Comments on Part B: The new approach (pages 11 to 34 of Discussion Paper)

·    The timeframes for the key steps in the process, for each category of proposal, need to be achievable. The timeframes currently identified may not be.

 

·    The timeframes for the scoping stages are unrealistic given the number of variables (quality of proponent studies, delays with receiving Government agency feedback etc.) 

 

·    The post exhibition timeframes leave no room for revising the proposal to respond to competing submissions, negotiation with key stakeholders etc.

 

·    Placing so much pressure on timeframes risks compromising good outcomes.

 

·    The proposed shift in roles for proponent-initiated proposals would mean that the Council is no longer the ‘custodian’ of its LEP and would result in proposals being generated in a random, uncoordinated manner, and referred to Government agencies with no indication of public support or merit.

 

·    It is not clear how this proposed shift in roles would mean that Councils retain full control of the process (p 19). One of the strengths of previous processes was that a Council could refuse to accept a speculative or similar proposal.

 

·    What will prevent Council and proponent from preparing a rezoning/planning proposal over the same land at the same time?

 

·    This proposed change in roles would likely result in an increase in demand for private consultancy services on matters that lack sufficient merit and a potential rise in speculative proposals.

 

·    Removing DPE's decision-making role from all proponent-initiated rezoning proposals creates a risk in relation to more contentious proposals, where DPE currently plays an important role, particularly in relation to assessing proposals against Section 9.1 Ministerial directions. Removing DPE’s role would remove this important ‘check’ and also potentially create the temptation for unsuccessful proposals to be resubmitted when Councils change, creating further demands on limited Council resources.

 

·    It is considered important that DPE continue to have role for proponent-initiated proposals where:

 

A proposal is not minor and is not closely aligned with strategy OR

There is a s 9.1 inconsistency.

 

·    Clearer guidance on ‘strategic merit’ is required, including consideration of weighting and/or scaling system, because it is rarely clear cut.

 

·    Councils should be supported to review their Local Strategic Planning Statements (LSPS’s) and relevant land use planning strategies, specifically to provide a stronger framework for determining PPs/rezonings. It needs to be acknowledged that this is a difficult task in a large and diverse local government area (LGA) like Shoalhaven, as opposed to smaller Council areas in Sydney where the task is somewhat easier/more defined. 

 

·    DPE should proactively facilitate Government agency consultation, which is often a cause of delays and frustration in the rezoning process. Detailed agency input is critical for assessing proposals against any relevant Section 9.1 Ministerial directions. The rezoning process will not be streamlined if Government agency concerns are not drawn out until post exhibition.  The proposal (and potentially supporting studies) might need to be revised and re-exhibited.

 

·    DPE should monitor agency response timeframes and provide additional resources (e.g., ‘embedded’ officers) where necessary.

 

·    Council should remain responsible for coordinating Government agency consultation but there should perhaps be oversight by a central body so that referral response times can be monitored and addressed where necessary.

 

·    If there are conflicting agency responses, a coordinated, whole-of-government response should be considered. This approach was a key factor in progressing and finalising highly complex rezoning proposals for a number of paper subdivisions in the Jervis Bay area including Jerberra Estate, Verons Estate and the Heritage Estates.

 

·    Making proponents solely responsible for their proposal will give them full control over the consultants they engage to complete the required technical studies. This may not be appropriate and will remove the ability for key studies of a sensitive or critical nature to be managed by the Council, at arm’s length from the proponent. This will inevitably reduce the public’s faith in the independence of supporting studies.

 

·    If Council is of the view that a proponent’s proposal is inconsistent with strategy and cannot be modified to address that inconsistency, it should not be required to issue study requirements. Doing otherwise would be disingenuous and potentially create false expectations/hope to the proponent.

 

·    If the planning system is truly intended to be ‘plan-led’, proposals that are clearly inconsistent with strategy and cannot be modified to address that inconsistency, should not proceed to be exhibited.

 

·    Removing merit assessment until post exhibition should only be considered for very minor, straightforward proposals, such as where the proposal is strongly aligned with strategy and will have negligible impacts on surrounding property owners and/or the environment.

 

·    The Discussion Paper does not demonstrate how the proposed approach will facilitate better community engagement in strategic planning. Making proponents responsible for community engagement as opposed to Council is unlikely to improve public trust and transparency in the planning system.

 

·    Public exhibition represents a relatively small proportion of the overall rezoning/planning proposal timeframe. Further streamlining the public exhibition process would make little difference to overall timeframes, while reducing the opportunity for genuine community engagement.

 

·    The new concept of a ‘planning guarantee’ is contentious, is not supported and should not be pursued further by the NSW Government.

 

The first time the concept was raised was by the NSW Minister for Planning as part of a speech to a development industry forum in November 2021. In its resulting media release Councils furious at ‘disrespectful planning  announcement (November 2021), Local Government NSW expressed strong concerns about the proposed ‘planning guarantee’

 

This proposal is considered an unnecessary punitive approach and would potentially create an incentive for proponents to not genuinely attempt to work with Councils in a constructive manner. No evidence has been provided to show that it will lead to improved outcomes, actually assist or speed up the process.

·    It is unclear how amendments to LEP map overlays are proposed to be handled in relation to proponent-initiated proposals. Disputes and/or confusion will arise due to the lack of consistency and quality control in exhibited maps. LEP maps must be prepared in accordance with DPE’s strict rules and conventions, and any map changes must be carefully considered in context of the LEP as a whole (maps and written instrument).  This is why the process has always been and needs to remain under the control of the Council (including liaison with DPE, Parliamentary Counsel and other agencies).

 

·    The concept of an assessment clock is not supported because:

 

PPs/rezonings can vary greatly in complexity (which is not accurately reflected in the new categories and benchmark timeframes).

Delays are usually caused by external factors such as Government agency consultation and/or the quality of consultant reports.

It implies that the timeframe is more important than achieving the best outcome and/or that councils seek to deliberately slow the process.

Lead-in times for Council reporting can vary, e.g., due to caretaker mode prior to local government elections, holiday periods etc.

 

·    Preventing/discouraging information requests will ultimately result in incomplete/inadequate consultant studies and will discourage iterative improvements to proposals.

 

·    Public interest should be a consideration and be supported by guidance on what is in the public interest in respect of rezoning/PPs.

 

·    Councils have been able to manage the process of running PPs concurrently with Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPAs) adequately enough without interference. A VPA may have significant resource implications for a Council and  as such a Council should be able to ‘determine its own destiny’ rather than have an outcome forced on it by an unaccountable external body.

 

·    Fees should be determined by individual Councils to suit their particular circumstances, as appropriate costs will vary across the State.

 

·    A fee structure that is broken down into all the phases and possible scenarios in the process (see comments above) for the different categories of proposals (reflecting the demands on staff resources) is favoured.

 

·    There are many stakeholders in the rezoning process. Under the current system, delays are usually caused by external factors associated with supporting studies (which are generally managed by the proponent) and government agency consultation (especially where objections are raised post exhibition).  The Discussion Paper implies that Councils deliberately delay the process, but there is no evidence of this.

 

·    DPE has only recently made fundamental changes to the PP process, moving much of the work involved in formulating and preparing a PP to the pre Gateway phase. Prior to that, the PP process was deliberately designed to allow supporting studies to be completed post Gateway, as stipulated in the Gateway determination. 

 

Comments on Part C: New Appeals Pathway (pages 35 to 38 of Discussion Paper)

·    In regard to the potential appeal or review options (Land and Environment Court (LEC) vs Independent Planning Commission (IPC)) discussed in the paper:

 

An unelected non-judicial body such as IPC, would be less costly/time consuming, but lack accountability.

The LEC is more accountable but would be very costly and time consuming. It is also questioned how involving the LEC in the process will actually speed up or add value to the process.

Only giving councils one opportunity to consider the merit of a rezoning/planning proposal and giving the proponent the right to appeal will potentially incentivise speculative rezoning proposals and create an imbalance.

Rezoning proposals that are inconsistent with strategy and not supported by Council should be discontinued early in the process (the original intention of the Gateway step was precisely this). For proposals that have merit, the process should allow negotiation to resolve issues rather than create an appeal right to an external body, based on arbitrary timeframes. Any appeal right to the LEC should remain limited to procedural grounds.

 

Comments on Part D: Implementation (pages 39 to 40 of Discussion Paper)

·    Given the extent of proposed changes and implications on all stakeholders, further consultation and dialogue is needed and is critical before DPE determines how to put the new approach into action.

 

Conclusion

The proposed new rezoning process outlined in the Discussion Paper proposes to radically change the rezoning/LEP amendment process, which would have significant and long-lasting implications. 

While some aspects of the proposed changes are positive, others are highly concerning and may affect Council’s ability to achieve good outcomes for the community.  As such it is recommended that Council make a submission raising strong concerns and providing detailed feedback.

Further detailed and meaningful consultation and dialogue between DPE and Councils is considered critical to a good outcome that is in the public interest. 

Community Engagement

Prior to exhibiting the Discussion Paper, DPE undertook targeted consultation on the PP process with the development industry, local Councils and State government agencies.

Council staff were also directly involved in DPE Working Groups regarding the possible Court appeal process for PPs – it is noted that these Working Groups have not met in over 12 months and there were significant concerns within the Local Government Working Group regarding a Court appeal process

Submissions on the Discussion Paper were due on 28 February 2022. DPE intends to implement the new approach in mid-2022.

 

Policy Implications

Council has resolved to update its own Planning Proposal Guidelines to reflect DPE’s new LEP Making Guideline. Subject to staff resources and workloads, it is intended to prepare a report on this for Council to consider in the second quarter of 2022.  If DPE rolls out its proposed new approach in mid-2022, Council’s guidelines will have to be revised again.

 

Financial Implications

Council’s PP (rezoning) fee structure is based on full cost recovery. Changes to Council’s fee structure to better align with the new LEP Making Guideline is proposed to commence on 1 July 2022. This fee structure will have to be revised if/when the rezoning/planning proposal process changes.

The proposed introduction of a right for proponents to appeal a ‘refusal’ by Council would have significant resource and cost implications.

Introduction of a ‘planning guarantee’ would mean that Council would be required to partially refund fees paid by a proponent if their proposal had not been determined within an arbitrary timeframe. This would potentially create a financial incentive for proponents to not work constructively with the council.

 

Risk Implications

DPE is proposing to fundamentally rewrite the rezoning/PP process to mirror or be similar to the development application (DA) process.  The most profound changes would be in relation to proponent initiated applications. The key concern and risk are that the new approach will encourage an influx of speculative spot rezonings/PPs, divert resources from and as a result undermine strategic planning work, which is a poor outcome for the Shoalhaven Community.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.122   Proposed Submission - Draft Design and Place State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP)

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/69028

 

Department:       Strategic Planning

Approver:           Gordon Clark, Interim Director - City Futures 

Attachments:     1.  Proposed submission - Draft Design and Place SEPP   

Reason for Report

Advise of the public exhibition by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) of the draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Design and Place) 2021 (draft SEPP) and supporting guides and obtain endorsement to make the submission at Attachment 1.

Recommendation

That Council make a submission (Attachment 1 of this report) to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment in relation to the draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Design and Place) 2021 and supporting guides.

 

 

Options

1.    Endorse Attachment 1 as Council’s submission on the draft SEPP.

Implications: This is the preferred option as it will enable Council to provide a submission highlighting key matters/concerns.

 

2.    Amend Attachment 1 and include additional comments as necessary.

Implications: This option will still enable Council to provide a submission; however, the implications of any changes are unknown and may require closer consideration or refinement which may delay the submission.

 

3.    Not make a submission.

Implications: This is not recommended as it would prevent Council from having any input on the draft SEPP and the opportunity to identity issues for consideration or resolution would potentially be missed.

 

Background

In April 2021 Council endorsed (MIN21.181) a submission on the Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE) for the proposed State Environmental Planning Policy (Design and Place) 2021 which was on exhibition at that time.  

Since then, DPE has consulted further with relevant stakeholders, including Council, and prepared the draft Design & Place SEPP. The draft SEPP and supporting guides were on public exhibition between 10 December 2021 and 28 February 2022 at the following link:

https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Policy-and-Legislation/State-Environmental-Planning-Policies/Design-and-Place-State-Environmental-Planning-Policy

 

 

The exhibition package is extensive and includes: 

·    The proposed draft Design and Place State Environmental Planning Policy (DP SEPP) 2021.

·    Proposed changes to the Environment and Planning Assessment Regulation 2021 (EPA Regulation).

·    Proposed direction by the Minister under section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (9.1 Direction).

·    The revised Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

·    The proposed new Urban Design Guide (UDG).

·    Updates to residential sustainability (BASIX).

·    BASIX sandbox tool.

·    Design Review Panel Manual for Local Government (DRPM).

·    Design & Place - Cost Benefit Analysis (Summary).

 

The SEPP will apply to the whole of NSW, other than specified land use zone exclusions, including some rural land, industrial land, environmental conservation land and waterways. The SEPP is also proposed to have some application to Planning Proposals on sites greater than 1 ha, such as land being converted to non-rural land or where built form controls are proposed to be changed. This is proposed to be achieved via a new Section 9.1 Ministerial Direction.

Other than the BASIX provisions, the SEPP will not apply to:

·    Class 1A  buildings (detached dwellings), Class 7a buildings (car parks) and Class 10 buildings (non-habitable buildings or structures), where they do not form part of a mixed-use development otherwise captured by this SEPP.

·    The amalgamation and subdivision of 2 lots.

Definitions for certain development types to which the Apartment Design Guide and Urban Design Guide apply, and thresholds for design review, are also contained in the SEPP.

The SEPP will be ‘principle-based’, seeking to integrate and align good design and place considerations into planning policy. DPE has signalled an intention to move towards a principle-based system rather than one solely reliant on prescriptive controls and to enable a degree of flexibility in assessment. The SEPP will:

·    Set out five principles for design in NSW;

·    Establish matters for consideration and application requirements that collectively respond to each of the principles;

·    Be supported by existing, revised and new guidance;

·    Require the establishment of a local Design Review Panel;

·    Repeal and replace SEPP No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

The proposed SEPP is intended to be finalised mid-2022 and take effect towards the end of 2022.

 

Proposed Council Submission

Given the extensive and potentially wide-ranging nature of this proposal and its application to Shoalhaven it is recommended that Council make a submission on the draft SEPP.

The proposed Council submission (see Attachment 1) comments on the draft SEPP and associated guides. Some of the matters raised in the earlier submission on the EIE remain relevant to the draft SEPP. The key points in the proposed submission are as follows:

·    Concerns about how a principle-based SEPP, flexibly applied, might work with regard to design outcomes and community expectations particularly in regional areas. A principles-based approach should operate alongside measurable design outcomes developed for local contexts.

·    The new SEPP must fully consider and differentiate between metropolitan and regional locations in order to broadly capture the benefits of the SEPP but not inadvertently weaken local level design controls, such as those found in the DCP, which have often been developed in consultation with the local communities of Shoalhaven.

·    Shoalhaven will be required to establish a Design Review Panel to meet the requirements of the SEPP, but questions remain as to the cost and resourcing implications and ultimately the effectiveness of a Panel of this nature.

·    Further consideration needs to be given to the role of complying development and local character considerations with regard to the SEPP.

·    Resources and State-funded training will be required to meet the assessment and engagement requirements of the SEPP.

Ultimately it will be necessary for Council to adapt to the requirements of the SEPP once it comes into effect, pending any modifications that might be made following public exhibition.

A copy of the submission at Attachment 1 (i.e., draft staff submission) has already been lodged on the Planning Portal in order to meet the 28 February deadline. It is intended that a further copy of the submission, endorsed by Council, will be provided to replace the draft submission.

 

Community Engagement

The draft SEPP was on public exhibition between 10 December 2021 and 28 February 2022 to provide an opportunity for Councils, community members and industry stakeholders to provide comments and feedback.

The proposed SEPP is intended to be finalised mid-2022 and, following a six-month transitional period, take effect towards the end of 2022. The Department may engage further with Council during the implementation phase, which may include with any additional training (TBA). 

 

Policy Implications

Generally, the policy package on exhibition does not propose to affect existing LEPs and DCPs, although when these plans are undergoing their five-year (or regular housekeeping) review, it is likely they will need to be revised where necessary to align with the DP SEPP and for consistency across NSW. The DCP may need to be amended for consistency with the new Urban Design Guide, if necessary.

A new section 9.1 Ministerial Direction will require future PPs to consider the SEPP requirements.

The proposed SEPP will repeal and replace SEPP No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004. The existing Apartment Design Guide is being updated. The SEPP will interface with multiple other SEPPs.

 

Financial Implications

There will be cost implications for establishing and operating a Design Review Panel that will need to be further considered.

As per the Draft Local Government Design Review Panel Manual: “The fees the consent authority will charge to the proponent for review by a design review panel are set by the EP&A Regulation. The costs borne by the consent authority include payments to panel members; council staff resources; provision of the venue and any catering. The fee paid by the proponent will not cover all the costs of establishing and managing a design review panel. In addition to paying the fee to the consent authority, the proponent will also have costs relating to the work of the design team in preparing for and presenting to the panel.”  As such, it is likely that Council will need to provide an ongoing budget for the Design Review Panel. 

Council assessment teams may require additional training and resources. DPE has indicated that education and training for assessment teams may be provided during the SEPP implementation phase.

Additional resourcing requirements for Councils are addressed in the proposed submission. Council’s previous submission suggested that DPE should consider providing financial assistance to meet additional assessment requirements through the Joint Organisations, although the current exhibited materials appear to be silent on this particular option.

 

Risk Implications

The SEPP will increase requirements for design and development assessment which could impact Council planners, proponents and the community. 

No immediate or serious risks have been identified for Council, however due to the intended ‘flexible application’ of the SEPP, unless decision making is guided at all times by a robust consideration of the local design and planning controls, there may be a risk that design outcomes diverge from the intended outcomes of those controls or the expectations of the broader community.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.123   Employment Zones Reform - Translation Detail - Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/64120

 

Department:       Strategic Planning

Approver:           Gordon Clark, Interim Director - City Futures 

Attachments:     1.  Employment Zones Translation - Shoalhaven LGA existing Business and Industrial Zones and Future Employment Zones

2.  DPE's Proposed Shoalhaven Land Use Table Translation (under separate cover)   

Reason for Report

Obtain endorsement of the proposed translation detail for Shoalhaven associated with the NSW Government’s Employment Zones Reform, prior to public exhibition by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment’s (DPE).

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Endorse the proposed Employment Zones Translation detail as outlined in this report and its attachments.

2.    Acknowledge that the associated public exhibition process will be managed by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) and request meaningfully consult with Council throughout the public exhibition and implementation process to avoid unintended consequences.

3.    Strongly request DPE to send correspondence to all directly affected landowners (i.e., landowners of employment zoned land) advising of the exhibition arrangements, and actively and meaningfully engage with the Shoalhaven community to ensure they understand the full implications of the employment zones reform and what it means for them.

4.    Receive a further report in due course either during (if needed) or following the conclusion of DPE’s public exhibition process.

 

 

Options

1.    As recommended.

Implications: This is the preferred option as it predominantly reflects a ‘like for like’ transfer of land uses from existing to proposed zones and includes tailored solutions (local clauses and additional permitted uses) where a direct transfer is not considered suitable.  Whilst it is unfortunate that the Reforms are imposed on Council, it is considered that the proposed translation is in the best interest of the Shoalhaven community and affected landowners.  The proposed mailout by DPE will draw the exhibited translation to the attention of those directly affected, which is considered an important step as these landowners know their land best (including future aspirations).  Council will continue to be updated as the Employment Zones reform process progresses, and follow-up reports will be provided as appropriate.

 

2.    Adopt an alternative recommendation.

Implications: There are no obvious alternatives at this point. The reform process is well underway, and timeframes are being driven by the NSW Government.

Although, this is an option for Council to consider, there is limited opportunity for alternative approaches with the land use table or other instrument mechanisms as a significant number of land uses are mandated as ‘permissible’ with consent, and as such, there is no opportunity for flexibility with those land uses (i.e., Council cannot prohibit them). 

 

Background to the Employment Zones Reform

The Employment Zones Reform (the reform) project is being undertaken and implemented by DPE state-wide as part of the ongoing broader NSW planning reform program.

Essentially, the reform seeks to consolidate the existing Business (B) and Industrial (IN) zones in Shoalhaven LEP 2014 (and LEP’s throughout NSW) to a range of what are now called Employment (E) and supporting zones, as detailed in Table 1 below. 

For convenience, Attachment 1 details the proposed translation of existing Business (B) and Industrial (IN) zoned land into the future employment zones for each of Shoalhaven’s towns and villages. 

Table 1: Existing and Future Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 Zones

Existing Shoalhaven LEP 2014 Zone

Future Shoalhaven LEP 2014 Zone

B1 Neighbourhood Centre

E1 Local Centre

B2 Local Centre

B3 Commercial Core

E2 Commercial Core

B4 Mixed Use

MU1 Mixed Use

B5 Business Development

E3 Productivity Support

B7 Business Park

IN1 General Industrial

E4 General Industrial

IN2 Light Industrial

IN4 Working Waterfront

W3 Working Foreshore

 

Council recently received an update report on the Employment Zones Reform on 7 February 2022 and resolved (MIN22.104) to:

1.   Receive the update on the Employment Zones Reform for information

2.   Write to DPIE expressing concern that that the feedback provided by this Council is not being listened to; that the issues and concerns raised by Council have not been considered and instead DPIE is pressing ahead; and strongly request a meaningful dialogue to avoid unintended consequences and unnecessary changes to the LEP.

 

Translation Background

In November 2021, DPE provided a proposed translation package to Council detailing their preference for the translation of existing Business (B) and Industrial (IN) zoned land across Shoalhaven to the future employment zones (Attachment 2).  Council was asked to review the translation detail and respond with support or changes as relevant. 

Due to the timing associated with the Reform, there was a need to submit a draft Return Translation Detail to DPE before it could be considered by Council.  The content provided to DPE is now outlined in this report for Council’s consideration.  It is DPE’s intention that the Employment Zones Translation Package will be publicly exhibited by DPE in April 2022 and there will also be an opportunity to provide detailed comments on it at that point.

Throughout the translation process, Council staff have sought to:

·    Ensure the translation of zones is predominantly on at least a ‘like for like’ basis (i.e., no-one is to be disadvantaged where possible);

·    Maintain the existing retail centres hierarchy; and

·    Reduce reliance on ‘existing use’ rights, where possible.

However, it is noted that the new zones have already been notified (i.e., they officially are part of contemporary legislation) and this means that the permissibility of certain land uses are mandated under the Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan (SI LEP).  As such, Council has limited flexibility within the translation process. 

 

The Proposed Translation

The proposed employment zones translation was comprehensively reviewed, and the recommended approach for each new zone is detailed below.

To assist in interpretation, the following colours have been used to represent mandatory land uses/objective (black and green) or objectives/land uses where Council has flexibility for application (blue), as follows:

·    Black – DPE mandated objectives and land uses, which are unable to be amended in any way by Council;

·    Green – Mandated as either “Permitted without consent” or “Permitted with consent”, however Council can specify a preference;

·    Blue – Local objective or land use.  Council can determine whether additional local objectives should be included, as well as whether the land uses should be “Permitted without consent”, “Permitted with consent” or “Prohibited”.

 

Proposed E1 Local Centre Land Use Table (current B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones)

 

E1 Local Centre

1 Objectives of zone

·     To provide a range of retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live, work or visit the area.

·     To encourage investment in local commercial development that generates employment opportunities and economic growth.

·     To enable residential development that contributes to a vibrant and active local centre and is consistent with the Council’s strategic planning for residential development in the area.

·     To encourage business, retail, community and other non-residential land uses on the ground floor of buildings.

·     To ensure that development is of a scale that is compatible with the character of the surrounding residential environment.

2 Permitted without consent

Nil


 

3 Permitted with consent

Amusement centres; Artisan food and drink industries; Backpackers’ accommodation; Bed and breakfast accommodation; Boarding houses; Building identification signs; Business identification signs; Centre-based child care facilities; Commercial premises; Community facilities; Educational establishments; Entertainment facilities; Function centres; Home businesses; Home industries; Home occupations; Hotel or motel accommodation; Information and education facilities; Local distribution premises; Medical centres; Oyster aquaculture; Passenger transport facilities; Places of public worship; Public administration buildings; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Residential Care facilities; Respite day care centres; Roads; Service stations; Serviced apartments; Shop top housing; Tank-based aquaculture; Veterinary hospitals; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

4 Prohibited

Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Airstrips; Boat building and repair facilities; Boat launching ramps; Boat sheds; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Cemeteries; Charter and tourism boating facilities; Correctional centres; Crematoria; Depots; Eco-tourist facilities; Electricity generating works; Environmental facilities; Exhibition homes; Exhibition villages; Extractive industries; farm buildings; Forestry; Freight transport facilities; Heavy industrial storage establishments; Helipads; Highway service centres; Home occupations (sex services); Industrial retail outlets; Industries; Jetties; Marinas; Mooring pens; Moorings; Mortuaries; Open cut mining; Pond-based aquaculture; Registered clubs; Recreation facilities (major); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Research stations; Residential accommodation; Resource recovery facilities; Restricted premises; Rural industries; Sex service premises; Signage; Storage premises; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Transport depots; Vehicle body repair workshops; Warehouse or distribution centres; Waste disposal facilities; Water recreation structures; Wharf or boating facilities

 

The E1 Local Centre zone has been translated from the existing B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre in as close as possible to a ‘like-for-like’ manner, with the exception of the land uses in Table 2 below:

Table 2: E1 Local Centre zone exceptions to like-for-like translation.

Land Use

What has changed?

Why has it changed?

·     Entertainment facilities

·     Function centres

·     Retail premises (certain sub-land uses)

·     Service stations

Previously prohibited on land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre and will now be permissible.

Mandated as ‘permitted with consent’, Council has no flexibility in this regard. 

·     Local distribution premises

·     Veterinary hospitals

Previously prohibited on land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre and will now be permissible.

·     Artisan food and drink industry

Previously prohibited on land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre and will now be permissible. 

The Housekeeping 2020/21 Amendment to Shoalhaven LEP 2014 (PP044) intends to permit ‘artisan food and drink industries’ with consent in the B2 Local Centre Zone (currently prohibited).

Subsequent to the collapsing of the zones, the land use will also be permitted with consent on existing B1 Neighbourhood Centre land, where it is currently prohibited.

A local clause has been proposed (see commentary below) that seeks to ensure future development in the former B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone is compatible with the existing neighbourhood character and does not adversely affect the local amenity.  This coupled with consideration of the zone objectives will help manage this use in former B1 Neighbourhood Centre locations.

·     Residential care facilities

·     Vehicle repair stations

 

Previously prohibited on land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre and will now be permissible.  

There are a number of existing vehicle repair stations on B2 Local Centre zoned land, as such it would be appropriate to retain this use as ‘permitted with consent’ in the E1 Local Centre zone as the take up in the former B1 zone is unlikely.

Residential care facilities in the former B1 zone are unlikely (due to size and ownership arrangements), but not necessarily incompatible if it were to occur.

·     Camping grounds

Previously permitted with consent in the B2 Local Centre zone and will now be prohibited.

Not considered a likely or appropriate land use for a E1 Local Centre.  It is noted that there are no camping grounds on existing land zoned B2 Local Centre

·     Registered clubs

Previously permitted with consent in the B2 Local Centre zone and will now be prohibited.

Will be prohibited on land zoned E1 Local Centre; however, an additional permitted use will be inserted for existing registered clubs on B2 Local Centre zoned land to acknowledge this existing use.

·     Tourist and visitor accommodation

Previously permitted with consent on land zoned B2 Local Centre and will now be prohibited.

Despite the prohibition of the group term ‘Tourist and visitor accommodation’, all land uses in that group term will continue to be ‘permitted with consent’ on land zoned E1 Local Centre except ‘farm stay accommodation’.

‘Farm stay accommodation’ is not considered a likely or appropriate land use for land zoned E1 Local Centre.

·     Home industries

 

Previously prohibited on land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zone and will now be permissible with consent.

DPE required a decision to either include as ‘permitted with consent’ or ‘permitted without consent.’ It is considered more appropriate to be ‘permitted with consent’ in the E1 Local Centre zone.

 

 

 

E2 Commercial Core Land Use Table (current B3 Commercial Core)

E2 Commercial Core

1 Objectives of zone

·     To strengthen the role of the commercial centre as the centre of business, retail, community and cultural activity.

·     To encourage investment in commercial development that generates employment opportunities and economic growth.

·     To encourage development that has a high level of accessibility and amenity, particularly for pedestrians.

·     To enable residential development that is consistent with the Council’s strategic planning for residential development in the area.

·     To ensure that new development provides diverse and active street frontages to attract pedestrian traffic and to contribute to vibrant, diverse and functional streets and public spaces.

2 Permitted without consent

Nil

3 Permitted with consent

Amusement centres; Artisan food and drink industries; Backpackers’ accommodation; Boarding houses; Building identification signs; Business identification signs; Centre-based child care facilities; Commercial premises; Community facilities; Educational establishments; Entertainment facilities; Function centres; Home businesses; Home industries; Home occupations; Hotel or motel accommodation; Information and education facilities; Local distribution premises; Medical centres; Mortuaries; Oyster aquaculture; Passenger transport facilities; Places of public worship; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); recreation facilities (outdoor); Registered clubs; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises; Roads; Seniors housing; Shop top housing; Tank-based aquaculture; Vehicle repair stations; Veterinary hospitals; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

4 Prohibited

Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Airstrips; Bed and breakfast accommodation; Boat building and repair facilities; Boat launching ramps; Boat sheds; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Cemeteries; Correctional centres; Crematoria; Depots; Eco-tourist facilities; Electricity generating works; Environmental facilities; Exhibition homes; Exhibition villages; Extractive industries; Farm buildings; Farm stay accommodation; Forestry; Freight transport facilities; Heavy industrial storage establishments; Highway service centres; Home occupations (sex services); Industrial retail outlets; Industrial training facilities; Industries; Jetties; Marinas; Mooring pens; Moorings; Open cut mining; Pond-based aquaculture; Recreation facilities (major); Research stations; Residential accommodation; Residential care facilities; Resource recovery facilities; Rural industries; Signage; Storage premises; Transport depots; Truck depots; Vehicle body repair workshops; Warehouse or distribution centres; Waste disposal facilities; Wharf or boating facilities.

 

The E2 Commercial Core zone has been translated from the existing B3 Commercial Core in as close as possible to a ‘like-for-like’ manner, with the exception of the land uses detailed in Table 3 below:

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3: E2 Commercial Core zone exceptions to like-for-like translation.

Land Use

What has changed?

Why has it changed?

·     Local distribution premises

·     Mortuaries

·     Recreation facilities (major)

·     Vehicle repair stations

·     Veterinary hospitals

Previously prohibited in B3 Commercial Core and will now be permissible with consent.

 

Mandated as ‘permitted with consent’ by DPE, Council has no flexibility in this regard. 

·     Home industries

DPE required a decision from Council to either include as ‘permitted with consent’ or ‘permitted without consent.’ It is considered more appropriate to be ‘permitted with consent’ in the E2 Commercial Core

 

E3 Productivity Support Land Use Table (current B5 Business Development and B7 Business Park)

 

E3 Productivity Support

1 Objectives of zone

·     To provide a range of facilities and services, light industries, warehouses and offices.

·     To provide for land uses that are compatible with, but do not compete with, land uses in surrounding local and commercial centres.

·     To maintain the economic viability of local and commercial centres by limiting certain retail and commercial activity.

·     To provide for land uses that meet the needs of the community, businesses and industries but that are not suited to locations in other employment zones.

·     To provide opportunities for new and emerging light industries.

·     To enable other land uses that provide facilities and services to meet the day to day needs of workers, to sell goods of a large size, weight or quantity or to sell goods manufactured on-site.

·     To allow a diversity of activities that do not significantly conflict with the operation of existing or proposed development.

2 Permitted without consent

Nil

3 Permitted with consent

Animal boarding or training establishments; Backpackers’ accommodation; Boarding houses; Boat building and repair facilities; Building identification signs; Business identification signs; Business premises; Centre-based child care facilities; Community facilities; Depots; Function centres; Garden centres; Hardware and building supplies; Hotel or motel accommodation; Industrial retail outlets; Industrial training facilities; Information and education facilities; Kiosks; Landscaping material supplies; Light industries; Local distribution premises; Markets; Mortuaries; Neighbourhood shops; Office premises; Oyster aquaculture; Passenger transport facilities; Places of public worship; Plant nurseries; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (major); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Research stations; Respite day care centres; Roads; Rural supplies; Service stations; Serviced apartments; Shop top housing; Specialised retail premises; Storage premises; Take away food and drink premises; Tank-based aquaculture; Timber yards; Vehicle body repair workshops; Vehicle repair stations; Vehicle sales or hire premises; Veterinary hospitals; Warehouse or distribution centres; Wholesale supplies; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

4 Prohibited

Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Airstrips; Amusement centres; Boat launching ramps; Boat sheds; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Cemeteries; Charter and tourism boating facilities; Correctional centres; Eco-tourist facilities; Entertainment facilities; Environmental facilities; Exhibition homes; Exhibition villages; Extractive industries; Farm buildings; Forestry; Freight transport facilities; Helipads; Highway service centres; Home businesses; Home occupations; Home occupations (sex services); Home-based child care; Industries; Jetties; Marinas; Mooring pens; Moorings; Open cut mining; Pond-based aquaculture; Registered clubs; Residential accommodation; Resource recovery facilities; Restricted premises; Retail premises; Rural industries; Sex services premises; Signage; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Transport depots; Truck depots; Waste disposal facilities; Water recreation structures; Wharf or boating facilities

 

The E3 Productivity Support zone has been translated from the existing B5 Business Centre and B7 Business Park zones in as close as possible to a ‘like-for-like’ manner, with the exception of the land uses detailed in Table 4 below:

Table 4: E3 Productivity Support zone exceptions to like-for-like translation. 

Land Use

What has changed?

Why has it changed?

·     Mortuaries

·     Storage premises

Previously prohibited in B5 Business Development and B7 Business Park and will now be permissible with consent.

Mandated as ‘permitted with consent’ - no flexibility in this regard. 

·     Boat building and repair facilities

·     Hotel or motel accommodation

·     Places of public worship

·     Recreation facilities (major)

·     Recreation facilities (outdoor)

·     Self-storage units

·     Service stations

·     Vehicle body repair shops

·     Vehicle repair stations Veterinary hospitals

Previously prohibited in B7 Business Park and will now be permissible with consent.

·     Amusement centres

·     Entertainment facilities

·     Freight transport facilities

·     Home businesses

·     Home occupations

·     Home-based childcare

·     Retail premises

·     Registered clubs

·     Signage

·     Transport depots

·     Water recreation structures

Previously permitted in B5 Business Development and will now be prohibited.

Not considered a likely or appropriate land use for the former B7 land in the new E3 Productivity Support and is therefore now ‘prohibited’, which also means these land uses will become prohibited for the former B5 land where it is currently permissible.

However, an additional permitted use (or similar) is proposed to permit retail premises, signage and transport depots on existing B5 Business Development zoned land.

Additionally, an additional permitted use will be inserted to permit registered clubs, at 90 Kalandar Street, Nowra to reflect this current use.

·     Air transport facilities (including airport/heliport)

·     Airstrips

·     Helipads

Previously permitted in B7 Business Park and will now be prohibited.

Not considered a likely or appropriate land use for all E3 Productivity Support zoned land (i.e., the former B5 land) and is therefore now ‘prohibited’.

However, an additional permitted use will be inserted to permit these land uses at the Albatross Aviation Technology Park.

·     Industries (includes light industries, heavy industries and general industries)

Previously permitted in B7 Business Park and will now be prohibited.

Not considered a likely or appropriate land use for all E3 Productivity Support zoned land (i.e., the former B5 land) and is therefore now ‘prohibited.’

‘Light industries’ is permissible with consent and an additional permitted use additional permitted use will be inserted to permit ‘general industries’ on existing B7 Business Park zoned land at Albatross Aviation Technology Park, and Part of Lot 4 DP 268209, Cambewarra. 

‘Heavy industries’ (i.e., hazardous or offensive) would become prohibited in the former B7 zoned land (already prohibited in former B5 land), however it is noted that all approvals at the Albatross Aviation Technology Park are under the ‘General industries’ land use.  It is unlikely that heavy industry would be considered (or be appropriate) in this location. 

·     Backpackers’ accommodation

·     Boarding houses

·     Serviced apartments

·     Shop top housing

Previously permitted in B5 Business Development and will now be prohibited.

Not considered an appropriate land use for the former B7 Business Park zoned land and is therefore now ‘prohibited’.

However, an additional permitted use will be inserted to permit these land uses on land formerly zoned B5 Business Development.

 

E4 General Industrial Land Use Table (current IN1 General Industrial and IN2 Light Industrial)

 

E4 General Industrial

1 Objectives of zone

·     To provide a range of industrial, warehouse, logistics and related land uses.

·     To ensure the efficient and viable use of land for industrial uses.

·     To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

·     To encourage employment opportunities.

·     To enable limited non-industrial land uses that provide facilities and services to meet the needs of businesses and workers.

·     To allow a diversity of activities that do not significantly conflict with the operation of existing or proposed development.

2 Permitted without consent

Nil

3 Permitted with consent

Building identification signs; Business identification signs; Depots; Freight transport facilities; Garden centres; General industries; Goods repair and reuse premises; Hardware and building supplies; Industrial retail outlets; Industrial training facilities; Kiosks; Landscaping material supplies; Light industries; Local distribution premises; Markets; Neighbourhood shops; Oyster aquaculture; Plant nurseries; Roads; Specialised retail premises; Take away food and drink premises; Tank-based aquaculture; Timber yards; Warehouse or distribution centres; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

4 Prohibited

Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Airstrips; Amusement centres; Animal boarding or training establishments; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Cemeteries; Centre-based child care facilities; Charter and tourism boating facilities; Correctional centres; Crematoria; Eco-tourist facilities; Educational establishments; Environmental facilities; Exhibition villages; Extractive industries; Farm buildings; Forestry; Function centres; Health services facilities; Highway service centres; Home businesses; Home occupations; Home occupations (sex services); Home-based child care; Information and education facilities; Marinas; Mooring pens; Moorings; Office premises; Open cut mining; Registered clubs; Residential accommodation; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises; Retail premises; Sex services premises; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Water recreation structures; Wharf or boating facilities

 

The E4 General Industrial zone has been translated from the existing IN1 General Industrial and IN2 Light Industrial in as close as possible to a ‘like-for-like’ manner, with the exception the land uses detailed in Table 5 below:

Table 5: E4 General Industrial zone exceptions to like-for-like translation.

Land Use

What has changed?

Why has it changed?

·     Industries

Previously permitted in IN1 General Industrial and will now be prohibited.

An additional permitted use will be inserted to permit heavy industries on existing IN1 General Industrial zoned land.

·     Amusement centres

·     Markets

·     Respite day care centres

Previously permitted in IN2 Light Industrial and will now be prohibited. 

Not considered a likely or appropriate land use for land zoned E4 General Industrial.

 

MU1 Mixed Use Land Use Table (current B4 Mixed Use)

 

MU1 Mixed Use

1 Objectives of zone

·     To encourage a diversity of business, retail, office and light industrial land uses that generate employment opportunities.

·     To ensure that new development provides diverse and active street frontages to attract pedestrian traffic and to contribute to vibrant, diverse and functional streets and public spaces.

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

·     To encourage business, retail, community and other non-residential land uses on the ground floor of buildings.

2 Permitted without consent

Nil

3 Permitted with consent

Amusement centres; Attached dwellings; Boarding houses; Building identification signs; Business identification signs; Car parks; Centre-based child care facilities; Commercial premises; Community facilities; Educational establishments; Entertainment facilities; Function centres; Group homes; Information and education facilities; Light industries; Local distribution premises; Medical centres; Multi dwelling housing; Oyster aquaculture; Passenger transport facilities; Places of public worship; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Registered clubs; Residential flat buildings; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises; Roads; Seniors housing; Shop top housing; Tank-based aquaculture; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Vehicle repair stations; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

4 Prohibited

Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Airstrips; Boat building and repair facilities; Boat launching ramps; Boat sheds; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Cemeteries; Crematoria; Depots; Eco-tourist facilities; Electricity generating works; Environmental facilities; Exhibition homes; Exhibition villages; Extractive industries; Farm buildings; Forestry; Freight transport facilities; Heavy industrial storage establishments; Helipads; Highway service centres; Home occupations (sex services); Industrial retail outlets; Industrial training facilities; Industries; Jetties; Marinas; Mooring pens; Moorings; Mortuaries; Open cut mining; Recreation facilities (outdoor); Research stations; Residential accommodation; Resource recovery facilities; Rural industries; Sex services premises; Signage; Storage premises; Transport depots; Truck depots; Vehicle body repair workshops; Warehouse or distribution centres; Waste disposal facilities; Wharf or boating facilities

 

The MU1 Mixed Use zone has been translated from the existing B4 Mixed Use in as close as possible to a ‘like-for-like’ manner, with the exception the land uses detailed in Table 6 below:

Table 6: MU1 Mixed Use zone exceptions to like-for-like translation.

Land Use

What has changed?

Why has it changed?

·     Farm stay accommodation

·     Light industries

·     Local distribution premises

Previously prohibited on land zoned B4 Mixed Use and will now be permissible with consent.

Mandated as ‘permitted with consent’ - no flexibility in this regard. 

 

W3 Working Foreshore Land Use Table (current IN4 Working Waterfront)

 

W3 Working Foreshore

1 Objectives of zone

·     To retain and encourage industrial and maritime activities on foreshores.

·     To identify sites for maritime purposes and for activities requiring direct foreshore access.

·     To ensure that development does not have an adverse impact on the environment and visual qualities of the foreshore.

·     To encourage employment opportunities.

·     To minimise any adverse effect of development on land uses in other zones.

2 Permitted without consent

Nil

3 Permitted with consent

Aquaculture; Boat building and repair facilities; Boat launching ramps; Heliports; Hotel or motel accommodation; Jetties; Kiosks; Light industries; Liquid fuel depots; Markets; Restaurants or cafes; Roads; Serviced apartments; Take away food and drink premises; Vehicle sales or hire premises; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

4 Prohibited

Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Airstrips; Amusement centres; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Cemeteries; Centre-based child care facilities; Commercial premises; Correctional centres; Crematoria; Eco-tourist facilities; Educational establishments; Entertainment facilities; Environmental facilities; Exhibition homes; Exhibition villages; Farm buildings; Forestry; Function centres; Health services facilities; Heavy industrial storage establishments; Helipads; Highway service centres; Home businesses; Home occupations; Home occupations (sex services); Home-based child care; Industries; Information and education facilities; Local distribution premises; Mortuaries; Open cut mining; Places of public worship; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (major); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Registered clubs; Residential accommodation; Resource recovery facilities; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises; Rural industries; Service stations; Sex services premises; Storage premises; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Transport depots; Truck depots; Vehicle body repair workshops; Vehicle repair stations; Veterinary hospitals; Warehouse or distribution centres; Waste disposal facilities

 

The W3 Working Foreshore zone has been directly translated from the existing IN4 Working Waterfront zone.

 

Part 7 Additional local provisions, Shoalhaven LEP 2014

 

Part 7 Additional local provisions in the LEP contain a number of clauses that address the matters to be considered when proposing development on certain land.

One (1) existing additional local provision is proposed to be amended, and two (2) additional local provisions are proposed to be inserted into Part 7 of the LEP to respond to the Reform, as follows:

·    Amend existing Clause 7.24 Location of sex services premises, to additionally apply to the location of ‘restricted premises.’ This is intended to minimise potential land use conflicts and adverse amenity impacts that may arise, by providing a reasonable level of separation between restricted premises, specified land uses (residential zones) and places that are regularly frequented by children. 

Restricted premises are defined as meaning “premises that, due to their nature, restrict access to patrons or customers over 18 years of age, and includes sex shops and similar premises, but does not include a pub, hotel or motel accommodation, home occupation (sex services) or sex services premises”.

·    Insert a new local clause that addresses development on certain E1 Local Centre zoned land (i.e., former B1 zoned land), to ensure future development is compatible with the existing neighbourhood character and does not adversely affect the local amenity.

This addresses the potential B1 Neighbourhood Centre/B2 Local Centre conflict with the collapsing of the zones as they are translated to the future E1 Local Centre zone.

·    Insert a new local clause that addresses the location of local distribution premises (now mandated as permissible with consent in all new employment zones and MU1 Mixed Use zone), intended to mitigate potential adverse impacts on surrounding residential development.

The proposed clause will ensure that development consent is not granted, unless the consent authority has considered the impact on adjoining development, and whether the operation of the local distribution premises will interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood.  Local distribution premises are defined as meaning “a building or place used for the storage or handling of items (whether goods or materials) pending their delivery to people and businesses in the local area, but from which no retail sales are made. Note - Local distribution premises are a type of warehouse or distribution centre—see the definition of that term in this Dictionary”.

 

 

 

Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses of Shoalhaven LEP 2014

 

Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses (APU) enable specified uses to be added to the list of development that is permitted or prohibited for particular land in a zone. Two (2) existing APU’s are proposed to be removed, and seven (7) APU’s are proposed to be inserted into Schedule 1 of the LEP, as follows:

·    Remove Schedule 1, Clause 7; which applies to Lot 1 DP 531751, 13 Wilfords Lane, Milton.

The APU permits development for the purpose of a concrete batching plant, which is considered to be ‘general industry’ and will now be permitted with consent in the E4 General Industrial zone.

·    Remove Schedule 1, Clause 13; which applies to land at Vincentia District Town Centre.

The APU permits development for the purposes of specialised retail premises, garden centres, hardware and building supplies, landscaping material supplies, plant nurseries and timer yards, which will now be permitted with consent in the E1 Local Centre zone.

·    Insert a new APU, which applies to Lot 1000 DP 1209457, 90 Kalandar Street, Nowra (Archer Hotel) to permit registered clubs with development consent (a current approved use), which are proposed to be prohibited within the E3 Productivity Support zone.

·    Insert a new APU, which applies to existing B5 Business Development zoned land that permits development for the purposes of backpackers’ accommodation, boarding houses, retail premises, serviced apartments, shop top housing, transport depots and signage with development consent, which are proposed to be prohibited within the E3 Productivity Support zone.

·    Insert a new APU, which applies to Albatross Aviation Technology Park that permits general industries, air transport facilities, airstrips and helipads, which are proposed to be prohibited within the E3 Productivity Support zone. 

·    Insert a new APU, which applies to Part Lot 4 DP 268209, Cambewarra (former B7 zoned land that is part of the Moss Vale Road North Urban Release area), that permits development for the purpose of general industries with development consent, which is proposed to be prohibited within the E3 Productivity Support zone. 

·    Insert a new APU, which applies to Lot 7 DP 564180, South Nowra being 35 Quinns Lane, South Nowra (JD Interstate Transport), that permits development for the purpose of freight transport depots with development consent (a current approved use), which is proposed to be prohibited within the E3 Productivity Support zone.

·    Insert a new APU, which applies to Lot 1 DP 1171713 & Lot 1 DP 578257, Queen Street, Berry; Lot 1 DP 509922, Greenwell Point Road, Greenwell Point; and Lot 25 DP 789217 & Lot 1 DP 872508, Princes Highway, Milton (Great Southern Hotel, Berry Hotel Greenwell Point Hotel, The Milton Hotel & The Star Hotel Milton), that permits development for the purpose of registered clubs with development consent (current approved uses), which are proposed to be prohibited within the E1 Local Centre zone.

·    Insert a new APU, which applies to existing IN1 General Industrial zoned land that permits development for the purposes of heavy industries with development consent, which are proposed to be prohibited within the E4 General Industrial zone.

Conclusion

This is a state-wide process that is being driven by DPE. The translation documentation has been prepared with the aim of achieving the best outcome for the Shoalhaven community, within the parameters of the established legislative framework. The zone translation has been conducted on predominantly a ‘like-for-like’ basis to minimise disadvantage wherever possible, with additional mechanisms proposed to ensure minimal land use conflicts and the retention of the established hierarchy of Shoalhaven business centres and industrial land.

At this stage, DPE appear to be generally supportive of Shoalhaven’s aspirations for the translation, however DPE will be coordinating and managing the public exhibition and the ultimate outcome is unknown. 

It is imperative that DPE consult directly with affected landowners as part of the forthcoming formal exhibition process, as they know their own land and their aspirations.

 

Community Engagement

DPE’s implementation plan indicates that the proposed LEP amendments across the State will be publicly exhibited in April 2022. DPE will be coordinating and facilitating the public exhibition of the proposed LEP amendments.

There is a risk that DPE will not send correspondence to notify all directly affected landowners of the proposed changes (relying on website/newspaper notifications instead), and that Council will possibly need to coordinate a mail merge to over 2100 directly affected landowners. A mailout of this magnitude would cost in the vicinity of $2600 and should not be borne by Council, especially when Council is not running the process and has general concerns about the Reform.

 

Policy Implications

Despite Council’s objection to the Reform, the process is substantially progressed, with the framework already embedded in legislation.  Council has limited flexibility with the translation, however as close as possible to a ‘like for like’ approach has been taken where possible.

The Reform will result in changes being made to the Shoalhaven LEP 2014 and this amendment process will be managed by DPE, including public exhibition. 

At this stage it is unclear what the amendment will ultimately look like, and there is a risk that the Shoalhaven LEP 2014 may need to be further amended in the future to resolve unforeseen issues.  This would be undertaken as part of Council’s regular housekeeping amendment process (not by DPE). 

 

Financial Implications

The Employment Zones Reform amendments will be undertaken by DPE so there are limited financial implications for Council, apart from resourcing mapping changes.  If any changes are required to Shoalhaven LEP 2014 to resolve any unintended consequences of the Reform however, this will need to be undertaken by Council as part of a planning proposal and will need to be funded by the Strategic Planning budget.

It is considered imperative that DPE to coordinate a mailout to directly affected landowners advising of the Employment Zones Reform public exhibition, however, if this is not supported by DPE, the cost to Council to undertake this mailout itself is in the vicinity of $2,600.

 

Risk Implications

The Employment Zones Translation process is complex and has been completed in a relatively short timeframe (over the Christmas/January period).  As a result, there may be some unintended consequences resulting from the translation – however this timing was out of Council’s control.

It is imperative that DPE send correspondence to notify all directly affected landowners of the proposed changes.  This will achieve greater exposure of the Reform and trigger landowners to undertake a detailed review of how the proposal may affect their land.  Although this mailout should be undertaken by DPE, if they refuse, such a mailout would be in the vicinity of $2,600 for Council to fund itself.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.124   Business Assistance Provided Locally - COVID & Disaster programs

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/34676

 

Department:       Economic Development

Approver:           Gordon Clark, Interim Director - City Futures  

Reason for Report

Provide an update of the financial assistance offered/provided by the Federal and State to local businesses in this regard.

 

Recommendation

That the report on Business Assistance Provided Locally - COVID & Disaster programs be received for information

 

 

Options

1.    As recommended.

Implications: Provides information to the Council and others on relevant programs.

 

2.    Alternate recommendation.

Implications: Will depend on its nature.

 

Background

Periodically an update is provided to Council on the amount of financial assistance that is flowing from the Government assistance packages to help sustain business in Shoalhaven.

In this report statistics are provided for Shoalhaven for the period from late July 2021 to mid-January 2022.

2021 Covid-19 Micro Business Support Program:

 

·    748 applications

·    $8.2 million provided

·    Main recipients by industry categories:

Construction Services - 19% of applications

Professional, Scientific & Tech Services – 10%

Personal & other services – 9%

Building Cleaning Pest Control – 8%

Road transport – 2%

Transport Support Services – 1%

 

2021 Covid – 19 Business Grants Program:

 

·    1816 Applications

·    $18.8 million provided

 

 

Small Business Fees & Charges Rebate:

 

·    1826 applications

·    99.1% settled

 

NSW Dine & Discover Vouchers Program:

 

·    Vouchers redeemed in Shoalhaven

Dine = 121,791

§ Food & Beverage services – 97%

Discover = 56,254

§ Motion Pictures – 30%

§ Sport & Recreation - 28%

§ Museums & Heritage – 16%

 

The NSW Government also recently introduced a new package which commenced on 1 February 2022. This program basically offers:

 

·      A payment of up to $5,000 per week (20% of payroll) for businesses with turnover between $75,000 and $50 million who suffered a 40% downturn in January and project to do the same in February.

·      The Small Business Fees and Charges rebate program extended to $3000 and can include 50% of the costs incurred to acquire Rapid Antigen Tests (RATs) for the workplace.

·      Commercial landlord relief extended until 13 March.

 

The working details and website for the above were not to hand at the time of writing this report.

 

Local businesses are restructuring their work practices to have separate work teams that do not mix, adopting two teams each working separate shifts (morning/afternoon) or Monday/Wednesday/Friday and Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday over fewer but longer days. One business reported that they had purchased 5,000 RATs and were testing employees twice/week as they arrive at the workplace.

 

Council will continue to work with the Government agencies involved on provided financial assistance packages to sustain business operations across NSW, especially Service NSW. Where appropriate advice is sent to specific business in our area that may qualify.

 

Community Engagement

Local businesses are made aware of these financial business assistance programs by various sources. Council’s business website is one of the forums used to circulate latest packages. If considered appropriate a targeted broadcast email can be sent.

It is noted that Shoalhaven has one of the better take up rates for these assistance programs mainly because of Council’s pro-active promotion in this space

 

Financial Implications

Council staff time is the only direct cost in this regard to Council.

 

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.125   NSW Regional Defence Networks Program - Regional Lead - Shoalhaven City Council

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/89785

 

Department:       Economic Development

Approver:           Gordon Clark, Interim Director - City Futures  

Reason for Report

Advise Council that it has been selected to lead a Defence Business Readiness program for the Illawarra-Shoalhaven region.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Note and accept the outcome of the public tender process to the implement Regional Defence Network Program across NSW through which Council has been selected as the partner agency to deliver the program in the Illawarra-Shoalhaven.

2.    Support this initiative of the NSW Government and extends its thanks for doing so.

 

 

Options

1.    As recommended.

Implications: Enables a business network specifically around defence contracting and business collaboration to be further nurtured.

 

2.    Reject or propose an alternate recommendation.

Implications: Council would have to turn down the offer from the Government and the Shoalhaven defence industry may miss out on future opportunities.

 

Background

In late 2021 the NSW Government invited tenders for consortiums to form and gain access to financial resources to help build and grow the defence industrial base of NSW.

Some years ago, Council formed a business network with Regional NSW called the “Shoalhaven Defence Industry Group” (SDIG). This group was an alliance of Government agencies and local/regional businesses that had a common goal to strengthen the Shoalhaven economy through securing additional defence contracts through individual businesses and joint venture alliances.

Although the Shoalhaven has a natural aviation strength, there are many local businesses that interact with the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and military in other nations that are not solely aviation related. This strength was presented as part of the tender process by the consortium and was successfully led by Council staff.

The aim of the NSW Government is to boost the State’s commitment to sovereign defence industry capabilities with the launch of a new $1.23 million Regional Defence Networks Program aimed at making it easier for local businesses to expand and supply to the defence and aerospace industry.

According to the NSW Minister for Enterprise, Investment and Trade Stuart Ayres MP, the three-year program will focus on driving business growth across four key regions: Western Sydney, Illawarra-Shoalhaven, Riverina-Murray and the Hunter.

Minister Ayres (3rd March 2022 Media Release) noted:

"We know that procurement requirements and entering the defence market requires a deep understanding of the industry, so we want to do all we can to help existing suppliers grow, and support new players to enter the sector,

Following a competitive procurement process, Investment NSW, working with Western Parkland City Authority and Regional NSW, has appointed four partner agencies to deliver the program:

·    Ai Group for the Western Sydney region

·    Shoalhaven City Council for the Shoalhaven/Illawarra region

·    Hunter Defence Cooperative for the Hunter region

·    NSW Business Chamber for the Riverina-Murray region.

 

These organisations have a deep understanding of the defence ecosystem in their respective regions, which is critical to achieving the program’s objectives and in turn expand NSW’s defence and aerospace capabilities,”.

For example, in the Hunter and Shoalhaven, the economic activity attributable to defence is estimated to be between 8 and 12% of gross regional product. The defence industry is a major employer and attractor of skilled workers in these regions and the local economy also benefits from the movement of skilled workers out of defence and defence industries into local education and technology-dependent sectors.

NSW is home to the largest number of defence bases and capabilities of any state or territory and is home to nearly 30% of Australia’s military and Defence civilian personnel.

According to the NSW Government’s Defence and Industry Strategy report, defence makes a substantial contribution to the NSW economy and is critical in supporting the delivery of the NSW Premier’s priorities in areas such as jobs growth, regional activation and industry investment.

In 2014-15, defence contributed just over 20,000 jobs to the NSW economy with a direct spend of approximately $7.9 billion, including $5.5 billion in operations and $2.4 billion in capital expenditure.

In addition, there are around 6,500 defence industry jobs and a further 29,500 from supporting industries whose activities make a major contribution to the wider NSW economy.

The NSW Government recognises the significant contributions made by Defence and defence-related industries to the state in terms of attracting investment, economic growth and job creation.

Significant Defence acquisition decisions are currently being made now and over the next decade and NSW industry is well placed to respond to capability and capacity requirements, either within NSW or in partnership with other states and territories. The Defence and Industry Strategy report outlined that a strategic and coordinated approach to developing NSW industry has potential to substantially increase direct defence expenditure in NSW with significant flow-on benefits.

For every $1 billion recurrent defence operational spending (non-capital) that comes into NSW, the estimated economic impact is approximately $1.4 billion in gross state product (GSP) and 10,000 jobs supported.

"This program is about helping businesses understand the defence supply chain and identify that their offering has value and need," Minister Ayres concluded.

"We want to turn local businesses from being ‘Defence Interested/Able’ to 'Defence Ready'." 

Shoalhaven Perspective

The Shoalhaven/Jervis Bay area has a high element of defence activity, and the relative statistics for the combined Defence and Aviation Manufacturing sectors are:

·    Economic Output = $1,294 million or 11.8% of Shoalhaven/Jervis Bay economy

·    Employment = 2059 or 5.7%

·    Economic value-add for Shoalhaven/Jervis Bay = $768m or 13.2%

Defence is a key industry sector in this area.

Whilst Shoalhaven City Council submitted the tender bid, it was on behalf of the Shoalhaven Defence Industry Group (SDIG). This network of defence contractors, government agencies and other related businesses will be the group that administers the program and funds. Already a steering committee has been formed and a draft program of events has been created but needs to be placed before SGIG.

The program will run for 3 years and has a budget of $257,950.

Events proposed include:

·    Annual Defence Industry Showcase

·    Thought Leadership Events

·    Defence Ready Training

·    Capability Mapping

·    Supply Chain Development

·    Trade Show Expo

·    Aboriginal Procurement

·    Monthly meetings of SDIG

 

The tendered proposal was to work with local business by sharing intelligence into upcoming acquisition programs, attending trade shows and wherever possible have local business join global supply chain networks.

 

Community Engagement

The existing defence contractors and support industries already have a strong network and regularly in programs that this project will support.

 

Policy Implications

This work with a network of similar businesses has been the mainstay of the economic growth of Shoalhaven as implemented by Council over several decades.

 

Financial Implications

Council will administer the grant funding.

There was no requirement for any Council funds to be committed. The main additional funds will come from businesses as they participate in the programmed activities

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.126   Jervis Bay Regional Boat Ramp, Woollamia - Master Plan - Boat Maintenance Facility

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/52676

 

Department:       Economic Development

Approver:           Paul Keech, Director - City Services 

Attachments:     1.  Previous Council report, 26 October 2021 (councillors information folder)

2.  Feedback from Kennedy Shipwrights, 29 October 2021 - Resolved Changes Boat Maintenance Facility

3.  Huskisson Wharf Committee - Maintenance Area - Draft Proposal  

Reason for Report

Detail advice received from the Woollamia Boat Ramp Precinct Management Committee (the Management Committee) for this precinct requesting the modification of the most recent Council resolution (MIN21.765 - 26 October 2021) in this regard.

The Council resolution made three late changes to the adopted Master Plan (Option H) for the partially completed boat maintenance facility and impacted on the proposed lease with the identified shipwright. The Management Committee has requested that these requirements be deleted and that work on the facility be completed.

 

Recommendation

That Council endorse the resolution of the Woollamia Boat Ramp Precinct Management Committee (8 December 2021) and thus:

1.    Amend MIN21.765 to remove Parts 5-7 as requested by the Woollamia Boat Ramp Precinct Management Committee and proceed to complete the construction of the Boat Maintenance Facility as soon as possible.

2.    Lease the use of the Boat Maintenance Facility at Woollamia to local shipwright, Paul Kennedy, for three (3) years with an option of a further 3 years.

3.    The Chief Executive Officer (City Services) confirm a “fair” rental for the first 18 months to be reviewed after 12 months of operations and reset for the final 18 months of the initial lease term and thereafter reviewed at 12 monthly intervals, should the option be taken up.

4.    The lease be subject to adequate commercial insurance coverage and trading terms to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer (City Services).

5.    Engage with both the Woollamia Boat Ramp Management Committee and Huskisson Wharf Management Committee as required in relation to Parts 3 and 4.

6.    Include the ability for a representative from the Huskisson Wharf Management Committee to participate in the Woollamia Boat Ramp Management Committee as required given the crossover of interest in regard to the maintenance facility.

 

 

Options

1.    As recommended.

Implications: Allows facility to be completed as intended and to be leased to an operator, an outcome endorsed by the Jervis Bay Boat Ramp Management Committee.

The following outcomes can then be delivered/finalised:

·    The facility to be fully enclosed by fencing with a storage container inside which meets the shipwright’s insurer’s requirement for a working boatyard.

·    The shipwright and Council can conclude the leasing arrangements as soon as possible.

·    Council’s trailer and the shipwrights tow vehicle can be commissioned and moved to Woollamia to commence operations

·    Government grant funding requirements can be met to have a boat repair facility operational by end March 2022

·    Certain local commercial craft will be able to meet marine survey requirements with minimal disruption to their local operations

 

2.    Not to adopt the recommendation and retain MIN21.765 as resolved.

Implications: The resulting outcome would be problematic and requirements of the contractor, or any other provider, to negotiate insurance coverage could be difficult. Council may struggle to regulate uncontrolled and unauthorised maintenance activities taking place.

The following implications could eventuate:

·    The storage container outside the fenced compound does not meet the shipwright’s insurer’s requirement for a working boatyard.

·    The shipwright and Council will be at difference over the arrangements previously advertised and negotiated which will delay conclusion to the leasing arrangements and jeopardise Council’s requirements under the grant funding agreement to be operational by end March 2022

·    Council’s trailer and the shipwrights tow vehicle will remain uncommissioned in storage

·    Grant funding requirements cannot be met to have a boat repair facility operational by end March 2022

·    Certain local commercial craft will need to travel to Sydney or beyond to be lifted out of the water to meet marine survey requirements causing disruption to their local operations

 

3.    Modify or defer the recommendation.

Implications: Would place Council at reputational and financial risk with the Commonwealth funding agency and open the opportunity for damages claims by the preferred contractor and other commercial operators working out of Woollamia/Jervis Bay area. Other implications could result, similar to those for Option 2.

 

Background

Following approaches from various vessel owners including the Jervis Bay Cruising Yacht Club, Council commenced work to establish a facility to undertake vessel maintenance at the Regional Boat Ramp at Woollamia. With the facility to include a secure compound with appropriate environmental protection devices and a purpose-built trailer to safely lift a greater range of vessels in and out of Currambene Creek utilising the boat ramp.

Funds were sought from the Australian Government to assist and $180,900 was granted to Council. The facility has been partially completed and sediment control systems installed. The proposed fencing is yet to be fully installed.

The proposal was primarily to provide a compliant facility to enable the hulls of vessels to be cleaned, capturing the waste materials for disposal at an appropriate facility rather than having it run off into the adjacent Crown Land and wetland areas. Other maintenance activities of a ‘minor’ nature can be undertaken in the repair facility fenced compound.

The attached report (Attachment 1) was considered at the last Council meeting in 2021. This report was intended to endorse the proposed leasing arrangements for the facility and allow the fencing and other finalisation works to be completed.

It was subsequently resolved on 26 October 2021 that:

1.    Council completes the construction of the Boat Maintenance Facility at the Woollamia Boat Ramp as soon as possible.

2.    Council lease the use of the Boat Maintenance Facility at Woollamia to local shipwright, Paul Kennedy, for three (3) years with an option of a further 3 years.

3.    The Chief Executive Officer (City Futures) confirm a “fair” rental for the first 18 months to be reviewed after 12 months of operations and reset for the final 18 months of the initial lease term and thereafter reviewed at 12 monthly intervals, should the option be taken up.

4.    The lease be subject to adequate commercial insurance coverage and trading terms to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer (City Futures).

5.    The shipping container be relocated off the hard stand area.

6.    A 3m section (at the western end) of the hard stand, be excluded from the leased area.

7.    Council defer decision making until there is further broadscale community consultation.

 

Parts 5 to 7 of the resolution (underlined above) were added at the Council meeting.

The Management Committee subsequently considered the Council resolution at its meeting on 8 December 2021. The following resolutions were formulated, considered and carried by the Committee:

That

1.  The Jervis Bay Regional Boat Ramp Management Committee fully supports the resolution passed at the October meeting of the Committee to accept and endorse the plans tabled at that October meeting by Council’s Economic Development Manager (attached).

This clearly showed the concrete area to be fully fenced, the storage container to be inside the compound and a garden bed to the west of the maintenance compound.

2.  The Management Committee disagrees with points 5, 6 & 7 of Council MIN21.765 of 26 October 2021 and seeks that Council withdraw these parts of the motion asap so that the Boat Maintenance area can be concluded as originally planned.

Motion Carried: For 7, Against 2, Abstained 2

 

Rationale for motion:

·    The Maintenance area was built to address the issues of contamination of the adjoining land and waterway. To endorse an area to be outside of the compound for use in an uncontrolled manner can be interpreted as endorsing pollution from that area

·    The Maintenance area needs to be fully controlled by a single operator

·    The container outside the compound is not practical for the operator

·    The container outside the compound takes away 1-2 car and trailer parking spaces

·    Removal of the container from the compound takes away the visual screen and noise attenuation from the residences

·    How practical is a 3m wide strip to be used by the public when an area for 4 washdown bays is adjacent.

 

Information was also sought from Kennedy Shipwrights (the selected lessee) on the resolved motion, who advised on 29 October 2021 that they strongly objected to parts 5 to 7 of the Council resolution and provided a detailed reasoning (see Attachment 2). The feedback concludes by requesting that the changes be reconsidered and revert back to what was originally intended, and the proposed business model/lease was based on.

Kennedy Shipwrights also emailed Council on 6 February 2022 as follows when they became aware of an alternate proposal for the hardstand area:

My argument to this proposal would read exactly the same as the last proposal.

1.    I legally tendered and won based on the original design and hard stand area.

2.    My area is bunded, filtered and water catchment.

3.    I had to meet extremely strict guidelines to obtain insurance, guidelines the other yards will not meet.

4.    The other yards will be uphill from my yard and therefore I will be responsible for their waste water runoff.

5.    The other yard does not use weight rated legal boat stands or registered trailers so will put my vessels at risk.

6.    The other yard could be water blasting right next to where I could be trying to paint a vessel.

7.    All of the above will undoubtedly void my insurance.

 

The area of hardstand is approximately 650m², about the size of a medium sized housing block, and to be included on this is:

·    Boat trailer – 12m x 4m = 50m²

·    Tow tractor – 6m x 3m = 20m²

·    Storage container – 7m x 3m = 20m²

·    Work area for hull cleaning – 15m x 8m = 120m²

·    Total committed space = 210m²

Vessels would generally require a working area of:

·    Medium sized monohull - 13m x 5m = 65m² or

·    Large catamaran - 15m x 7m = 105m²

So, in a working area of say 450m² it is likely that the maximum number of boats at any time would be 4 to 6. To ensure a business success the vessels would be constantly turning over and co-ordination of this needs to be managed by a single operator.

 

 

 


Figure 1 – Maintenance Facility - Intended Configuration

An alternate proposal (Attachment 3) was put forward to Council on behalf of the Huskisson Wharf Committee. This proposal relates to Parts 5 and 6 of the October 2021 Council resolution and shows the proposed facility split into three different areas as show in Figure 2: Area 1 Used by Council’s preferred contractor; Area 2 Separate fenced and available for others to use for maintenance; and Area 3 Open Emergency Works Area. 

Figure 2 – Maintenance Facility – Proposed Alternate Configuration

The proposed alternate configuration was referred to the Woollamia Boat Ramp Precinct Management Committee on 9 February 2022 for early feedback. When the extent of the area was explained at the meeting, it was agreed that a single area was optimal. The need for a single contractor and matters pertaining to insurances, co-ordination of work practices etc were discussed. All at the meeting agreed that an environmentally compliant facility was essential.

At present the commercial operators based at Huskisson wharf may use an existing different provider, at a cost, in the Woollamia Industrial Estate. Even with the new Maintenance Facility operating, this option will still be available to them. The new independently operated facility will offer a comparable service and choice/competition.

In regard to Part 7 of the October 2021 Council resolution, specifically regarding consultation with the Huskisson Wharf Users, open meetings/forums occurred in 2019 and 2020 and were attended by representatives from the wider community, including users of the Huskisson Wharf. At these open meetings it was explained from the start and made clear that the maintenance facility was to be leased out by Council to a qualified shipwright.

Woollamia Boat Ramp Precinct Management Committee reiterated that representatives of the Huskisson group attended the earlier meeting in 2019 but their interest appeared to wane given that the focus at Woollamia was for the smaller craft.

The Woollamia Maritime Precinct Management Committee provided the following as a result of their deliberations at their Management Committee meeting on 9 February 2022:

The Management Committee met on last Wednesday evening 9/2/2022 to consider, amongst other matters, the Draft Alternate Proposal for the Vessel Maintenance Area submitted to Council by Morgan Andrews representing members of the Huskisson Wharf Committee. Council had requested that the WMPMC consider the proposal and to discuss this with Morgan Andrews.

Following the outline of the Proposal by Mr Andrews, he admitted that the main objection was to the exclusive use of the area by one contractor. He admitted that an area of approximately 600m² was really only capable of a single operation and that the objection was primarily about the exclusive nature of the proposal.

Mr Andrews went on further to request that the WMPMC should be party to the leasing contract and conditions of operations for the contractor. Representatives of the WMPMC, many of whom are independent business owners, felt that this was quite unreasonable and it was intimated by members that this was Commercial in Confidence and that the principles of the arrangement were clear to them, including:

·        Contracted shipwright would enter into a lease with Council

·        Only activity that would be exclusively undertaken by contractor would be hull cleaning. (This would necessitate being lifted into maintenance area using Council trailer & tow vehicle)

·        All vessel owners would need to enter into an agreement with shipwright/operator, as per other maintenance areas in NSW. (A standard agreement drafted by insurers, contractors & MIA)

·        Other contractors can work on boats subject to approval of head contractor, subject to adequate insurance coverage; SWMS etc

·        If work was required outside of contractor’s regular work hours, then payment for a staff member to remain onsite would be required, providing he cannot be meaningfully employed on other tasks.

With regard to the cleaning of vessels, there will be no mandate that all vessels MUST be cleaned at Woollamia but that work at Woollamia will be undertaken by the contracted shipwright and he will be the only operator able to do this work in the Woollamia Maritime precinct.

The discussion expanded into whether an “unrestricted area” should be allowed for cleaning of hulls and other maintenance activities and the consensus view was that a single operator is the best way to ensure compliance.

Mr Andrews currently has arrangements for his vessel(s) to be cleaned, in an environmentally compliant manner, by his staff at the boat yard in the Woollamia Industrial Estate. The WMPMC pointed out that this option would continue to be available to him and his vessel(s) and also for any other commercial boat owner from Huskisson or elsewhere. It was reemphasized that the Woollamia based option was just that, an alternative option.

As for information being made available to the Huskisson boatowners, when the original forum was called in 2019 by Council to explain what was happening at Woollamia, the then Huskisson Wharf Committee was invited and WMPMC members remember that some members of the boating fraternity at Huskisson were in attendance. Whether they continued to attend forums or open meetings was not recalled. Mr Andrews said that he did not recall being aware of the forums and that he had not attended any meeting or forum.

With regard to very minor works, these would still be able to be undertaken in the carpark at Woollamia. Works that would take say 1-2 hours and were not of an environmentally sensitive nature that could be undertaken in the non-peak periods would be permitted as they have been for many years.

The point about the positioning of the container was not discussed but the WMPMC is still firmly of the opinion that it needs to be within the compound for operational and insurance coverage reasons.

 

Council staff also subsequently met with Morgan Andrews from the Huskisson Wharf Committee to further discuss this matter and understand his position. From the discussion it was clear that there is generally no opposition to the completion of the maintenance facility, as originally planned, but a desire to understand how the facility will run and how third parties (e.g. other contractors working for boat owners) will be able to access and use the facility and the associated costs. Parts 5 and 6 of the recommendation are intended to assist in this regard and ensure that there is further dialogue with both interested Committee’s as the operational detail of the how the facility will be run is concluded. 

 

Conclusion

Given that this is a grant funded project there is a need to draw it to a conclusion in a timely manner. As such it is recommended that the previous Council resolution (MIN21.765) be amended to remove Parts 5-7 as requested by the Woollamia Boat Ramp Precinct Management Committee and Council proceed to complete the construction of the Boat Maintenance Facility as soon as possible.

 

Community Engagement

A series of open forums were conducted by Council during 2019 and 2020 leading up to the adoption of the Jervis Bay Regional Boat Ramp Master Plan (Option H).

Many interest groups raised issues which were addressed by Council. These groups included:

·    Local residents

·    Recreational boat owners of moored vessels (across Jervis Bay area)

·    Commercial boat owners of moored vessels (across Jervis Bay area)

·    Visiting trailer boat owners

·    Government authorities

·    Recreational craft users of the Woollamia boat ramp facilities

 

Issues raised included:

·    Damaged boat ramp toe – repaired in 2021

·    Insufficient pontoon length – additional pontoons implemented in 2021

·    Inadequate facilities to crane vessels in/out of water – new loading/crane platform built in 2021

·    Better queuing area for use of boat ramp – area widened with line marking in 2021

·    Inadequate car parking – new 28 space carpark built in 2021

·    More car/trailer parking required – by moving single cars away from main carpark, more trailer parking is now available

·    Perceived unsightly maintenance area – container and landscaping sited to mitigate noise and visual impact

·    More picnic tables etc – some installed in 2021 with additional to come in future years

·    A purpose-built trailer to lift vessels up to 20t – Council has purchased this to be leased to shipwright for safer and more practical vessel retrieval from creek – still to be available at Woollamia in 2022

·    Maintenance facility required for vessel cleaning, maintenance and survey – still to come in 2022

 

Policy Implications

Council periodically undertakes capital improvements on both Crown Land and Council owned land and for resulting facilities to be leased to independent businesses or community groups.

This facility, like Greenwell Point slipway, is such an improvement aimed at improving and enhancing the facilities available to the public. In this instance, an environmentally compliant facility will result and benefit recreational and commercial boat owners.

 

Financial Implications

Council obtained a Federal Government grant to offset cost of construction and purchase the purpose-built trailer. Failure to deliver the completed project by end March 2022 will place council in breach of its contractual undertaking with the Government.

The selected contractor, Kennedy Shipwrights, has purchased equipment for use as part of the venture and is geared up to purchase stands and other equipment to meet the insurer’s requirement.

 

Risk Implications

This facility was primarily developed to address a compliance issue of particulate matter contaminating the land and waterways at Woollamia Boat Ramp. The facilities constructed are comparable with those in other boat maintenance facilities.

Having the facility operated by a shipwright who understand the NSW EPA requirements and has adequate safeguards and operating procedures as approved by his insurer is a measure to mitigate that risk.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.127   Tenders - Replacement of four timber bridges with concrete structures as part of the Fixing Country Bridges Program - Round 1

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/43088

 

Department:       Works & Services

Approver:           Paul Keech, Director - City Services  

Reason for Report

To inform Council of the tender process for the replacement of four timber bridges with concrete structures as part of the Fixing Country Bridges Program - Round 1.

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

 

Recommendation

That Council consider a separate confidential report in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

Options

1.    Accept the recommendation

Implications: Consider a separate confidential report on the matter

 

2.    Council make a different resolution

Implications: This is not recommended as an extensive evaluation process has been undertaken by the tender evaluation team in accordance with the tender evaluation plan

 

Details

Project Description

Council was successful in obtaining a grant of $2.98M to match Council’s contribution of $1.45M for the replacement of six (6) timber bridges with concrete bridges, as part of the Fixing Country Bridges Program – Round 1 (D21/96296).

 

Four bridges form Phase 1 of Council’s current bridge replacement program. The four bridges in this package of works are detailed below:

 

·    Tannery Bridge” - located on Tannery Road, over Good Dogs Creek – Cambewarra

·    “Henry’s Bridge” – located on Main Road, over Tapitallee Creek tributary– Cambewarra

·    “Koloona Bridge” – located on Koloona Drive, over Bangalee Creek – Bangalee

·    “Petty’s Bridge” – located on Croobyar Road, over Croobyar Creek tributary – Croobyar

 

Another two bridges, Yarramunmum and Bundewallah, will form Phase 2 of Council’s current bridge replacement program and will be offered to public tender within the next two months.

 

Tendering

Council called tenders for the replacement of four timber bridges with concrete structures as part of the Fixing Country Bridges Program - Round 1 Program on 2 February 2022 which closed at 10:00 am on 1 March 2022.

Six tenders were received at the time of closing. Tenders were received from the following:

Tenderer

Location

A Plus Excavations Pty Ltd

Albion Park Rail

Brefni Pty Ltd

Smeaton Grange

GC Civil Contracting Pty Ltd

St Georges Basin

HD Civil Pty Ltd

Moruya

Jirgens Civil Pty Ltd

South Nowra

Menai Civil Contractors Pty Ltd

Smeaton Grange

 

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

 

Policy Implications

Nil. The tender process has followed the requirements under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Financial Implications:

Sufficient funds have been allocated in the Fixing Country Bridges Program - Round 1 budget for 2021/22 and 2022/23 financial years. Funding is available to cover the tender amount including other project costs.

 

Risk Implications

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

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.128   Tenders - Panel for Tree Services for Bushfire Road Verge Cleanup

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/43106

 

Department:       Works & Services

Approver:           Paul Keech, Director - City Services  

Reason for Report

To inform Council of the tender process for Panel for Tree Services for Bushfire Road Verge Cleanup.

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

 

Recommendation

That Council consider a separate confidential report in accordance with Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

Options

1.    Accept the recommendation

Implications: Consider a separate confidential report on the matter

 

2.    Council make a different resolution

Implications: This is not recommended as an extensive evaluation process has been undertaken by the tender evaluation team in accordance with the tender evaluation plan

 

Details

Project Description

From late November 2019 and until early February 2020, the Shoalhaven local government area was severely impacted by bushfires. The fires burnt out over 320,000 hectares of land and affected the localities of:

Northern Zone:             Illaroo, Budgong & Kangaroo Valley

Central Zone:                Comberton, Nowra Hill, Parma, Barringella, Buangla & Burrier

Basin Zone:                  Sassafras & Wandandian

Southern Zone:             Bawley Point, Bendalong, Brooman, Conjola, Conjola, Conjola Park, Croobyar, Depot Beach, Durras North, East Lynne, Fishermans Paradise, Lake Conjola, Little Forest, Manyana, Mondayong, Morton, Pebbly Beach, Pointer Mountain, Sussex Inlet, Termeil, Woodburn, Woodstock & Yatte Yattah

As a result of the bushfires, 75 Roads were heavily affected with fallen trees and limbs. The affected sections of these roads total 271 kilometres.

Council were successful in obtaining $5M as part of the NSW Natural Disaster Essential Public Asset Restoration Program.

The development of the Tree Services for Bushfire Road Verge Cleanup Panel is to engage suitably qualified and experience contractors to safely and efficiently remove, and mulch fallen trees and limbs along the fire affect road verges.

 

Tendering

Council called tenders for Tree Services for Bushfire Road Verge Cleanup on 2 February 2022 which closed at 10:00 am on 24 February 2022. Eleven (11) tenders were received at the time of closing. Tenders were received from the following:

Tenderer

Location

A & D Tree Services Pty Ltd

South Nowra

All About Tree Services

Quakers Hill

Asplundh Tree Expert

Bomaderry

Asset Arbor

Tomakin

BC Tree Services Pty Ltd

Taree

Bohmers Tree Care

Woonona

C & S Tree Services (NSW) Pty Ltd

North Nowra

Forest Tree Service Pty Ltd

Belrose

Mike Tree Services

St Georges Basin

Parrish Son Pty Ltd

Cobbitty

Parrish Son Zenith Tree

Moruya

 

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

 

Policy Implications

Nil. The tender process has followed the requirements under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Financial Implications:

No financial implications as the Tree Services are purchased from Natural Disaster Funding.  


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.129   DA21/1612–  Bolong Road Bolong - Lot 1 DP 531429

 

DA. No:               DA21/1612/4

 

HPERM Ref:       D21/350834

 

Department:       Development Services

Approver:           James Ruprai, Director - City Development 

Attachments:     1.  Applicant's Clause 4.6 Request - redacted (under separate cover)

2.  Visual Impact Assessment (under separate cover)

3.  Planning Report S4.15 Assessment (under separate cover)

4.  Draft Determination (under separate cover)

5.  Consolidated Plan Set (under separate cover)   

Description of Development: Concrete batching plant, ancillary structures, associated signage and civil and landscape works

 

Owner: Manildra Energy Australia Pty Ltd

Applicant: Cleary Bros (Bombo) Pty Ltd

 

Notification Dates: 30 June 2021 to 30 July 2021

 

No. of Submissions:  Six (6) submissions by way of objection

 

Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council

Clause (cl) 4.3(2A) of the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 references a “Height of Buildings Map”. If the “Height of Building Map” does not show a maximum height for the land, the height of a building on the land is not to exceed 11 metres. This application, DA21/1612 includes proposed silos with a maximum height of 23.75 metres, exceeding the control by 12.75 metres. This is a 116% variation.

The extent of the exceedance proposed is such that Council staff do not have delegation to determine the variation. Where a development standard is more than 10%, the variation request must be determined by the elected Council. 

Council can assume the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment for cl 4.6 variations to vary a development standard. Further information is available in the Department of Planning and Environment’s “Planning Circular” PS 20-002.

 

Link to Circular.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Confirm it supports, pursuant to cl 4.6 (Exceptions to development standards) of the SLEP 2014, the applicant’s request to vary the height limit of 11m to 23.75m; and

2.    Determine application DA21/1612 for a concrete batching plant, ancillary structures, associated signage, and civil and landscape works at Lot 1 DP 531429, Bolong Road, Bolong by way of approval subject to the recommended conditions of consent contained in Attachment 4 of this report.

 

Options

1.   Support the requested variation to the maximum height of buildings requirement and approve the development application (DA) in accordance with the recommendation of this report. 

 

Implications: Will permit the application to be determined in its current form.

 

2.   Not support the proposed variation to the maximum height of buildings control under SLEP 2014  and deferral back to staff for to discuss with the applicant.

Implications: Will require the applicant to reconsider the design of the proposal, noting the proposed height variation is a direct result of the utility of the proposed silo building. Should any redesign still exceed the maximum height of building control by more than 10%, a future report would be prepared for consideration by Council with regard to the cl 4.6 variation. Otherwise, the DA may be deferred back to staff for determination under delegated authority. 

 

3.   Refuse the development application (DA).

 

Implications: Council would need to determine the grounds on which the application is refused, having regard to section 4.15(1) considerations. This would mean that the development is unable to proceed as applied for.  An appeal with the Land and Environment Court of NSW (LEC) is possible in the event of a refusal of the application.  A review under section 8.2 is not possible for designated developments.

 

4.   Alternative recommendation.

Implications: Council will need to specify an alternative recommendation and advise staff accordingly.

Location Map

Figure 1: Aerial Photography – Subject Site

Background

Proposed Development

Development application DA21/1612 seeks approval for the construction of a concrete batching plant and ancillary works at Lot 1 DP 531429, Bolong Road, Bolong (Manildra Group – Shoalhaven Starches).

The facility is intended to replace an existing concrete plant at 26 and 34 Bolong Road, Bolong for operational efficiency and longevity (refer to Figure 2).

 

Figure 2: Existing and New Batching Sites (Source: submitted EIS – City Plan)

The decommissioning of the existing plant is not proposed as part of this application.

The proposed plant on Lot 1 DP 531429 will produce concrete. The concrete product will be provided in ready mixed form (RMC). The RMC is batched or manufactured and tailored to individual construction projects, combining gravel, sand, water, cement, and admixtures to meet the structural specifications of a project.

The current proposal is for a dry plant only - individual components are weighed in individual batches, then discharged into a chute into the mixer truck where mixed in the agitator at the plant and during transportation.

The plant output will be maintained at the current levels of the existing concrete plant site – that is no greater than 30,000m3 or 72,000 tonnes per annum (tpa), with projected similar employment and traffic generation levels.

Hours of operation are proposed to be 24 hours, 7 days a week.

More specifically, the application seeks approval for the following works:

-     The construction of:

a batch point with slump inspection point, five aggregate and sand weigh bins, a conveyor, stackers, six (6) aggregate/sand storage bays, three (3) cement silos, a batch control room; and

Various supporting structures/facilities including: a new office, lunchroom, toilets, and showers.

 

-     Civil works, including:

road shoulder widening of Bolong Road and construction of a new signalised (line marking and signage) and right-hand turning lane;

driveway and parking arrangements onsite; and

road and directional signage.

 

-     Fencing and identification signage, including:

fencing is around the development (part of lot 1) to be 2.4m in height. Along the front, fencing will be a palisade (vertical steel pales secured to horizontal rails) and along the remaining three boundaries, chain, and wire; and

four (4) business identification signs (2.4m x 1.2m) to be placed on either side of the front entrance gates – one sign on both sides of each gate to enable identification when the gates are open and closed.

 

-     Stormwater drainage works. This includes gross pollutant traps (GPTs), pits and pipes to the existing Bolong Road system and rainwater tanks for reuse onsite.

-     Earthworks, filling and sediment and erosion controls.  The area of the development is to be filled (max. 1.11m of fill required, refer to S4.15 assessment for further details), to approximately 3m AHD for flood planning levels (approximately 11,500m3 of fill to be imported by truck).

-     Vegetation clearance. This includes trees within the footprint of the driveway, carpark area and drainage lines and a single hollow bearing tree in the centre of the development footprint.

-     Landscaping and lighting.

-     Pump out sewerage system.

The development is classed as Designated Integrated development. This means that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with requirements specified by the Planning Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) was warranted and an additional approval(s) is required from another State Agency. The approval being sought is an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

 

Figure 3: Site Plan

 

Figure 4: Western Elevation Plan

 

Figure 5: Northern Elevation Plan

 

Subject Land

The subject site is located in an industrial area (land zoned IN1 – General Industry) on the northern side of the Shoalhaven River, identified as Lot 1 DP 531429, Bolong Road, Bolong.

The site is regular in nature with frontage to Bolong Road. It is largely clear of vegetation and structures, aside from an existing water pumping station at the front of the allotment and Endeavour Energy overhead power lines running along the western boundary. The site is mapped as; flood prone land, containing acid sulphate soils and as having the potential to be contaminated. At the time of lodgement, the site was not identified as bushfire prone land.

While the site is not identified as containing any locally listed items of heritage significance under Schedule 5 of the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (SLEP 2014), the supplied Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment has confirmed one subsurface archaeological deposit consisting of a chert flake (known as Bolong-1A-1 / AHIMS# 52-5-0968) is located at the front of the site - Heritage NSW have provided General Terms of Approval (GTA’s) to be included in any determination.

The development is proposed on the front portion of Lot 1 only, this is proposed Lot 101 in SF10831 – A consolidation and two lot subdivision of the site approved 30 November 2020 but has yet to be registered (see ‘History’ section for details).

 

Site & Context

Land to the west is similarly zoned IN1, with Manildra Group’s facilities located in the area – wheat starch and gluten plants which operate in conjunction with an ethanol distillery. The Manildra facilities directly adjoins the subject site to the west and extends along Bolong Road towards Bomaderry.

To the northwest is a wastewater plant which treats effluent from the Manildra’s operations.

Land to the north, east and wider area surrounding IN1 zone, is zoned RU1 – Primary Production and comprises mainly agricultural land and rural residential development. The nearest residence is approximately 470m to the southeast (see Figure 6).

 

Figure 6: Site and Context Plan (Source: submitted EIS – City Plan)

 

 

History

With the exception of recent subdivision applications for minor boundary adjustments under SF10831 and SF10431 there are no relevant recent development approvals for the site. The original approvals for use of the land included a Water Station (BA73/2038) and Security Watch House (BA74/1815), with minor Industrial Additions in 2000 (DA00/2651).

Background Information - SF10831 Detail

Application SF10831 for consolidation and two lot subdivision of the subject site was approved on 30 November 2020. This subdivision has yet to be registered (See Figure 7).

Following lot registration, the development appears to be located wholly on Lot 101 with the exception of batters required for the fill platform. Owners consent for the entire site (Lot 1) has been provided with DA21/1612.

Figure 7: Approved Subdivision Plan SF10831 (Source: submitted subdivision plan prepared by AP&S)

 

Issues

Clause 4.3 - Height of Buildings, of the Shoalhaven LEP 2014

Clause 4.3 stipulates the objectives and development standard for the height of buildings in Shoalhaven. Clause 4.3(2) and (2A) state:

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

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

The SLEP 2014 Height of Buildings Map does not show a maximum building height for the subject site. As such, the maximum height of any building must not exceed 11m as stipulated by subclause (2A).

The proposed development does not comply with this development standard. The new plant will include several buildings and structures, with the tallest structure being silos up to RL26, approximately 23.75m above existing ground levels, exceeding the control by 12.75m or 116%.

 

Figure 8: Extent of development non-compliance

 

Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to development standards of the SLEP 2014

Development is controlled by Environmental Planning Instruments, such as the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (SLEP14). The SLEP14 sets out what can be built and includes some controls / development standards such as height.

Sometimes a development can achieve the objectives of the SLEP 2014 but cannot comply with a standard for various reasons.  In these instances, it is necessary to request a clause 4.6 variation which allow a consent authority to ‘relax’ the development standard in the particular circumstance.  A clause 4.6 variation request must be in writing and address particular matters.  Importantly, there must be sound justification for the departure from the development standard.

Clause 4.6 is a mandatory clause contained in all Local Environmental Plans. 

Council is also required to report the variations to the Department of Planning and Environment on a quarterly basis and all variations may be subject to an audit. 

Clause 4.6 only applies to development standards, not prohibitions.

The applicant submitted a written request to justify contravening the development standard pursuant to the requirements of cl4.6 of SLEP 2014 – see Attachment 1.

 

An assessment pursuant to cl4.6 has been provided below:

Subclause

Council Comment

4.6(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows—

(a)  to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

 

(b)  to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

 

Noted. There is merit to applying flexibility in this particular circumstance, noting:

-     The variation achieves the underlying objectives of cl4.3 notwithstanding the non-compliance;

-     The variation is required specifically for the development type proposed, which has been demonstrated to be consistent with zone objectives.

-     There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard; and

-     the contravention is in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the zone and development standard.

4.6(2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

 

Development Standards' are defined under Section 4(1) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 as follows:

 

“development standards means provisions of an environmental planning instrument or the regulations in relation to the carrying out of development, being provisions by or under which requirements are specified or standards are fixed in respect of any aspect of that development, including, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, requirements or standards in respect of: …

(c) the character, location, siting, bulk, scale, shape, size, height, density, design or external appearance of a building or work…”

 

[Council emphasis]

The building height of development under cl4.3 of the SLEP 2014 is therefore clearly a development standard.

 

The development standard is not a prohibition.

4.6(3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating—

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

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

A written request to vary the standard has been provided in which the applicant assessed the proposal against 4.6(3)(a) and (b).

It is noted the below decisions by NSW Land Environment Court assisted in understanding parameters for contravention to a development standard:

1.   Wehba v Pittwater Council [2007] NSW LEC 827;

2.   Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1009;

3.   Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 (Initial Action);

 

A detailed assessment against subclause (a) and (b) is provided below.

(3)(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary

Comment: The LEC has held that there are at least five different ways, an applicant might establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary (Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007]).

For an application to be upheld it is sufficient to demonstrate that it satisfies only one of the five ways.

The five ways are:

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

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

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

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

5. The zoning of the land is unreasonable or inappropriate.

In this circumstance, the applicant requests consideration under the first test.

The objectives of cl 4.3 and Council comments are as follows:

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

The proposal is consistent with the IN1 zone objectives (see 4.6(4)(a)(ii) for details) and existing character of the industrial land in the area - this comprising of industrial buildings and structures including a number over 11m in height. The height of the silos is considered a similar height, bulk, scale, and character to industrial development in the area and not inconsistent with anticipated industrial development of the site.

Figure 9: Street view of neighbouring industrial development to the west of the subject site (Source: Google Streetview).

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

A Visual Impact Assessment was supplied in support of the application (refer Attachment 2).  Due to existing and proposed landscaping (screening along the eastern boundary), proposed finish colours (Colorbond Surfmist), the existing industrial built form on neighbouring sites, the topography of the land, the distance of the development from residential dwellings and the proposed siting of the development (on only a portion of Lot 1), the development is not anticipated to cause significant unacceptable visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy or impact to neighbouring property solar access.

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

The subject site does not contain any listed items in Schedule 5 of the SLEP 2014, nor is it located within a conservation area. However, for the sake of completeness the below is noted:

·    There are locally listed Items (Number 117 and 116 in schedule 5, known as ‘Berry Estate’ which includes vertical timber slab cottage and outbuildings and “Buena Vista” a dairy farm complex including Berry Estate vertical timber slab barn) along Bolong Road. The closest item is approximately 600m from the development. Due to the nature of the development structures, proposed mitigation measures (landscape screening along the eastern perimeter of the development) and the existing character/impact of the industrial area, the proposed development is not anticipated to detract from existing heritage significance.

·    An Aboriginal object was found onsite during field investigations. General Terms of Approval have been issued by Heritage NSW, these require an AHIP be obtained prior to works onsite. This requirement is not a result of height variation but due to likely ground disturbance with any development onsite.

Due to reasons outlined above the application is considered consistent with the underlying objectives of cl4.3 (Height of buildings) notwithstanding non-compliance and is therefore considered to satisfy 4.6(3)(a) - that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

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

Comment:  The environmental planning grounds to justify the proposed variation are as follows:

-     The exceedance of the height of the development is consistent with height and scale of development within immediate IN1 zone. The adjoining industrial complex to the west comprises large-scale built form including elevated water tanks and towers/stacks up to 33.5m in height. The proposed silos will be consistent with the height and scale of the neighbouring development and will not fundamentally change the character of the locality. The proposed vegetation screening will also work to soften the overall industrial area when viewed from the east of the development.

-     The proposed building height is a direct result of the industrial purpose of the proposed silo building. The development is not only consistent with the site’s IN1 zoning, but representative of existing buildings in the immediate locality and the established operations of Manildra Group’s facilities.

-     The additional height above the 11m maximum building height will not result in unreasonable overshadowing, or overlooking, due to location on site and nature of the area.

-     The site is zoned for industrial purposes, the proposed use of the site as a batching plant is consistent with zone objectives and the height variation is required for the proposed use.

-     The development provides economic and social benefits, contributing to local construction industry and local employment in concrete production - encourage additional employment and retention of employment opportunities (through construction of the plant and ongoing operations of a new facility with a longer production lifecycle then the existing).

-     The proposal provides for an industrial activity that does not significantly conflict with neighbouring operations and will operate consistent with current environmental controls and management requirements.

Due to reasons outlined above the application is considered consistent with subclause 4.6(3)(b), demonstrating there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

Subclause

Council Comment

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

 

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that—

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

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

 

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

4.6(4)(a)(i)

Written request received and addressing the matters as required in subclause (3).

4.6(4)(a)(ii)

The proposal is considered in the public interest being consistent with objectives of the standard (listed in 4.6(3)(a)) and consistent with zone objectives, as follows:

•To provide a wide range of industrial and warehouse land uses.

The proposal adds to industries functioning in the industrial area (and the longevity of concrete batching in the area). The development, being located on only a portion of the site, also retains usable areas for further industrial development surrounding (should it be proposed in future).

• To encourage employment opportunities.

The proposed development will retain jobs from the existing plant and extend the company’s operation longevity (and employment opportunities) with updated equipment/technology at new site location. Additional job opportunities will also be created with facility construction.

• To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

The development is situated a significant distance from nearest residential development. Noise, dust, flooding, and traffic studies have accompanied the application in support of the proposal and considered appropriate by Council staff in demonstrating impacts can be managed with minimal impact on adjoining land uses.

• To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

The proposal is for industrial use on a site currently vacant but zoned for industrial use. The proposal is therefore consistent with this objective.

• To allow a diversity of activities that do not significantly conflict with the operation of existing or proposed development.

As above, the development is considered capable of satisfactorily addressing this objective.

• To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of workers in the area.

The proposal is not inconsistent with this objective. Additional facilities and employment associated/ generated could work to encourage supporting facilities and services to meet worker’s needs.

 

4.6(4)(b)

Council can assume the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment for cl 4.6 variations to vary a development standard. Further information is available in the Department’s Circular PS 20-002.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

4.6(5)(a)

The contravention does not raise any matters of significance having regard to State or regional environmental planning. It does not have implications for any State Environmental Planning Policies in the locality or impacts which are considered of a State or regional scale.

4.6(5)(b)

There is limited public benefit in maintaining the development standard given that there are no unreasonable impacts that will result from the variation to the height of buildings standard, while there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. The extent of the departure from the height control, whilst numerically large is essential for the efficient operation of the concrete batching plant.

 

4.6(5)(c)

Not applicable

(6)  Development consent must not be granted under this clause for a subdivision of land in Zone RU1 Primary Production, Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU3 Forestry, Zone RU4 Primary Production Small Lots, Zone RU6 Transition, Zone R5 Large Lot Residential, Zone E2 Environmental Conservation, Zone E3 Environmental Management or Zone E4 Environmental Living if— 

Not appliable – proposed variation does not relate to subdivision.

(7)  After determining a development application made pursuant to this, the consent authority must keep a record of its assessment of the factors required to be addressed in the applicant’s written request referred to in subclause (3).

Noted

(8) This clause does not allow development consent to be granted for development that would contravene any of the following—

 

The variation is not to a development standard listed in subclause (8).

 

Planning Assessment

The DA has been assessed under s4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, please refer to Attachment 3 of this report.

The development features two non-compliances in relation to Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 (SDCP 2014), Chapter G20: Industrial Development: one relating to height compliance with SLEP 2014 (addressed under the above cl 4.6 assessment), the other in relation to fill.

A portion of the site which contains a natural depression requires filling to 1.11m for flood planning levels, an 11% variation.  As outlined at Attachment 3, the variation is considered relatively minor in nature and is required to achieve required flood planning levels and an outcome consistent with objectives and performance criteria for the control.

 

Consultation and Community Engagement:

The notification was made in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy with letters being sent within a 500m radius of the site. The proposal was also advertised in the newspaper for a period of 30 days from 30 June 2021 to 30 July 2021.

Six (6) public submissions (at the time of writing) were received in relation to Council’s notification of the development, all objecting to the development.

Concerns related to:

-     traffic and safety

-     stormwater and flooding

-     air quality and dust

-     noise, and

-     rural landscape/setting.

Concerns have been taken into consideration and addressed during the assessment, refer to the attached s4.15 Assessment for details.  The concerns raised by the objectors are considered to be capable of being addressed via conditions or are not considered to warrant the refusal of the application.

 

Financial Implications:

No financial implications to Council.

 

Legal Implications

If the requested variation is not supported and the application subsequently refused, or if the applicant is dissatisfied with Council’s determination, the applicant has the right of appeal to the Land and Environment Court (subject to deemed refusal).  A review is not possible under section 8.2 for designated developments.

There are third party appeal rights for designated developments.

 

Summary and Conclusion

The applicant’s submission has provided adequate justification to demonstrate that contravention of the development standard in the specific circumstances of this case are well founded for the following reasons:

·    compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

·    there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard; and

·    the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the Height of Buildings development standard under cl 4.3 and the objectives for development within the IN1 zone; and

·    the proposed development is in the public interest and there is limited public benefit in maintaining the standard, application has demonstrated suitability of the site; and

·    the contravention does not raise any matter of State or Regional significance.

Accordingly, a positive conclusion has been reached with regard to the cl 4.6 variation request to the Height of Building development standard under cl 4.3 of SLEP 2014.

The application has been assessed under 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and found to be satisfactory.

It is noted that several submissions were received during the assessment period however submission concerns have been considered addressed/mitigated to an appropriate level.

It is recommended that the cl 4.6 variation be supported, and the development application be approved subject to the recommended attached conditions of consent.  Note: The applicant has been provided with a draft to review.

  


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.130   Acquisition of sewer easement - 15 Abernethys Lane Meroo Meadow - Lot 601 DP1223625

 

HPERM Ref:       D21/507944

 

Department:       Technical Services

Approver:           Robert Horner, Executive Manager Shoalhaven Water 

Attachments:     1.  Proposed sewer easement acquisition plan   

Reason for Report

To seek Council’s concurrence for the acquisition of land for a sewer easement for sewer 4 & 5 metres wide over part of Lot 601 DP1223625, No. 15 Abernethys Lane Meroo Meadow.

The easement is marked (E1) and highlighted on the attached draft survey plan, over that part of Lot 601 DP1223625.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Acquire an Easement for Sewer 4 & 5 metres wide over part of Lot 601 DP1223625, No. 15 Abernethys Lane Meroo Meadow, marked (E1) and highlighted on the attached draft survey plan.

2.    Pay compensation of $33,350 (plus GST if applicable) and reasonable costs associated with the acquisition, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1993, from the Sewer Fund.

3.    If applicable, adjust the compensation in accordance with the area of the easement determined by the final registered survey plan.

4.    Authorise the affixing of the Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven to any documents required to be sealed and that the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to sign any documents necessary to give effect to this resolution.

 

 

Options

1.    Resolve as Recommended

Implications: The easement is required for infrastructure to service the Moss Vale Road Urban Release Area. It will provide Council with legal rights to the access, operation & maintenance of the infrastructure.

2.    Not resolve as recommended and provide further directions to staff.

Implications: Failure to acquire the land and easement will lead to a delay in the delivery of the required infrastructure for the Moss Vale Rd Urban Release Area.

 

Background

The subject sewer easement is required to facilitate construction and future operation/maintenance of a sewer main that will support residential subdivisions within the Moss Vale Road Urban Release Areas.

A valuation was undertaken on behalf of Council by Walsh & Monaghan Valuers Pty Ltd who assessed compensation for the easement at $22,000 excluding GST. An offer at that amount was made to the owner, which was rejected. The owners representative, through negotiation, provided enough evidence to Council’s representative for an agreement to be reached on the compensation amount of $33,350. The primary substantiation was based on more recent settled sales information of nearby land.

 

Risk Implications

Acquisition of the easement is necessary to secure Shoalhaven Water’s legal rights to construct, access, operate and maintain essential public infrastructure. The proposed action is administrative only and has no environmental impact.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.131   Acquisition of sewer easement - 1095 Meroo Road Meroo Meadow - Lot 202 DP 1180659

 

HPERM Ref:       D21/508359

 

Department:       Technical Services

Approver:           Robert Horner, Executive Manager Shoalhaven Water 

Attachments:     1.  Sewer Easement Sketch   

Reason for Report

To seek Council’s concurrence for the acquisition of a sewer easement for sewer 4 & 5 metres wide over part of Lot 202 DP1180659, 1095 Meroo Road Meroo Meadow.

The easement is marked (S1) and highlighted on the attached draft survey plan, over that part of Lot 202 DP1180659.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Acquire an Easement for Sewer 4 & 5 metres wide over part of Lot 202 DP1180659, No. 1095  Meroo Road Meroo Meadow, marked (S1) and highlighted on the attached draft survey plan.

2.    Pay compensation of $12,000 (plus GST if applicable) and reasonable costs associated with the acquisition, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1993, from the Water Fund.

3.    If applicable, adjust the compensation in accordance with the area of the easement determined by the final registered survey plan.

4.    Authorise the affixing of the Common Seal of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven to any documents required to be sealed and that the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to sign any documents necessary to give effect to this resolution.

 

 

Options

1.    Resolve as Recommended

Implications: The easement is needed for infrastructure required for the Moss Vale Road Urban Release Area. It will provide Council with legal rights to the access, operation & maintenance of the infrastructure.

 

2.    Not resolve as recommended and provide further directions to staff.

Implications: Failure to acquire the land and easement will lead to a delay in the delivery of the required infrastructure for the Moss Vale Rd Urban Release Area.

 

 

 

Background

The subject sewer easement is required to facilitate construction and future operation/maintenance of a sewer main that will service residential subdivisions within the Moss Vale Road Urban Release Area.

A valuation was undertaken on behalf of Council by Walsh & Monaghan Valuers Pty Ltd who assessed compensation for the easement at $6,000 excluding GST. An offer at that amount was made to the owner which was rejected. The owner engaged their own valuation service who assessed compensation at $12,000, excluding GST. Due to the costs involved in having the valuation reviewed by Council’s valuer and solicitors, staff have determined that the professional fees involved in that process would outweigh the offer of compensation.  Acceptance of this valuation would also ensure the timeframe for delivery of the project would not be compromised.  The owner has accepted that offer, subject to Council’s concurrence.

 

Risk Implications

Acquisition of the easement is necessary to secure Shoalhaven Water’s legal rights to construct, access, operate and maintain essential public infrastructure. The proposed action is administrative only and has no environmental impact.

 

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.132   Review of Shoalhaven Water Group Policies

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/80779

 

Department:       Water Business Services

Approver:           Robert Horner, Executive Manager Shoalhaven Water 

Attachments:     1.  Draft Drinking Water Quality Policy

2.  Draft Rainwater Tank Rebate Policy   

Reason for Report

All Public and Local Approval Policies are to be submitted to Council within 12 months of the election of Council. This is the first group of policies proposed for reaffirmation with respect to Shoalhaven Water’s responsibilities. 

 

Recommendation

That Council reaffirm the following policies with no or minor changes

1.      Drinking Water Quality

2.      Rainwater Tank Rebate

 

 

Options

 

1.    Adopt the recommendation as written. 

Implications: Minor changes will assist for currency. Specific details of changes are outlined further below

 

2.      Not adopt the recommendation. 

Implications: Council can request further details, seek further community input or make other changes.  

 

Background

Minor tracked changes have been made to the following policies and as shown on the attachments, a summary of these changes is included below.

·    Drinking Water Quality

No Changes required

 

·    Rainwater Tank Rebate

Minor changes for spelling and/or grammar, updated process with the introduction of an online form to improve the accessibility and efficiency for customers to apply for the rebate.   Clarify the relevant plumbing standard that the installation will be assessed against.

 

Community Engagement

There is no statutory requirement to publicly exhibit any of the policies contained in this report. Council may choose to do so, should they consider any of the proposed changes to be significant.

 

Policy Implications

All policies included in this report are proposed for reaffirmation as the nature of the changes are considered minor and therefore have no implications or deviation from the intent of the existing approved policy.

 

Financial Implications

 

No financial implications have been identified from the proposed changes.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.113   Notice of Motion - Bay and Basin Revitalisation Workshop

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/60630

 

Submitted by:    Clr Paul Ell

Clr Greg Watson   

This item was deferred from the Ordinary Meeting 21 February 2022.

Purpose / Summary

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

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Organise a “Bay and Basin Revitalisation Workshop” to be facilitated by Mrs Fran Mooney (2022 Shoalhaven Citizen of the year) within one month from the date of adoption of this resolution, The purpose of the workshop is to engage local community organisations and stakeholders to recommend proposals to Council to improve amenities in the Bay and Basin area.

2.    Send invitations to participate in the workshop to the following:

a.    The Mayor,

b.    All Ward 2 and Ward 3 Councillors,

c.    Director City Lifestyles (or nominee); and

d.    Other local individuals, community organisations, CCBs, Businesses Chambers Of Commerce and sporting groups as determined by the CEO in consultation with Fran Mooney.

3.    Directs that the workshop is to address the following matters:

a.    Consultation on the update to the Community Strategic Plan.

b.    Achieving the objectives of the Bay & Basin Community-Led Strategic Plan.

c.    Revitalisation of Frances Ryan Reserve to compliment the delivery of the Bob Proudfoot Pavilion and new library.

d.    Delivery of the planned revitalisation of the Sanctuary Point shops including addressing the appearance of the rear of the shops.

e.    a pump track to be located in the Sanctuary Point area.

f.     Improved active transport infrastructure to facilitate greater connections between Frances Ryan Reserve and Clifton Park.

g.    Improved sporting and other community facilities for local young people.

h.    Improving public transportation between the villages and the broader Shoalhaven.

i.      The application for grants to achieve the community’s goals.

j.      Any other matters that relate to improving amenities and the lifestyle of local residents.

4.    Directs that a report be prepared by the CEO about the outcomes of the workshop which includes options about future workshops on an annual, biannual or quarterly basis.

 

 

Background

There are many dedicated groups and individuals working tirelessly across the Bay and Basin community to improve local amenities and facilities. The community owes so much to organisations such as Sanctuary Point Community Pride for the delivery of projects to improve amenities for local residents. Whether it is the work of the Community Champions or all those involved in the community-led Strategic Plan, there are many projects and priorities the residents of this part of the Shoalhaven want to see progressed.

 

The convening of a workshop is intended to bring the community together to speak with one voice and to give the key stakeholders a seat at the table to work with Council directly. Our 2022 Shoalhaven Citizen of the Year, Fran Mooney, has kindly agreed to facilitate this Workshop if the motion is supported by Councillors.  Fran brings a wealth of experience and insight having worked very hard with other local leaders to promote the interests of the community.

 

Council's work with this community to date should be commended. This initiative builds on the work of Jane Lewis and her team, including Monica Kincade, around building stronger capacity in the community.


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.133   Notice of Motion - Community Engagement in Delivery Program & Operational Plan (DPOP) process

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/84258

 

Submitted by:    Clr Paul Ell   

Purpose / Summary

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

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Create a Delivery Program & Operational Plan (DPOP) input form to provide an opportunity for the community to provide input in to the DPOP process every financial year.

2.    Include the DPOP input form on Council's Get Involved web page.

3.    Send a paper-based form in the rate notices for the 2022/2023 financial year to inform the 2023/2024 DPOP process. This correspondence is also to include an explanation of the DPOP process and the name and contact information of the recognised local Community Consultative Body(s) (CCB) in the area for residents to further engage in the DPOP consultation process.

4.    Directs the CEO to prepare a report about possible incentives Council could provide to encourage residents to share their ideas via the DPOP input form.

 

 

Background

The purpose of this motion is to provide a direct avenue for residents to share their ideas and input into the development of the Delivery Program & Operational Plan (DPOP). Representations from local CCBs indicate that the process of community engagement could be improved, and that Council should consider measures such as this to better engage the community in this very important process.

 

Note by the CEO

Each year during the 28 day exhibition period of the DPOP, Budget and Capital Works program there is opportunity for community members to provide a submission through an online form on Council’s Get Involved website. Stage 2 of the engagement plan will be considered by Council alongside the full suite of documents prior to exhibition. The engagement plan will detail a variety of methods to raise awareness of the plans and facilitate participation in the process.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.134   Notice of Motion - Call in DA21/2033 - 51 Tea Tree Lane, Nowra Hill - Lot 5 DP 1259527

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/71752

 

Submitted by:    Clr Tonia Gray

Clr Matthew Norris   

Purpose / Summary

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

 

Recommendation

That DA21/2033 51 Tea Tree Lane, Nowra Hill - Lot 5 DP 1259527 be called in for determination by Council due to public interest.

 

 

Background

Councillors have received numerous emails about a Development Application 21/2033, 51 Tea Tree Lane, Nowra Hill. This needs to be called in for determination by Council due to public interest. We commend the motion to our colleagues.

 

Additional Information regarding DA

Applicant: Links Nowra Pty Ltd and Precise Planning

Owner: Links Nowra Pty Ltd

Description of Development: Proposed Tourist Facility (50 Units) with ancillary recreational uses.

 

Note by the CEO

Clr Paul Ell subsequently submitted a Notice of Motion to call in DA21/2033 51 Tea Tree Lane, Nowra Hill - Lot 5 DP 1259527 for determination by Council due to public interest.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.135   Notice of Motion - Road Maintenance

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/77366

 

Submitted by:    Clr Tonia Gray

Clr Evan Christen   

Purpose / Summary

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

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Develop a strategic 5-year plan with timelines and required budget to bring 95% of roads in the Shoalhaven up to class or above. Identify the budget gaps between the required budget in the 5-year strategic plan and current budgets. Identify current and future grant and other funding opportunities to fill the budget gaps.

2.    That the current SCC website of roadworks to be upgraded to provide more information regarding the condition and maintenance of roads and bring information about roads into one place. This should include the current status of road repair (interactive map of the state of repair 1-5) and planned road repairs with time frames (taken from DPOP). 

3.    Create a “Report a dangerous pothole or road in need of repair” function at the roads website page for the public to report to council the condition of roads. Encouraging reporting in this way will help council with real time information about the state of roads.

 

 

Background

Councillors have received numerous emails about our roads. Despite the web-based repository to identify areas of critical need via Report a Problem a two-way communication problem still exists with our end-users, the constituents and rate payers.

•        The condition of roads in the Shoalhaven is one of the priority issues to local residents. Recent high rainfall has exacerbated the problems of potholes and water damage.

•        Good road infrastructure is foundational for the economy and safety and wellbeing of residents and visitors.

•        There has been an underfunding of roads maintenance in recent years. Now, about 20% of roads in the Shoalhaven are below a serviceable standard and about another 30% are just above this standard.

•        Council needs to be transparent and communicate with ratepayers about the current situation and what is required to bring all roads up to standard.

•        The development of a clear 5-year strategic plan will enable budget decisions to be made with a full understanding of implications.

We commend the motion to our colleagues.

 

Note by the CEO

Any significant costs associated with the requested website upgrades will be reported to Council in due course for budgetary consideration.


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.136   Notice of Motion - Reaffirmation of the 45 Degree Rule Vegetation Management Policy

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/92160

 

Submitted by:    Clr Greg Watson   

Purpose / Summary

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

 

 

Recommendation

That Council reaffirm its support for the 45 Degree Rule Vegetation Management Policy

 

 

Note by the CEO

Council at its Ordinary Meeting Monday, 21 February 2022 resolved (MIN22.118) in relation to Mayoral Minute - Amendment to Chapter G4 of Shoalhaven's Development Control Plan 2014, to Remove the 45 Degree Rule.

“That this item be deferred to a Councillor briefing for further consideration and discussion.

A date for this briefing is yet to be determined.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.137   Notice of Motion - Preservation of Shoalhaven's Defence Assets and the Employment they Bring to Our City

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/92739

 

Submitted by:    Clr Greg Watson   

Purpose / Summary

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

 

Recommendation

That Council write to the Leader of the Opposition Anthony Albanese MP calling on him to:

1.    Distance Labor from the Federal Greens policy to cut Defence spending by 50%.

2.    Seek his assurance the defence assets in the Shoalhaven area will be retained and enhanced operationally.

 

 

Background

A 50% cut in defence spending which would bring about the almost complete disarmament of Australia. In the present highly uncertain times we live in this would be considered by many an act of incomprehensible sabotage of our ability to preserve our Nation, our way of life, our independence, and our great democracy, which makes us one of the most lucky and freedom loving Country on the planet.

 

Note by the CEO

Clr Watson previously raised a similar Notice of Motion which Council resolved at its Ordinary Meeting 2 November 2021 as follows:

RESOLVED                                                                                                                 MIN21.803

That Council:

1.    Write to the Prime Minister, The Honourable Scott Morrison MP, and the Leader of the Opposition, The Honourable Anthony Albanese MP, outlining the following:

a.    Council strongly reject the recent proposal by the Australian Greens to cut funding to the Australian Defence Force by 50%.

b.    Council outline the significant social and economic contributions made to the Shoalhaven through HMAS Albatross and HMAS Creswell.

c.    Council advise of the devastating effects Defence Force spending cuts could have on local Defence Force members and families, Civilian contractors and employees, local subcontractors and the Shoalhaven economy.

2.    Provide a copy of the letter to Member for Gilmore, Fiona Phillips and seek her urgent support.

 

In response to the above resolution, a letter to the Prime Minister, The Honourable Scott Morrison MP was sent on 30 November 2021.

The letter to The Honourable Anthony Albanese MP was sent on 30 November 2021 and a response was received on 5 January 2022.  The response advised the Australian Defence Force (ADF) enjoys bipartisan support across both major parties of government and that this support should be a cause for celebration, not politicking and reiterated Labor's current Defence commitments.

A letter was sent to the Member for Gilmore, Fiona Phillips on 30 November 2021.

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.138   Notice of Motion - Sussex Inlet Neighbourhood Centre - Investigations

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/94186

 

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:

1.    Expresses its disappointment at the State Government's decision to bulldoze the Sussex Inlet Community Centre (Neighbourhood Centre) and that the occupants, the Sussex Inlet Foundation for Community Development, would have to vacate the premises in 3 months – (May 2022).

2.    Request that an urgent meeting be arranged as soon as possible with NSW Ministry of Health, Shelley Hancock MP, Executive Committee Neighbourhood Centre, the Mayor, Ward 3 Councillors, the CEO and Council Staff to discuss the investigations and outcomes in relation to the current Health site at 161 Jacobs Drive, Sussex Inlet currently occupied by the Sussex Inlet Neighbourhood Centre.

3.    Work with the Neighbourhood Centre Executive Committee in any relocation that maybe required from the existing premises to ensure the community services offered by the Neighbourhood Centre continue for the residents of Sussex Inlet.

 

 

Background

This matter was subject to a Council recommendation in 2020 to investigate Council acquiring at 161 Jacobs Drive Sussex Inlet from the Dept of Health for community purposes.

Sussex Inlet Foundation for Community Development have occupied the building for over 40 years.

It was disappointing for the Neighbourhood Centre to receive news from Shoalhaven Council that Council had been advised by Illawarra Area Health that they were intending to bulldoze the Sussex Inlet Community Centre (Neighbourhood Centre) and the occupants, the Sussex Inlet Foundation for Community Development would have to vacate the premises in 3 months – (May 2022).

This building has been known as the Neighbourhood Centre for over 40 years and has been used to promote health issues for the township of Sussex Inlet, providing a health bus for residents to attend appointments in Nowra, providing a Centrelink office for the unemployed, providing meeting space for various groups including Cancer support, Diabetes Group, AAA, Seniors Craft Group etc.

The Neighbourhood Centre understood the Shoalhaven Council were having discussions with Illawarra Area Health to ensure the resource remained in community hands. The Neighbourhood Centre believe Shoalhaven Council has been caught unaware that the discussions have been called to a halt with Area Health.

Council advised the Neighbourhood Centre by email on Friday 4 February the Foundation would be receiving an official letter regarding this matter approx. 7-11 February from Area Health.

Disappointingly, the Sussex Inlet Community has supported Area Health during the 40-year period. A local benefactor left the Foundation a substantial amount of money in his will to be used to provide health services to the local community. The Foundation used some of these funds to build a community health Centre on the property to run in conjunction with the Neighbourhood Centre conducting health related projects i.e., Health Bus etc. The building on completion was handed over to Illawarra Area Health with the proviso they could remain in the existing building to maintain other health services albeit by a 20-year lease arrangement. This agreement ran out in November 2021.

When the Neighbourhood Executive were unable to continue serious discussions with Illawarra Area Health, although a few visits by staff of Area Health taking photos etc. did have one meeting with a senior staff member where the case was pleaded with the result, they would be talking with Shoalhaven City Council to see if some deal could be made with the handover of the facility.

The Neighbourhood Executive was aware discussions were undertaken during 2021 where council made offers etc., the last one being the block remains one block (not subdivided) and the health Centre be leased back to the Illawarra Area Health leaving the remaining building being used as a community Centre.

The Neighbourhood Centre has contact Shelley Hancock MP also requesting assistance.

There has been no explanation provided to the Executive Committee of the Neighbourhood Centre on any outcomes between Council and NSW Health – they have only been told to leave the building. 

After 40 years of service to the Community I believe they need support from Council, answers to the investigations and assistance with any relocation.

The Neighbourhood Centre offer very valuable services to the residents of Sussex Inlet.  If these services were not provided in Sussex Inlet, residents would need to travel to either Nowra or Ulladulla with no public transport available to them.

I seek support from all Councillors

 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.139   Notice of Motion - Shoalhaven City Council to explore options to access funds from the Emergency Response Fund (ERF) for coastal and estuarine resilience

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/94460

 

Submitted by:    Clr Serena Copley   

Purpose / Summary

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

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Note the Commonwealth Government recently announced $50million from the Emergency Response Fund (ERF) to continue to protect communities from the effects of natural disaster. The new Coastal and Estuarine Risk Mitigation Program is aimed at reducing the often devastating impacts on local communities of natural disasters and coastal hazards, such as storm surges and coastal inundation.

2.    Explore the opportunity to secure funding from the Commonwealth Government from the ERF for coastal and estuarine management in the Shoalhaven by writing to the NSW Government to advocate allocation of available funds on behalf of the Shoalhaven City Council.

3.    Notes that coastal management programs are underway in the North, Mid and Southern Shoalhaven to implement actions to manage coastal waterways, which would be significantly assisted by an increase of available funding.

 

 

Background

The City continues to experience severe weather conditions most recently an East Coast Low that has seen significant inundation and flooding to coastal villages. Shoalhaven Heads and Lake Tabourie have both been mechanically opened to the sea to mitigate flooding and risk to life and property. This is not an isolated incident, and more weather events of this kind are to be expected with issues associated with climate change.

The Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements highlighted the need to mitigate risks to low lying coastal communities. The Coastal and Estuarine Risk Mitigation Program is providing $50 million in funding to state and territory governments to target projects such as grey infrastructure, including seawalls, groynes, storm surge and tidal barrages in estuaries, as well as nature-based solutions, such as protecting coastal wetland ecosystems, to reduce risk of inundation and shoreline erosion. Applications for the program are expected to open in March.



 


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

 

CL22.140   Notice of Motion - Request for a Report on Shoalhaven Heads Coastal Management Program

 

HPERM Ref:       D22/94468

 

Submitted by:    Clr Serena Copley   

Purpose / Summary

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

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.    Prepare a report on the status of Shoalhaven Heads Coastal Management Program (CMP) which includes:

a.    Any studies that have been conducted to date regarding a permanent partial opening of Shoalhaven Heads

b.    Includes a timeline of completion of CMP

c.    Outlines the total funding secured to date from the NSW Coastal Estuary Grants program to assist Council to complete the report.

d.    Any completed investigatory studies that support the permanent partial opening of Shoalhaven Heads

2.    As a matter of urgency convenes a public meeting in Shoalhaven Heads to be Chaired by Clr Copley as Chair of Shoalhaven Heads Estuary Task Force (SHET) to include:

a.    The Member for Kiama,

b.    Director of City Development,

c.    Manager Environmental Services,

d.    Representatives of DPE,

e.    Consultants that have contributed to the CMP to date in order to consult with the Shoalhaven Heads community about the future plan regarding the management of Shoalhaven Heads.

 

 

Background

The Coastal Management Program for Shoalhaven Heads has been in progress for some time, with a range of studies being undertaken. In light of recent events, a report on the progress of the CMP would be of benefit to all stakeholders.

 

   


 

 Ordinary Meeting – Monday 14 March 2022

Page 0

 

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.

(c)     Councils should consider the long term and cumulative effects of actions on future generations.

(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.

(c)   Councils should develop activities, and prioritise actions, to work towards the strategic goals.

(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.



[1] J. Rudolf, 2021, Newplanner, Planning reform – Optimising the planning proposal process. December 2021.