Agenda of Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 6 June 2022

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 06 June 2022

Page 0

CL22.244 DPOP 2021-22 - Quarterly Performance and Budget Report (January - March)

HPERM Ref: D22/227742

Department: Corporate Performance & Reporting

Approver: Kevin Voegt, Director - City Performance

Attachments: 1. Delivery Program Operational Plan - Quarterly Performance Report 2021/22 - January to March (under separate cover) ⇨

2. Quarterly Budget Review Statement - March 2022 (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Capital Project Status Update - April 2022 (under separate cover) ⇨

4. Completed Notices of Motion / Mayoral Minutes report (councillors information folder) ⇨

5. Uncompleted Notices of Motion / Mayoral Minutes report (councillors information folder) ⇨

Reason for Report

This report outlines Quarter 3 performance (January to March 2022) against actions and targets set in Council’s 2021-22 Delivery Program and Operational Plan (DPOP). Also, in accordance with Regulation 203 (1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation (2021), the responsible accounting officer must prepare and submit to Council, a Budget Review Statement after the end of each quarter. This has been carried out for the third quarter of the 2021/22 financial year.

The report also includes a response to the Mayoral Minute 22.5 tabled at the Council Meeting on 28 March 2022, outlining projects which could be postponed diverting funding to urgent road repairs, the budget impact of not applying the Special Rate Variation and administration of natural disaster payments.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Receive the March Quarterly Performance Report on the 2017-2022 Delivery Program and 2021-2022 Operational Plan and publish on Council’s website.

2. Receive the March 2022 Quarterly Budget Review Report.

3. Adopt the budget adjustments as outlined in the March 2022 Quarterly Budget Report Document.

4. Discontinue temporary amendment to the Local Preference Policy that was originally adopted by Council on 11February 2020.

5. Resolve to allocate $2.778M of the General Fund towards the 2021/22 maintenance budget in order for Council to continue repairs post weather event. The funds to be allocated from the capital projects listed in this report with the identified capital projects to be carried-forward in 2022/23 financial year. This approach will warrant that Council’s unrestricted cash position remains unchanged and Council continues to operate within a financially sustainable balanced budget.

6. Notes the impact of not applying the Special Rate Variation on the roads maintenance budget.

7. Notes the Natural Disaster payments that Council qualifies for.

8. Notes that the Natural Disaster that was declared in the 6 March 2022 is still unfolding into Q4, as rain continues to damage public infrastructure and the repair bill estimate currently exceeds $50million.

9. Commends the dedication and commitment of the outdoor workforce who have been working under extremely challenging circumstances to repair roads and other infrastructure, and to maintain service provision during this extended wet period.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation

Implications: Nil.

2. Adopt an alternative recommendation

Implications: Staff will be required to rework the quarterly performance and budget report in accordance with the alternative resolution.

Background

Section 404 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires the General Manager (Chief Executive Officer) to provide progress reports to the Council with respect to the principal activities detailed in the Delivery Program (Operational Plan) at least every 6 months. Furthermore, all councils must continue to consider a Quarterly Budget Review report.

Clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 requires the Responsible Accounting Officer (Chief Financial Officer) to prepare and submit to the Council, a Quarterly Budget Review Statement that shows, by reference, the estimates of income and expenditure set out in the Operational Plan and a revised estimate of the income and expenditure for the full financial year.

The Responsible Accounting Officer is also required to report as to whether they believe the financial position of the Council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure.

The March 2022 Quarterly Budget Review Statement (QBRS) includes an analysis of the year-to-date result and the reasons for the major variances from the previously adopted Budget, by fund and for each Directorate. Any proposed changes to the budget are included in the attached March Quarterly Budget Review Statement.

Summary of DPOP Performance

The following performance has been measured on 31 March 2022 across each of the key themes outlined in the Community Strategic Plan - Shoalhaven 2027.

Theme	Progress snapshot
Resilient, safe, and inclusive communities	88% actions on track or completed
Sustainable, liveable environments	92% actions on track or completed
Prosperous communities	80% actions on track or completed
Responsible governance	91% actions on track or completed

Key Highlights

Council has consistently delivered a range of services, projects and activities which work towards achieving the 10 priority goals outlined in Council’s Delivery Program 2017-22. Performance comments are provided in the report against each of the 157 actions and related targets in Council’s 2021-22 Operational Plan.

The complete DPOP Quarterly Performance Report (January - March) is included as Attachment 1.

Significant achievements between January and March 2022 include:

· Official opening event at Boongaree Nature Play Park hosted in January 2022

· Council’s Glass Recycling Plant awarded the Environmental Enhancement Project at the 2022 Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA) Excellence Awards

· 90% of the public swimming pool inspections have been completed resulting from a tremendous effort by staff following the program being on-hold during COVID-19 restrictions

· Two new Bushcare Group Action Plans have been drafted and distributed to stakeholders for review

· Major waterways improvement projects currently in design include Callala Bay Boat Ramp, Myola Boat Ramp and regional boat ramp design options for Orient Point

· Ulladulla Town Centre DCP Amendment (update) finalised

· Campaigns such as the 100 Beach Challenge, Conscious Traveller, and Visitor Guide helped disperse and educate visitors during summer, whilst the Art and Culture campaign promoted Autumn visitation

· Round two of Event Support Funding went live in January 2022 with twelve tourism events being supported with an estimated return-on-investment equating to $24.8 million

· Shoalhaven's drinking water judged as the best tasting in NSW / ACT at the Water Industry Operators Association of Australia conference

· Shoalhaven confirmed as the cheapest typical residential bill for water supply when compared with all other large water utilities across Australia

· The dedication and commitment of the outdoor workforce who have been working under extremely challenging circumstances to repair roads and other infrastructure, and to maintain service provision during this extended wet period

Behind Schedule or Needs Attention

The following twelve (12) Action items have been reported as behind schedule as at 31 March 2022 and require attention. Full performance comments are in the attached report and remedial actions have been reported to senior management.

Ref.	Action	Quarter 3 Comment (summary) Full comments in attached report
1.1.01.02	Inspect Asset Protection Zones and Fire Trails for compliance against bushfire mitigation guidelines	Council staff have assessed 54 APZ’s this quarter to ensure maintenance obligations are being met on Council land. Staff inspections were prioritised to weather related activities, resulting in only 54% of inspections being achieved against a target of 75%
1.1.06.01	Perform the duties required to ensure the satisfactory operation of On-Site Sewage Management Systems	The program is behind due to only essential inspections being completed while under COVID-19 stay at home orders. COVID-19 had direct impacts on staff leave, grant-funded project demands and on-going wet weather saturating the soil profile and making it difficult to complete an accurate assessment of system performance
1.3.01.01	Undertake scheduled park servicing as listed in the Maintenance Management System	Park maintenance crews have performed extremely well in Q3, considering the weather conditions. The weather has caused localised fast growth; however, the East Coast Low has reduced the areas that can be maintained due to water retention in the soil
2.1.04.01	Provide a safe and efficient active transport network of pathways for cycling, walking and various travel needs	The broader review of the PAMP - Bike Plan strategies is in progress. Additional budget will be required in 2022/23 to complete the review process, and a grant application has been submitted to facilitate this. Once the outcome of the grant application and resourcing needs is determined the broader PAMP – Bike Plan review can be completed (planned for 2022/23)
2.2.02.01	Assess and determine development applications within legislative timeframes and community expectations	The KPI for this quarter is below the target. Continue to improve processing times through recruitment, continual review of the DA assessment process, and working with the Department of Planning and Environment to ensure agency referrals are received in a timely fashion
2.3.03.03	Implement Council's Walking Track Asset Management Plan	Bushwalks AMP 10-Year Action Plan reviewed in February 2022 as part of the Capital Works Budget process. Focus for 2021-22 is now on Bens Walk track condition due to level of risk, popularity of walk and La Nina weather effects over the summer. This work will be costed and scheduled for completion prior to July 2022. Remaining planned bushwalk upgrades will recommence in 2022-23, depending on budget outcomes, resources and weather.
3.1.02.01	Investigate, facilitate and develop economic development and infrastructure projects that meet the objectives of relevant federal and state government grants	Federal announcement of $372M towards Princes Hwy Milton-Ulladulla Bypass announced. Rains during the quarter have seriously affected east / west crossings of Illawarra Escarpment through land slips. Routes through Kangaroo Valley and Macquarie Pass are closed to heavy vehicles and will be for several months. Lobbying is required to State & Federal government agencies to secure funding to make the route based on MR92 suitable for heavy vehicles through Queanbeyan Palerang Regional Council and Goulburn Mulwaree Council up to Higher Mass Limits (HML) standard between Nerriga and Tarago
3.1.05.01	Maintain Holiday Haven Revenue at record 2020-21 level	Due to COVID-19 lockdowns and ongoing flooding, revenue figures are lower than budget target
3.1.06.01	Strategic Planning Works Program to activate and strengthen Shoalhaven's CBD's and town centres	Range of projects underway or progressing. Focus to remain on the Nowra Riverfront Precinct and supporting the Nowra Riverfront Advisory Taskforce. Ulladulla Town Centre DCP Amendment (update) finalised. Work on review of Nowra CBD Building Heights needs renewed focus due to competing priorities
4.1.06.01	Construct Sewer & Water infrastructure to support Moss Vale Road Urban Release Areas	Wastewater construction progress being hampered by weather conditions. Project due for completion in July 2023. Water supply design work at 80% completion and tenders being developed for reservoir and pumping station
4.2.08.01	Provide Corporate Systems transformation through the implementation of TechOne’s OneCouncil System	Customer Request Management is in progress and user testing is scheduled to commence in June 2022. For Development related processes due to be rolled out in City Development, the system is very close to completion. To accommodate Finance staff availability for testing during EOFY and the Financial Statement Audit, the implementation has been rescheduled to October 2022. Other system modules that were due to be implemented after DA’s (i.e., Licenses and Permits, Approvals, Enforcements and Certificates) will be implemented in a phased manner from May through to December 2022.
4.2.10.02	Update the Shoalhaven City Council Property Strategy	It is intended to pursue a new Property Strategy, that takes a different strategic approach and direction to the previous 2016/2017 Property Strategy. Early works continuing ahead of internal dialogue and discussion with Council

On Hold

The following five (5) Action items have been reported as on hold.

Ref.	Action	Quarter 3 Comment (summary) Full comments in attached report
1.1.07.02	Review and update State Emergency Service and Rural Fire Service Building Services Agreements	The relationship with SES is progressing well and key priorities understood. Recent RFS staff movements have prompted re-establishment of the engagement process with RFS representatives, who are encouraged to process all correspondence through one key contact. This has been successful in the past when submitting work requests and managing the budget
1.3.03.03	Review and update the Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan (CISP)	A report recommending the update of the CISP to incorporate legislative changes, changing priorities, and incorporate consultation from various community groups has been prepared for internal review. The format of how the CISP, including the ownership of the document and the agility of the document, will be determined through internal consultation. The timeline for review and delivery of the CISP requires review and will incorporate the Play Space Review
1.3.03.04	Review and update the Play Space Strategy and Renewals Program	The Play Space Strategy will be incorporated into the revised CISP, which is due to be reviewed
4.2.03.02	Review and implement Council’s Media and Social Media Policy	The Executive Management Team endorsed adopting the Office of Local Government’s draft social media model finalised policy. Council is awaiting the OLG’s public consultation on the draft media policy. Once available the Communications and Media team will prepare a report to the EMT and Council for endorsement. This draft is currently on exhibition with OLG.
4.2.06.05	Commence planning for consolidation of Council’s name and address register	Currently on hold pending the identification of name and address data sources and implementation of TechOne / OneCouncil Request Management.

Additional Operational Plan Actions arising from Notices of Motions (NoM’s)

Between 1 July 2021 and 31 March 2022, Council has endorsed 75 Notices of Motion (NoM’s) which can be categorised as follows:

· 55 NoM’s relate to information, donations / community support, maintenance / traffic requests, advocacy or Development Application call-ins and covered in business-as-usual operations.

· 19 NoM’s relate to projects that required additional resources being added to the Operational Plan 2021-22. These Actions can be further categorised into the following areas:

o Infrastructure Upgrades (4)

o Forward Planning (12)

o Land-use (3)

In addition, there are 14 NoM’s remaining from the 170 NoM’s endorsed in 2020-21 which are currently categorised as ‘in progress’.

Funding was allocated to the respective projects during the Quarterly Budget reviews. The full report of Completed and Uncompleted Notices of Motion’s have been attached as Attachment 4 and Attachment 5, respectively.

The progress of capital works was severely impacted by the recent East Coast Low weather pattern, which has brought unprecedented rainfall across all coastal areas in NSW. Due to continuous rainfalls and floods, construction works had to be put on hold, once the weather has improved, Council had to prioritise emergency works to ensure communities can be accessed and resources delivered to those most in need.

To date, Shoalhaven City Council teams have logged 2,600 sites of damage across more than 250 kilometres of roads, making the civil infrastructure damage for this natural disaster larger than that of the Currowan fire in 2019/2020.

March 2022 Quarterly Budget Results Overview

Shoalhaven City Council was severely impacted by the recent East Coast Low weather pattern, which has brought unprecedented rainfall across all coastal areas of NSW making the civil infrastructure damage for this natural disaster exceeding $50M which is larger than that of the Currowan fire in 2019/20.

Council has reprioritised works to ensure communities can be accessed and resources delivered to those most in need. Council is focusing on repairing critical community infrastructure that was damaged as a result of the natural disaster and this change in priorities has a direct impact on allocations of the Council budget.

It is important to note that whilst the majority of costs to rebuild infrastructure will be recovered by Council via NSW Disaster Assistance Arrangements, some of the maintenance expenses, such as employee costs other than overtime, are not eligible for reimbursement from the State and Council will need to fund them from its own budget.

As emergency repairs are taking priority over the planned capital works program, a significant number of capital projects have to be postponed until next financial year with some of the funds to be redirected towards emergency maintenance works. Maintenance budgets for roads, tree management, and open spaces require significant increase so Council can continue with the urgent works. All major March Quarterly Budget Review adjustments that are outlined further in this report are focused on realigning current budget with these new organisational priorities, whilst ensuring that Council remains financially sustainable.

As a result of emergency repairs and historic maintenance budget shortfalls the General Fund operating expenses are 2.4% above the year to date adopted budget ($197M actuals vs. $192M budget, unfavourable) mainly due to an increase in roads maintenance costs ($900K), tree management costs ($735K), parks maintenance costs ($1.6M), public amenity cleaning ($561K) and legal costs and government levies ($533K). The shortfall of $4.3M in operating expenses will be partly addressed by the proposed budget adjustments in this quarter’s review using various funding sources, including, redirecting savings from completed capital projects ($800K) and capital projects that will be carried forward into the next financial year ($2.5M).

Additional information is included later in this report in response to the Mayoral Minute (22.5) on the projects that could be postponed in order to fund urgent road repairs post the East Coast Low weather event.

The General Fund revenue is currently 1.4% behind year to date adopted budget. As reported in the previous Budget Quarterly Review report, community facilities and tourist parks were closed due to lockdown and no revenue budget adjustments were proposed in the December quarterly review as it was expected that Council will recoup some of the lost income in the next quarter. Based on the March budget results, out of the $4.2M revenue loss reported in December, Council will recoup $600K, and the remaining shortfall of $3.6M will be partially ($2.8M) addressed in this budget review through deferring capital projects ($2.4M) and operational expenditure savings. The COVID subsidy for development applications has affected the budget with a shortfall in income of $802K. As reported in the monthly investment reports, the interest earned is below budget due to the slower than expected recovery of the interest rates and the volatility of the long-term growth fund. The long-term growth fund has more exposure to the international markets where there is a number of escalating risks, all manifesting at once. The fund is expected to return an average of 6.0% per annum over a seven-year cycle, the current capital reduction is expected to be made up in the future.

Water and Sewer funds budget results are close to the budget forecast with the revenue and operating expenses slightly exceeding budget.

The March budget results indicate that the Council is in a strong budget position and remains financially sustainable with an acceptable level of working capital and a sufficient level of unrestricted cash.

The working capital position of the General Fund as at 31 March 2022, is 25% of the current liabilities above the benchmark of 10%:

Description		($‘000)
Add	Current Asset	138,598
Less	Current Liabilities	53,592
Calc	Net Current Asset	85,006
Less	External restrictions	68,046
Less	Internal restrictions	24,983
Add	Provisions (Liabilities not expected to settle in 12 months)	21,663
Calc	Available working capital	13,640
Calc	Working Capital as a % of Current Liabilities	25%

Management continues to monitor the working capital position of the Council and continues to report on the key liquidity indicators to the Council on a monthly basis.

Financial Impact of COVID-19

To assist residents during the unprecedented times of the COVID-19 pandemic and as well as supporting the recovery of the region, Council has endorsed an extensive Financial Relief Package. The financial impact of various financial assistance measures and impact of COVID-19 restrictions on the year-to-date budget results is summarised below:

($‘000) Unfav/(Fav)	*YTD December	YTD March
DA fees waived	528	802
Rent reduction – full year impact	156	156
S7.11 subsidy	572	943
S64 subsidy	435	608
Total impact of Council COVID-19 Assistance Policies	1,691	2,509
Holiday Haven income reduction	3,188	2,200
Holiday Haven expenditure reduction	(1,110)	0
Swim Sport and Fitness income reduction	718	670
Swim Sport and Fitness expenditure reduction	(231)	0
Entertainment Centre income reduction	474	1,000
Entertainment Centre expenditure reduction	(172)	(583)
Total impact of COVID-19 Restrictions above	2,866	3,287
Grand Total (net loss)	4,557	5,623

*As reported to Council in December Budget QR.

General Fund Budget and Quarterly Review Movements

The net operating result before capital grants and contributions of the General Fund as at 31 March 2022 Quarterly Budget Review, was a surplus of $15.6M, a $6.4M unfavourable variance to the budgeted $22M. This unfavourable variance is largely driven by the loss of tourist park revenue as a result of COVID-19 and additional emergency maintenance works. It is important to note that the March Quarterly Budget adjustments will address the majority of the unfavourable budget variations.

The unrestricted cash balance movement was $2.3M less than the budgeted amount of $1.4M (unfavourable). The primary reason for this unfavourable movement is lower than anticipated cash inflow from Tourist Parks, Swim Sport & Fitness and the Entertainment Centre in the first half of the financial year.

The following table presents a high-level summary of the budget and movements for the General Fund for 2021/22:

Favourable / (unfavourable) ($'000)	Current Adopted Budget	March QR Adjustments	March QR Revised Budget	YTD Adopted Budget	YTD Actuals
Net Operating Result	79,880	942	80,822	40,836	39,433
Net Operating Result before Capital Grants & Contributions	(8,648)	(5,056)	(13,704)	21,981	15,588
Net Cash & Investments Movement	(35,897)	22,530	(13,367)	(56,980)	(26,907)
Unrestricted Cash Movement	(213)	(0)	(213)	1,416	(929)

The main contributing factor for the change to the operating result before capital grants and contributions is a reduction in Tourist Parks revenue ($2.4M unfavourable), Entertainment Centre revenue ($973K unfavourable) and Swim Sport & Fitness revenue ($670K unfavourable) which was partially offset by $1.5M increase in Waste revenue.

In addition, proposed budget adjustments increase operating expenses by $2.8M which includes increase in internal expenses of $2.7M (unfavourable).

Capital grants and contributions budget is proposed to be increased by $6M (favourable) to reflect $16M of capital grants for the Far North Collector Road expected to be received in June 2022. This favourable adjustment was partially offset by removal of $3.2M grant budget for Shoalhaven Community and Recreational Precinct (SCARP) which will be now paid directly to Public Works Advisory and rephasing some other grants into next financial year due to timing of grant payments.

It is important to note that proposed budget adjustments have NIL on unrestricted cash movement which demonstrates that Council continues to manage its budget effectively despite having to address budget shortfalls caused by the unforeseen circumstances such as COVID-19 lockdowns and natural disasters.

For a detailed list of budget variations and proposed budget adjustments please refer to Attachment 2 – Quarterly Budget Review Statement – March 2022.

Capital Projects Progress Overview

Attachment 3 provides a detailed update as at 30 April 2022 on the progress of 106 major capital projects with the annual budget allocation of over $400K for each project (total budget of $154M) which represents 74% of the adjusted annual capital budget of $207M.

As at 30 April 2022, 79 projects remain on track, 10 completed, 9 are under close monitoring and 8 were flagged as on hold due to pending approvals from other government bodies (e.g., Bolong Road) and other external factors.

Water Fund Budget and Quarterly Review Movements

The net operating result before capital revenue of the Water Fund is a $738K deficit when compared to the year to date forecasted deficit of $444K. The primary reason for this unfavourable variance is largely due to reduced Water Usage revenue caused by the excessive rain experienced over the last few months.

The net cash and investments movement has improved compared to the adopted budget. All cash held by the water fund is restricted.

($'000)	Current Adopted Budget	March	March QR Revised Budget	YTD Adopted Budget	YTD Actuals
($'000)	Current Adopted Budget	QR Adjustments	March QR Revised Budget	YTD Adopted Budget	YTD Actuals
Net Operating Result	3,891	(3,974)	(83)	2,188	1,525
Net Operating Result before Capital Grants & Contributions	(904)	(1,713)	(2,617)	444	(368)
Net Cash Movement	(12,234)	11,226	(1,008)	(8,637)	1,646

Sewer Fund Budget and Quarterly Review Movements

The net operating result before capital revenue of the Sewer Fund is a surplus of $8.1M when compared to the year to date forecasted surplus of $6.4M. The primary reason for this favourable variance is the reduced expenditure on materials and services due to wet weather hampering maintenance works.

The net cash and investment movement has improved compared to the adopted budget.

($'000)	Current Adopted Budget	March	March QR Revised Budget	YTD Adopted Budget	YTD Actuals
($'000)	Current Adopted Budget	QR Adjustments	March QR Revised Budget	YTD Adopted Budget	YTD Actuals
Net Operating Result	11,257	1,406	12,663	8,839	10,498
Net Operating Result before Capital Grants & Contributions	8,459	1,406	9,865	6,443	8,103
Net Cash Movement	(30,504)	16,856	(13,649)	(15,989)	(6,392)

Temporary Amendment to the Local Preference Policy

The Local Preference Policy was adopted by Council on 25 August 2009 and reaffirmed on 26 July 2011 and 15 August 2017.

The purpose of the Local Preference Policy was to support the Shoalhaven Local Government Area’s (LGA) economic development by giving preference to local suppliers, whilst ensuring that Council achieves the best overall value-for-money in its procurement of goods and services.

With this policy, Council assessed local supplier response as if their total net cost bid was reduced by 5% with the discount capped to a maximum of $15,000.

At the Strategy and Assets Committee meeting on 11February 2020, Council resolved to immediately amend the Local Preference Policy providing up to 50% weighting preferences to businesses located in the Shoalhaven, for a period of 12 months, after which an evaluation would be undertaken. The purpose of this temporary amendment was to provide economic stimulus to the businesses within the Shoalhaven LGA in response to the 2019/2020 bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the Ordinary Council meeting held on 23 March 2021 it was resolved to extend the temporary policy to 30 June 2021. It was further extended until 31 March 2022 at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 31 August 2021.

It is noted that over this period there was a reduction in the number of suppliers submitting tenders and an increase in the pricing. For example, some large tender packages received only 2 to 3 submissions, whilst previously we would expect 6 to 8 submissions.

As our community and businesses continue recovering from bushfires and COVID-19 and considering financial impact of the amendment on Council’s budget, it is recommended for Council to discontinue the temporary amendment to the Local Preference Policy.

Mayoral Minute (22.5) response - Projects that could be diverted into urgent Road Repairs

The following information is included in response to the following Mayoral Minute 22.5 tabled at the Council Meeting on 28 March 2022:

1. Any projects that are not tied to grant funding that could be postponed in order to divert further funding into urgent road repairs post weather event.

a. The report should also include details of:

i. The impact of not applying the Special Rate Variation, and how this will affect the budget overall and specifically the roads budget

ii. The compounding impact should Council continue to keep rates below what is required to meet the demands in service

2. Any Natural Disaster payments that Council qualifies for, what is included, and how will they be administered following the State Government’s Natural Disaster declaration of the Shoalhaven LGA.

Capital Projects in 2021/22 Budget

Shoalhaven City Council was severely impacted by the recent East Coast Low weather pattern, which brought unprecedented rainfall across all coastal areas of NSW, causing civil infrastructure damage to exceed $50M. As requested, Council staff have reviewed the current capital works program to identify capital projects funded from the General Fund that could be postponed, to divert further funding into urgent road repairs post the recent weather event.

The list below includes committed and uncommitted projects that will need to be deferred until the next financial year. Council will not be able to deliver the following projects this financial year due to weather conditions that caused significant delays in construction schedules. A key priority for Council is repairing critical community infrastructure, restoring access and allowing resources to be delivered to those most in need.

It is proposed to allocate $2.778M of the General Fund towards 2021/22 maintenance budget for Council to continue repairs post the weather event. The funds to be allocated are from the following capital projects that were completed or are to be carried-forward into the 2022/23 financial year. This approach will warrant that Council’s unrestricted cash position remains unchanged and Council continues to operate within a financially sustainable balanced budget.

Program	Project	Budget ($’000)
Projects commenced and to be carried-forward and funded from general roads allocation for 2022/23
Depot Improvements	Depot - Council Wash Bay Sewer Connection Urban Upgrade / New	27,786
Depot Improvements	Erina Road, Woollamia - Office Extension Woollamia	225,000
Coastal Programme	Coastal - Foreshore Disabled Access Improvements Upgrade / New	43,000
Waterways Infrastructure	Bendalong & Kioloa – Fishing Access Improvements	10,000
Waterways Infrastructure	Bangalee Wharf Stair Renewal	30,000
Waterways Infrastructure	Ulladulla Harbour Asset Renewals	275,000
Waterways Infrastructure	Myola – Catherine Street – Renewal – Boat Launching Ramp & Pontoon	98,750
Waterways Infrastructure	Callala Bay - Widen Boat Ramp and new walkway - Lackersteen Street	90,250
Natural Areas Infrastructure	Natural Areas - Strategic & Tactical Fire Trail Upgrade	54,000
Roads Strategy Projects	Nebraska Estate Road Construction	12,853
Pathways	Pedestrian Facilities - CPTIGS - Accessible PT 2019-21 Bus Infrastructure	80,000
Pathways	Nowra - Kalandar Street - Shared User Path - Highway to Kinghorne Street	10,000
Pathways	Vincentia Safety Improvements	110,000
Roads to Recovery Program	Culburra - Culburra Road (R2R) - CH 1.760 to 2.700km	266,600
Regional, Sub-Arterial and Industrial	St Vincent Street - Roads Strategy CP05ROAD4008 Urban New	43,792
Local Road Repair Program	Worrigee - Worrigee Road - Fixing Local Roads Program	444,000
Projects NOT commenced and to be carried-forward and funded from general allocation for 2022/23
Coastal Programme	Shoalhaven Heads Viewing Platform	26,250
Waterways Infrastructure	Waterways - Fishing Cleaning Facilities Renewal	10,000
Waterways Infrastructure	Shoalhaven Levee Restoration Works	20,000
Drainage	Millards Creek / Ulladulla Harbour - Drainage GPT Water Quality Urban Renewal	50,000
Drainage	Cornfields / Anglers Parade - Drainage Urban Upgrade	18,000
Drainage	Nowra - Hyam Street - marshland water quality assessment	10,182
Drainage	Prince Edward Avenue - Drainage Skate Park Water Quality Urban Upgrade / New	8,000
Drainage	Croobyar Road - Drainage CH0.96 Culvert Widen Urban Upgrade / New	10,000
Bridge Program	Hillcrest Avenue, South Nowra – Bridge Repairs	12,807
Public Carpark Construction	Sussex Inlet - Sussex Road - Boat ramp car park renewal	40,000
Kerb & Guttering Programme	Lockhart Avenue, Mollymook Beach – Kerb & Gutter Replacement	6,400
Kerb & Guttering Programme	Seaview Street, Mollymook – Kerb & Gutter Replacement	24,000
Pathways	Princes Highway South Street Ulladulla Pedestrian	144,785
Urban Roads	Local Road Repair Program (LRRP)	171,500
Urban Roads	Old Southern Road - LRRP Browns Road/ Twin Waters Southern Urban Renewal	98,000
Urban Roads	Pengana Crescent – Kerb & Gutter Urban Renewal	10,400
Urban Roads	Surfers Avenue – Kerb & Gutter Urban Renewal	25,800
Completed Projects with the Budget Savings
Drainage	Lake Conjola Entrance Road - Culvert Upgrade	367
Drainage	Curtis Street / Village Drive - Ulladulla - Drainage	909
Drainage	Bowen / Sydney Street Drainage (S7.11)	22,021
Bridges	Tumblebar Creek Bridge Replacement	247,471
R2R	Orient Point Road, Culburra Beach - Road Rehabilitation (Design & Construction)	14
Drainage	Lake Conjola Entrance Road - Culvert Upgrade	367
Total		2,778,304

It is important to note that the projects listed above (apart from the completed projects that have budget savings) will be carried-forward into 2022/23 and will be funded next year from the general capital works allocation for roads and bridges listed below as contained in the draft 2022/23 Budget currently on exhibition.

Project Description	Source	2022/23 $
Local Road Repair Program	SRV/GF	834,425
SRV Resurfacing	SRV	1,318,368
Bridge Program Various Bridge Concrete Culverts	GF	80,000
Local Road Repair Program - Resurface	GF	610,600
Steel arch refurbishment - Various Locations Upgrade	GF	250,000
Total allocated in 2022/23 for the general program of works		3,093,393

It is important to note that in the absence of any further identified funding source, projects that were planned to be delivered in 2022/23 from the above listing funding sources will be further deferred and re-prioritised in future years capital works programs.

Impact of not applying the Special Rate Variation and how this will affect the budget overall and specifically the roads budget

Shoalhaven City Council has an approved Special Rate Variation (SRV) that was not taken up in the 2020/21 and 2021/22 financial years and can apply S511 of the Local Government Act to catch up on the shortfall in the 2022/23 financial year. The Special Rates Variation, if taken up in 2022/23, will generate an additional $2.4M of revenue.

While Council has an opportunity to catch up on the SRV in future years, the revenue that could have been collected in previous years cannot be recouped along with the compounding impact of the rate peg.

As outlined in the Draft 2022/23 Budget, this additional revenue will be fully utilised in the infrastructure maintenance areas.

Whilst $2.4M will not suffice to address the infrastructure renewal / backlog funding shortfall, this permanent increase in the roads and buildings budgets will significantly reduce the funding gap. Along with building a strong foundation for developing future budget strategies, focused on the continued improvement of the condition of assets.

Conversely, not taking up the SRV in the 2022/23 financial year will result in further deterioration of roads and other assets, as no alternative source of revenue is available to fund the renewal or maintenance budget. This will result in a further increase of infrastructure backlog and deterioration of infrastructure assets.

The compounding impact of not taking up the SRV are:

· The budget is reduced by $2.4M of additional maintenance budget

· Council had an option to take up the SRV in the 2020/21 and 2021/22 financial years, however, resolved to apply the rate peg only. As a result, the Council’s maintenance budget, primarily for roads, was reduced by $4.8M in total as at 30 June 2022

Financial Year	SRV Base ($’000)	Rate Peg	Revenue Lost (SRV base x Rate Peg) ($’000)
2020/21	2,384		2,384
2021/22	2,441	2.0%	2,432
Total Revenue Foregone as at 30 June 2022			4,816

· If Council does not take up the SRV in 2022/23, this amount will increase to $7.3M in total

Financial Year	SRV Base ($’000)	Rate Peg	Revenue Lost (SRV base x Rate Peg) ($’000)
2020/21	2,384		2,384
2021/22	2,441	2.0%	2,432
2022/23	2,490	1.7%	2,473
Total Revenue Lost as at 30 June 2023			7,289

Available Natural Disaster Payments to Council

In March 2022 Shoalhaven City Council received an upfront payment of $1M under the Local Government Recovery Grants program.

The grant was provided to Council as financial assistance towards supporting restoration and recovery projects that best meet the needs of the community following the March 2022 severe weather event and the ensuing “rain bombs” that lasted for another three weeks. Of the $1M of grant funding, $900,000 has been allocated to fund emergency and immediate reconstruction works, and $100,000 targeted for a specific Kangaroo Valley Business Recovery Plan. This grant program is administered by the Office of Local Government and expenditure is required to be completed by 30 June 2024.

The other payments that Council receives following the declaration of a natural disaster in the LGA are from the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements (DRFA).

The main category that Council claims under this program is Category B, which aids Local Governments for the restoration of essential public assets. These payments are administered by the Public Works Authority / Environmental Protection Authority and Transport for New South Wales on behalf of the Federal Government.

Council is required to submit a claim for each individual piece of infrastructure that is damaged, which is then reviewed by the administrating authority and either approved or an agreed modification. Council can then undertake the works up to the agreed approval value. Council has up to two years to claim for these works.

Conclusion

This financial year has seen some extraordinary events that have heavily impacted on Council’s budget. In the December quarterly budget review, the impact of COVID and continued wet weather on the closure and low occupancy of Council’s tourist parks and facilities was reported to have an impact on income of $4.2M with some potential expenditure offsets of $1.3M.

Following the December quarterly review there has been unprecedented rainfall causing a strain on roads, parks and tree maintenance of $3M. The March quarterly review has identified $4.9M in deferred capital works, $800K in capital works savings and $300K in operational savings to fund this additional cost or revenue shortfall.

As at this review, there remains and estimated $2.2M in income shortfalls/cost overruns yet to be offset. This shortfall is still under review and will be reported on further at the June quarterly review.

Communication Strategy

Subject to Council’s endorsement, the Quarterly Performance report will be made available on Council’s website. A range of other communication methods may also be used to communicate the outcomes of the report including performance highlights across Council’s social media platforms.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 06 June 2022

Page 0

CL22.245 Post Exhibition – Finalisation of Amendment to Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2019 – Huntingdale Park Reserve, Berry (CP2019.4)

HPERM Ref: D22/168090

Department: Strategic Planning

Approver: Carey McIntyre, Director - City Futures

Attachments: 1. Concept Plan Local Park Huntingdale Reserve Post Exhibition ⇩

2. Summary of Submissions - Huntingdale Park Reserve ⇩

3. Supporting Information - CP Amendment No.4 ⇩

Reason for Report

The reason for this report is to seek the endorsement of the Council to finalise Amendment No.4 to the Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2019 that will provide funding for embellishment of a Local Park at Huntingdale Park Reserve in Berry Project (01OREC0009). The results of the public exhibition of the draft amendment and concept plan are discussed in the report.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Endorse and make Amendment No.4 to the Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2019 as exhibited, with the changes highlighted in blue at Attachment 3.

2. Continue to work with local community stakeholders during the detailed design phase for the local park and consider the suggestions of the Huntingdale Park Resident Action Group, including exploring additional funding sources for any general cost items that are unable to be funded via developer contributions.

3. Continue to explore opportunities for bus routes and bus infrastructure to service Huntingdale Park Estate as the area grows and investigate alternate funding opportunities such as grants.

4. Notify those who made a submission of this resolution and when the Amendment comes into effect.

Options

1. Endorse and make Amendment No.4 to the Shoalhaven Contributions Plan (CP) 2019 Project 01OREC0009.

Implications: This option is recommended. The amendment will allow collected infrastructure contributions levies to be spent on embellishment of local open space at Huntingdale Park Reserve. It would also allow for the collection of additional levies from new development in the area and the detailed design and delivery phase to commence in a timely manner, in consultation with the local community.

2. Defer endorsement of Amendment No.4 to the Shoalhaven CP 2019 – Project 01OREC0009.

Implications: Deferring the amendment could provide opportunities for further refinement of the local park concept plan; however, this does present an element of risk. Delays in amending the CP could lead to infrastructure contributions funds being unable to legally be spent on local park embellishments (passive open space projects) due to impending state government reforms.

3. Do not proceed with Amendment No.4 to the Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2019 – Project 01OREC0009.

Implications: This would result in no funding for embellishment of the Huntingdale Park Reserve open space. Ultimately, as the land has already been dedicated for the park purpose, if the amendment does not proceed, the project would need to be deleted from the CP at some point in the future. Collected infrastructure contributions funds would be distributed elsewhere within Planning Area 1, which would not be considered a good outcome for the Berry community.

Background

The Shoalhaven Contributions Plan (CP) 2019 helps fund local infrastructure to support a growing population. Infrastructure contributions levies are payments made by developers and landowners to help deliver development-contingent infrastructure.

Amendment No.4 to the CP seeks to amend Project 01OREC0009 (to become 01OREC5009) to use funds historically collected for the acquisition of the Park, which has since been dedicated, for improvements to the Huntingdale Park Reserve instead to provide local park facilities. The amendment also seeks to extend and refine the benefit area of this project to ensure new development in the area (including new residential zoned land south of Hitchcocks Lane) contributes funds to the project.

Lots 5 and 7 DP 1115338 (64 and 44 Schofields Lane) have been removed from the benefiting area as these properties are zoned for rural purposes, are not part of the Berry Growth Area and will not directly benefit from the park infrastructure. In this sense, there is no nexus.

The park will be located on land owned by Council between Huntingdale Park Road and Hitchcocks Lane, Berry. This land is currently known as Huntingdale Park Reserve and is legally described as Part Lot 914 DP 1268409 and Lot 8 DP 1188080.

Council resolved on 7 February 2022 (MIN22.93) to:

1. Endorse the Draft Concept Plan for the passive open space area between Huntingdale Park Road and Hitchcocks Lane, Berry and the associated Amendment to the Shoalhaven Contributions Plan (CP) 2019.

2. Publicly exhibit the draft Concept Plan and CP Amendment for a period of 28 days.

3. Advise key stakeholders, including affected and adjoining landowners, the Berry Forum and Huntingdale Park Resident Action Group, of this decision and the public exhibition arrangements.

4. Post-exhibition, receive a report considering any submissions received, as well as a final Concept Plan and CP Amendment for finalisation.

5. Consider an option to build a pull-in bus bay in any future planning and project design.

6. Consider funding options for the project design and construction costs including any grant funding opportunities.

The CP amendment is supported by a concept plan for the local park (Attachment 1). This proposed amendment funds $1.5 million of improvements to the passive recreation area on Huntingdale Park Road at Berry, to upgrade it to ‘Local Park’ service level. The draft Concept Plan was informed by community feedback received during the public exhibition of the Hitchcocks Lane Planning Proposal (rezoning of land) in October 2020 – January 2021.

Upon amendment of the CP Plan, the project will move to the detailed design phase, and then staged delivery. The attached Plan provides high-level concept only and will be further refined through the detailed design phase.

Parts 5 and 6 of the 7 February 2022 (MIN22.93) resolution relate to investigations for a bus pull-in bay and bus shelter near the park area, to improve public transport functionality in the Huntingdale Park Estate, in response to community requests. These investigations are continuing, and any potential future design or works will consider integration with the local park.

No changes to the proposed concept plan have been made at this time to incorporate bus facilities as the contributions funds collected for the local park, as a passive open space project, cannot be spent on unrelated infrastructure, for example any external road redesign (catering for the wider Estate) or public transport facilities. These general costs are required to be funded using other means, and opportunities such as grant funding will continue to be explored.

Community Engagement

The CP amendment and accompanying draft Concept Plan for the local park was publicly exhibited for 28 days between 14 March to 11 April 2022.

All landowners within the current and proposed Contributions (Benefit) Area were notified of the proposed CP amendment via letter (i.e., all landowners within Huntingdale Park Estate and residential area south of Hitchcocks Lane). A public notice was also published on Council’s website and ‘Get Involved’ platform, and the Berry Forum CCB, Huntingdale Park Resident Action Group (HPRAG) and Nowra Local Aboriginal Land Council were notified via email.

Three submissions were received during the exhibition period. Two of the submissions were from the HPRAG and one from a local household. The submissions broadly supported the local park and included various requests for changes to the local park concept plan. These requests are addressed in the submission summary at Attachment 2 and will be considered further during the detailed design phase of the project.

One submission objected to the location of the proposed bus bay. As previously noted, bus infrastructure will not be funded via this project (and cannot be paid for using this funding stream) and will therefore be subject to a separate planning process/consideration.

Suggested post exhibition changes resulting from submissions and minor administrative changes are shown in blue at Attachment 3.

Policy Implications

As an existing passive recreation project within the CP, funds collected for this project can only be spent on recreational items where demand has been directly generated by new development. Any contributions levied applied must also be reasonable. This means that any additional embellishments relating to general costs or unrelated works need alternate funding sources.

State-wide principles for contributions plans require any general costs to be funded via means other than contributions charges. General costs are defined as costs that arise due to demographic changes, higher environmental standards, or community preferences for higher service levels.

In summary, this project seeks to charge reasonable development contributions levies upon new development to fund a local park to meet community needs. Service levels for local parks are defined within the Shoalhaven Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan (CISP) 2018.

Any community preference for higher service levels (beyond Local Park service levels) and any additions that emerge during the detailed design phase will need to be funded via alternative means as additional development contributions will not be able to be levied. Changes to the concept plan remain possible during the detailed design phase (e.g., reprioritisation of elements, budget savings through grants etc.), and will be worked through in consultation with the community.

Financial Implications

The draft Concept Plan for the park was costed at $1,521,332. Contributions already collected from Huntingdale Park Estate development for this project amount to $1,240,750. The remaining cost (balance) to deliver the project is estimated at $280,581.38 and this is to be levied on future eligible development.

Future development is estimated at 157 ETs (equivalent tenements i.e., households) and a contribution rate of $1,787.14 per ET is proposed for future development. These levies will be indexed at the time of payment in accordance with CPI.

With limited amounts of funding available, prioritisation of facilities is required. There are a limited range of mechanisms available to Council to fund and deliver community infrastructure. Therefore, any additional items that add to the overall cost of the project will need to be funded through alternative means which may have budget implications for Council. These additional costs will need to be considered and weighed up during the detailed design phase of the project in consultation with the community.

Risk Implications

The key risk facing this project is that any delay in the amendment of the Contributions Plan could result in development contributions funding for the project essentially being lost (needing to be redistributed elsewhere), due to draft NSW Government’s Infrastructure Contributions Reforms. Many of the proposed types of embellishments are not included in the “Essential Works List’ prepared by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART). In future, it is expected that only base level (‘essential’) embellishment for parks will be able to be provided using infrastructure contributions funds.

It is important to note this project is existing within the Contributions Plan, and the majority of the funds have already been collected, with the amendment necessary to enable spending of these funds on park improvements to meet the needs of this growing community.

There is uncertainty at this stage as to when the Essential Works List Criteria will be applied to contributions plans, post NSW Government Reforms (or if it will be applied at all). It is expected that should the project amendment be finalised in the current financial year (i.e., by July 2022), then the risk of the project being affected by reforms is minimised. Any changes to the Concept Plan (as requested by the community during the public exhibition) can be further explored after the crucial step of amending the Contributions Plan to secure the development contributions funding.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 06 June 2022

Page 0

CL22.247 Progress Update - Infrastructure Recovery Works - Natural Disaster March 2022

HPERM Ref: D22/225969

Department: Works & Services

Approver: Paul Keech, Director - City Services

Reason for Report

To provide Council with an update on the progress of infrastructure recovery works as a result of the severe weather event across March and April 2022 in the Shoalhaven LGA.

Recommendation

That Council receive this update on the progress of infrastructure recovery works which are required as a result of the March 2022 Natural Disaster Event.

Options

Nil

Background

Since the 2019/20 Bush Fire crisis, the worst in NSW history, there has been eight significant natural disaster events that have impacted the Shoalhaven. The latest of these being the - March 2022 East Coast Low which caused extensive damage by way of major landslips, pavement failures, bridge and causeway damage. The following summarise the extent of the of this damage to date:

· A total of 962 records of damages received to date which is made up of:

§ 350 Emergency Works projects

§ 501 Immediate Reconstruction Works projects

§ 111 Essential Public Reconstruction Works projects

· 14 sites having specific funding approved to the total value of $875K

· 14 Geotechnical reports have been completed.

The definition of each work category above is as follows.

Emergency Works

Urgent activities necessary following an eligible disaster to temporarily restore an essential public asset to enable it to operate at an acceptable level of efficiency to support the immediate recovery of the community.

Intermediate Reconstruction Works

Immediate reconstruction activities following an eligible disaster to fully reconstruct a damaged essential public asset, and where no Essential Public Asset Reconstruction Works are required.

Essential Public Asset Reconstruction Works

Reconstruction works of an essential public asset directly damaged by an eligible disaster for which an estimated reconstruction cost has been developed.

The timeframe of each work category is as follows:

Table

Description automatically generated

A Natural Disaster Project Team has been formed and is in the Nowra CBD in a vacant Council property in Schofields Lane. A summary of the team formation is as follows.

· Senior Project Manager – recruited

· Business Support Officer – recruited

· Administrative Assistant – recruited

· 2 x Project Managers – interviews completed and offers made – staff will be in place by end of June 2022

· 2 x Surveillance Officers – interviews completed & background checks in progress – staff will be in place by end of June 2022

To date some projects have been completed. A more comprehensive list will accompany future progress reports however it’s worth noting that examples of our completed works to date include -

· Monkey Mountain – landslip repairs

· Upper Kangaroo River Road – Stage 1 interim repair to landslip

· Burrier Road – landslip repairs

· Kangaroo Valley Road – land slip clean-ups / repairs to road pavement

· Foremans Rd – pavement works at landslip to provide access for residents

· Mt Scanzi Road – clean-up of landslips

· Bunkers Hill Road – landslip repairs

· Martin Vale Lane – culvert replacement to provide access to residents

· Budgong Road – make safe works including resheeting of road

· Pestells Lane – road pavement works

· Devitts Lane - road pavement repairs

· Green Valley Road – make safe works

· Duffy’s Lane – road pavement repairs

· Corks Lane - heavy patching works

· Old Coach Rd – landslip repairs

· Lake Conjola – road pavement works

· Interim design solution for Wattamolla Road Major Landslip

· Tilbrook Av, St Georges Basin – Pavement Repair

· Greenwell Point Road– Pavement Repair

· Cabbage Tree Lane – Pavement Repair

· Callala Beach Road – Pavement Repair

· Evelyn Rd– Pavement Repair

· The Wool Rd– Pavement Repair

· Dowling St– Pavement Repair

· Roper St– Pavement Repair

· Murray St– Pavement Repair

· Woodstock Rd – Pavement Repair

· Lake Conjola Rd– Pavement Repair

· Sussex Inlet Rd – Pavement Repair

· Cammaray Dr Inlet Rd – Pavement Repair

· Albion St – Pavement Repair

· Woodhill Mountain Rd -Pavement Repair

The total damage bill is likely to exceed $50 million. Expenditure and funding to date can be summarised as follows.

Expenditure

District	Emergency Works	Immediate Restoration	Repair of Public Assets
Basin	$327,124	$8,111	Landslips $20,643
Central	$394,803	$19,651
North	$1,198,915	$660
South	$201,978	$18,993
TOTALS	$2,122,820	$47,415	$20,643

Funding

Funding Value	Month Paid	Distribution
$1,000,000	Mar-22	$100,000 – Kangaroo Valley Business Recovery Plan $900,000 – Cover funding deficits for emergency and immediate reconstruction works
$5,000,000	Jun-22	Pre-funding of first $5M of upcoming claims - to be lodged monthly
$6,000,000

With so many people and places affected a prioritisation tool has been developed to help rationally prioritise efforts. The prioritisation is determined via the heat map scoring process whereby;

“Severity + Impact = Priority Score”

Severity
	(5) Critical – road closed or single lane traffic / risk of people not having access to emergency services (e.g. hospitals)
	(4) High – road closes after short rain events / damages add risk to damage to vehicles or people / risk of people having to make long detours to have access to emergency services
	(3) Moderate – damages require slowing of traffic / damages add risk of traffic accidents due to slowing or swerving around damages
	(2) Low – damages unlikely cause harm or injury / damages could deteriorate over time if not addressed
	(1) Super Low – damages unlikely cause harm or injury / damages unlikely to deteriorate
Impact
	(5) Critical – one or more entire communities impacted
	(4) High – one or more suburbs impacted
	(3) Moderate – one or more roads impacted
	(2) Low – one or more residents impacted
	(1) Super Low – inconvenience only

This process is still a work in progress, and it is planned to publish this “Heat Map” as soon as possible. So far 57 sites have scored 5 or above and are considered the highest priority for action. In most cases this means “interim works” will be undertaken to reduce the severity whilst permanent works are determined and planned.

Note: As the Severity score comes down due to interim works this tool may require a redefinition of Severity in six months’ time.

Three Week Forward Works Program

· Works to commence on Wattamolla Road Major Landslide (interim solution to provide a 10 tonne load limited one lane access)

· Works to commence on Woodhill Mountain Road Pavement repairs.

· Works to commence on The Wool Road Pavement repair.

· Works to commence on The Albion Street Pavement repair.

· Works to commence on The Cammeray Drive Pavement repair.

· Investigation and design work to progress on numerous damage items, (more details to follow in future updates)

Three Month Forward Works Program

After three months it is anticipated that

1. All sites with a Severity Score of 5 (as per above) will have been actioned to allow a revised rating reduced to at least a 4.

2. All high priority damage items (57 items) with investigation finalised and design work complete or nearing completion.

Community Engagement

Extensive community engagement has been undertaken and is ongoing as part of keeping the community up to date with emergency work activities over the last eight weeks. This has included attendance and two village gatherings in Kangaroo Valley (29 March & 26 April 2022) and one at the Berry Forum (12 May 2022). Specific project update pages have been established on Council’s website which provides information on current work. Interested persons/parties can subscribe to the pages to receive updates.

Attending to all emails and retuning all phone calls with detailed updates is proving to be a challenge. A project page is being developed for each project with a “subscribe” button available for members of the public to be kept up to date. Despite initial teething problems, the uncertainty posed by the scale of the damage and ongoing wet weather, these Project Pages appear to be being well received. Currently new templates are being developed based on feedback so far and soon many more project pages will appear on our webpage in the coming days.

Financial Implications

A Notice of Natural Disaster Declaration was made on 6 March 2022 by Resilience New South Wales for the Shoalhaven LGA. As a result, Council is eligible to receive funding under the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements (2018) to cover the costs associated with restoration of roads to the pre-condition before the event.

Tenderer	Location
BLJ Burrill Lake Pty Ltd	Burrill Lake, NSW

Tenderer	Location
Cleary Bros (Bombo) Pty Ltd	Port Kembla, NSW 2505
Denrith Pty Ltd	Goulburn, NSW 2580
Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd	Kembla Grange, NSW 2526

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 06 June 2022

Page 0

CL22.252 DA16/1465 – 173 Kinghorne St & 2 & 4 Albatross Rd - Nowra - Lot 1, 29 & 30 DP 25114

DA. No: DA16/1465/4

HPERM Ref: D22/183837

Department: Development Services

Approver: James Ruprai, Director - City Development

Attachments: 1. Section 4.15 Planning Report (under separate cover) ⇨

2. Notice of Determination - Refusal ⇩

3. Architectural Plans (as amended) (under separate cover) ⇨

4. CL21.230 - Report and Draft Determination to 26 October 2021 Ordinary Meeting (under separate cover) ⇨

Description of Development: Demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 55 apartments including 16 x 3-bedroom, 31 x 2 bedroom and 8 x 1-bedroom apartments, a basement car parking area and 3 commercial tenancies at ground floor with frontage to both Kinghorne Street and Albatross Road

Owner: Bill Zervos and Jasmine Anne Simpson & John Irwin Gould

Applicant: Lee Carmichael Town Planning (now trading as PDC Lawyers and Town Planners)

Notification Dates: 14 June – 14 July 2017

No. of Submissions: Six (6) submissions in objection and Nil (0) in support.

Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council

The application has been called in by Council (details are provided below) and has been reported on several previous occasions. This is an outstanding application that requires resolution having been with Council for over six (6) years. This site represents a key opportunity for gateway development leading into the Nowra City Centre and is characterised by possessing the only B4 zoning in the immediate vicinity.

On 1 October 2019, it was resolved by the Development and Environment Committee that Development Application (DA) ‘DA16/1465 – Residential Units and Commercial Space – 173 Kinghorne Street, Nowra be called in to Council for determination due to significant public interest.’ (DE19.107)

On 6 October 2020, the Development & Environment Committee resolved (MIN20.728):

“That consideration of Development Application DA16/1465 – Mixed Use development consisting of 55 residential units and commercial space on the land known as 173 Kinghorne Street and 2 & 4 Albatross Road, Nowra (Lot 1, 29 and 30 DP 25114) be deferred to the January 2021 Development and Environment Committee Meeting to allow Council to undertake further traffic investigations in consultation with the developer.”

On 11 May 2021, it was resolved by the Development and Environment Committee: “That the Item be deferred to the June Development and Environment Committee meeting for further consideration.” (MIN21.256).

On 1 June 2021, it was resolved by the Development and Environment Committee; “That Council receive this report as an update on the progress of the assessment of DA16/1465 and in satisfaction of the 11 May 2021 resolution of the Development & Environment Committee (DE21.50).” (MIN21.357).

On 26 October 2021, it was resolved by the Ordinary Meeting ‘That in relation to Development Application DA16/1465 – mixed use development consisting of 55 residential units and commercial space on the land known as 173 Kinghorne Street and 2 & 4 Albatross Road, Nowra (Lot 1, 29 and 30 DP 25114) the matter be deferred to early 2022.’ (MIN21.775).

This report is prepared to respond to the above resolutions.

Recommendation

That Development Application DA16/1465 – mixed use development consisting of 55 residential units and commercial space on the land known as 173 Kinghorne Street and 2 & 4 Albatross Road, Nowra (Lot 1, 29 and 30 DP 25114) be determined by way of refusal for the reasons outlined in this report and detailed in Attachment 2.

Options

1. Refuse the Development Application (DA).

Implications: The proposal would not proceed in its current form. The applicant can, however, apply for a section 8.2 review of Council’s decision and/or could lodge an appeal with the NSW Land and Environment Court against Council’s decision.

2. Approve the DA.

Implications: Council would have to provide reasons to support the development, having regard to section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) considerations. Should Council resolve to approve the DA a suite of conditions would be required to be drafted for reconsideration by Council. Under some circumstances, third parties (i.e., objectors) can seek a judicial review of Council’s decision in the NSW Land and Environment Court.

3. Alternative recommendation.

Implications: Council will need to specify an alternative recommendation and advise staff accordingly.

Location Map

Aerial view of a city

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Figure 1 - Extract of the subject site in the local context.

Chart

Description automatically generated

Figure 2 - Extract of the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 Land Use Zoning Map with the subject site with a yellow border

Background

Subject Land

The subject site comprises 3 lots (subject site) located on the south-western corner of the intersection of Kinghorne Street, Albatross Road and Kalandar Street. The subject site is described and legally identified as follows:

· Lot 29 DP 25114 – 4 Albatross Road, Nowra

· Lot 30 DP 25114 – 2 Albatross Road, Nowra

· Lot 1 DP 25114 – 173 Kinghorne Street, Nowra

The site is an irregular shaped lot with a frontage of 74m to Albatross Road and 60m to Kinghorne Street with a 9.5m corner splay. The site falls gradually to the south-western corner of the site at Albatross Road.

The combined land area of the lots is approximately 3,497m².

Proposed Development

The DA is seeking development consent for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 55 apartments, including:

· 8 x 1 bedroom apartments

· 31 x 2 bedroom apartments

· 16 x 3 bedroom apartments

· 3 commercial tenancies (total commercial floor area 259m² (267m² including bathroom i.e., GFA) at ground floor with frontage to both Kinghorne Street and Albatross Road.

· A basement car parking area accessed via Albatross Road with 93 car parking spaces.

· Construction of a left turn slip lane (removal of on-street parking) for access into the basement car park off Albatross Road.

· Construction of a central median and signage on Albatross Road to control the movement of traffic in and out of the proposed development (left in and left out movements only).

A site plan, ground floor, elevations, landscape plan are provided attached at Attachment 3, with photomontages shown at Figures 3 - 5.

Figure 3 - Photomontage view from the south-eastern (Kinghorne Street).

Figure 4 - Photomontage view from the north-eastern corner of Kinghorne and Kalandar Street.

Figure 5 -Photomontage of the south-western elevation of the development as viewed from Albatross Road.

Post-Lodgement

Key dates following the lodgement are as follows:

· 8 April 2016, the DA was lodged with Council.

· 9 August 2016, Council requested additional information from the applicant in relation to the design and access arrangements from Albatross Road.

· 16 December 2016, revised plans and additional information was submitted by the applicant in response to Council’s letter dated 9 August 2016. The amended plans included modifications to the southern portions of each wing of the building and deletion of two apartments (reducing the unit yield from 57 to 55 apartments). The reduction in units on the southern portion of the development was proposed to achieve a more appropriate transition to the adjoining low-density development.

· 27 February 2017, Council requested additional information from the applicant, with continued concerns raised in relation to design elements and major concerns raised in relation to the proposed access/egress onto Albatross Road.

· 7 March 2017, Council met with the applicant to discuss the Planning Proposal over the site (described below) and continued concerns with the design and location of access/egress onto Albatross Road.

· 22 March 2017, a further additional information letter was sent to the applicant to detail the outcomes of the 7 March 2017 meeting and to express continued concerns regarding the proposed access/egress onto Albatross Road.

· 10 July 2018, Council met again with the applicant to discuss design and traffic issues.

· 12 September 2018, the applicant lodged concept plans for access/egress to the development from Kinghorne Street for Council’s consideration (refer to Figure 18).

· 12 October 2018, Council provided feedback to the applicant on the concept plan, noting that the concept plan addressed the main concern that had been raised by Council being the relocation of the access from Albatross Road to Kinghorne Street frontage.

· 18 April 2019, the applicant confirmed that they would not be pursuing any change to the design of the development which would relocate the access from Albatross Road to Kinghorne Street frontage.

· 12 August 2019, the applicant submitted a further amended Traffic Report prepared by Jones Nicholson (D19/280251) to justify the retention of access on the Albatross Road frontage and to address concerns raised in relation to the designs apparent inconsistency with State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

· 1 October 2019, the Development and Environment Committee that Development Application (DA) ‘DA16/1465 – Residential Units and Commercial Space – 173 Kinghorne Street, Nowra be called in to Council for determination due to significant public interest.’ (DE19.107).

· 26 November 2019, the applicant submitted amended plans, acoustic report, and clause 4.6 variation statement.

· 6 October 2020, the application was reported to the Development & Environment Committee recommending the refusal of the application. The Committee resolved (MIN20.728):

Council took the following actions in relation to the above matter, following the 6 October 2020 Council resolution:

· 18 November 2020, relevant Council staff met to discuss critical aspects of the Development Application in particular the Traffic Management Report prepared by Jones Nicholson Consulting Engineers dated 27 February 2021 (Reference: CRPT-16020003.01B). The outcomes of the meeting were provided to the applicant on 26 November 2021 (D20/526133).

· 21 December 2020, Council provided additional information to the applicant in the form of: Outputs from Council’s traffic modelling and Council’s requirements for a future 4 lane cross section of Albatross Road (D20/563561). Council also offered as part of the forwarding of this additional information the opportunity to meet further to ensure that all matters have been addressed relating to traffic and planning issues.

· 15 January 2021, Council notified the applicant via email (D21/16222) that the information requested in Council’s 21 December 2020 was required to be submitted to Council in 7 days.

· 4 February 2021, Council emailed the applicant (D21/43579) offering to meet to discuss the additional information.

· 10 February 2021, Council notified the applicant via email (D21/52704) that the information requested in Council’s 21 December 2020 was required to be submitted to Council in 7 days as the applicant had not responded to Council in relation to the offer of a meeting and the information had not been submitted.

· 23 February 2021, the applicant’s traffic consultant (Stephen Falkner) emailed Council, to request the following:

§ traffic data on the existing road network from their records; and

§ projected traffic data for 10-year projections (2031).

· 12 March 2021, Council emailed the applicant’s traffic consultant (Stephen Falkner) (D21/99332) with the following:

§ Council’s most recent tube traffic count for the area; and

§ projected traffic data for 10-year projections (2031).

· 24 March 2021, Council emailed the applicant (D21/117366) to inform them that the application would be required to be reported to Council in the absence of a formal response to Council’s email dated 21 December 2020.

· 31 March 2021, the applicant was emailed (D21/127622) to inform them that the additional information was required to be submitted to Council within 7 days.

· 11 May 2021, the application was reported to the Development and Environment Committee recommending the refusal of the application. The Committee resolved:

“That the Item be deferred to the June Development and Environment Committee meeting for further consideration.” (MIN21.256).

Council took the following actions in relation to the above matter, following the 11 May 2021 Council resolution:

· 18 May 2021, the applicant was emailed (D21/203761) to again request the additional information.

· 27 May 2021, the applicant submitted a revised SIDRA analysis (D21/227623) for the proposed development.

· 1 June 2021, the application was reported to the Development and Environment Committee where it was resolved:

“That Council receives this report as an update on the progress of the assessment of DA16/1465 and in satisfaction of the 11 May 2021 resolution of the Development & Environment Committee (DE21.50).” (MIN21.357).

Council took the following actions following 1 June 2021 Council resolution:

· 27 May 2021, the applicant’s revised SIDRA analysis (D21/227623) was referred Council’s Development Engineers and City Services for further consideration.

· 7 October 2021, Council staff met with the applicant and their consultant to discuss the outstanding access and traffic matters. The applicant outlined the reasoning for the proposed access and traffic assessment associated with the development as follows:

o The applicant claims that their Albatross Road treatment is adaptable for future integration into a growing network over the next 10 years. Their position is formed in the view that the future beyond this time frame is so uncertain that it is not reasonable to limit their proposal (future)

o The Albatross Road access is a compliant treatment whereas the Kinghorne street treatment is not compliant with the relevant Australian Standards. (Access)

o That potential development to the west of their proposal would need to access from Albatross Road (Driveway)

· 26 October 2021, the application was reported to the Ordinary Meeting where it was resolved that:

“That in relation to Development Application DA16/1465 – mixed use development consisting of 55 residential units and commercial space on the land known as 173 Kinghorne Street and 2 & 4 Albatross Road, Nowra (Lot 1, 29 and 30 DP 25114) the matter be deferred to early 2022.” (MIN21.775).

A copy of the Council report (CL21.230) can be accessed at Attachment 4.

Council has taken the following actions following 26 October 2021 Council resolution:

· 23 November 2021, a meeting was held with the applicant and Council City Development staff where the applicant advised that their position on traffic matters remained unchanged and it was recognised that the meeting would be reported again in the new year.

· 16 March 2022, Council staff (City Development and City Services) met with the applicant to discuss the development application and specifically the traffic matters and classification of Albatross Road. The applicant outlined that their position on the outstanding traffic matters have still not changed since the meeting and subsequent Council report in October 2021.

At this meeting it was raised by Council staff that an amended design relocating he access to the development to be from Kinghorne Street would be accepted, despite the significant amount of time that has lapsed since lodgement, in an attempt to resolve the application, and a commitment of a further meeting was made. 7 April 2022, a further meeting was held with the applicant and Council City Development staff where the applicant advised that due to the subsequent impacts on development yield and cost of an architectural redesign, that an amended design would not be submitted to Council. Staff advised that the application would be accordingly reported to Council in accordance with the October resolution.

Issues

The matters as assessed and outlined in the 26 October 2021 report to the Ordinary meeting (CL21.230) and attached Section 4.15 report have not changed and the reasons for the recommendation of the refusal of the DA remain as applicable and current as they were in October 2021 (refer Attachment 4). Broadly summarising these issues relate to:

i. Traffic, vehicular access and impacts on the local road network

a) Proposed vehicular access and road upgrades under the DA

The proposed development has frontages to both Albatross Road (MR92), which is a classified regional road, and Kinghorne Street, which is a local road. The proposed mixed-use development has its only vehicular access from Albatross Road which requires road works and upgrades to this road frontage. .

Throughout the assessment of the DA, access and traffic associated with the proposed access arrangements have been a critical issue. Council staff have met with the applicant and their consultant a number of time to discuss the outstanding access and traffic matters. Council’s key concerns relate to the following matters.

b) Suitability of access via Albatross Road vs. Kinghorne Street and compliance with Austroads Guide to Road Design and Council’s Development Control Plan (DCP).

The proposed design standards and implications are a point of contention between Council’s engineers and the applicant. Further for a compliant design, the development as proposed will require substantial resumption of land on the opposite side of Albatross Road.

c) State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (now known as the SEPP (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021)

The subject site has frontage to Albatross Road (MR92), being a classified regional road. Accordingly, section 2.118 of SEPP (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (formerly clause 101 of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007) applies and reads as follows:

2.118 Development with frontage to classified road

(1) The objectives of this section are—

(a) to ensure that new development does not compromise the effective and ongoing operation and function of classified roads, and

(b) to prevent or reduce the potential impact of traffic noise and vehicle emission on development adjacent to classified roads.

(2) The consent authority must not grant consent to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that—

(a) where practicable and safe, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road, and

(b) the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development as a result of—

(i) the design of the vehicular access to the land, or

(ii) the emission of smoke or dust from the development, or

(iii) the nature, volume or frequency of vehicles using the classified road to gain access to the land, and

(c) the development is of a type that is not sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions, or is appropriately located and designed, or includes measures, to ameliorate potential traffic noise or vehicle emissions within the site of the development arising from the adjacent classified road. (emphasis added)

Under subsection 2.118(2) the consent authority must not grant consent to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that all the subsequent considerations have been met by the proposal.

The 3 preconditions in subsection 2.118(2) are collective. Therefore, any one of the pre-conditions in subsection 2.118(2) about which Council is not satisfied could prevent the issue of consent. As outlined in the assessment at Attachment 1, Council is not satisfied that any of the preconditions of subsection 2.118(2) can be met and accordingly Council cannot approve the DA.

ii. Car Parking

The development is required to provide a total of 83.23 car spaces which, with 93 proposed, is compliant with the applicable parking rates (refer 26 October 2021 Council report at Attachment 4 for full details). Nonetheless, it is noted that the proposal to provide access to the basement car park via an intercom to provide security to the basement car park area is unlikely to provide suitable public access to car parking for those members of the public wishing to visit the commercial uses and therefore there is likely to be a reliance on on-street car parking either to the south of the site or along Kinghorne Street.

Furthermore, the location of the security gates and intercom to provide access to the basement car park is likely to result in unsafe manoeuvring of vehicles should they fail to gain access to the car park or result in queuing on Albatross Road should there be technical issues with the security gate (refer to Figure 6).

The development is located in a regional area. Visitors to the residential flat building and customers of the commercial component of the development are heavily reliant on private motor vehicles for transport as opposed to good, accessible, and frequent public transport. The proposed design and arrangement of the basement parking is not considered suitable for a development of this scale and will result in unacceptable impacts on Albatross Road.

Diagram, engineering drawing

Description automatically generated

Figure 6 – Extract of the proposed basement plan indicating the location security door and intercom to gain access to the basement car park.

iii. Exceedance of the LEP maximum height control - Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

Clause 4.3 of SLEP 2014 sets an 8.5m (I2) height limit for part of the site and a 14m (N2) height limit for rest of the site (refer Figure 7). The 8.5m height limit applies to a 9m portion of the south eastern portion of the site extending across all lots subject of the development application where the lot adjoins the lower density R1 General Residential land to the south.

Chart, surface chart

Description automatically generated

Figure 7 – Height controls applying to the site under the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014

Parts of the proposed building exceed the 8.5m (I2) and 14m (N2) height are limited to a portion of the development.

The development proposed exceeds the maximum building height as follows:

· 14m height limit by 480mm or 3.4%;

· 8.5m height limit 1.465m or 17.2%; and

· The percentage exceedance of the maximum building height ranges from 1.4% to 17.2% with the average height limit exceedance being 4.83%.

The submitted height plane diagrams prepared by Kannfinch Architects illustrate that the height limit breach and indicate the percentage breach at each point (Refer to Figure 8 and 9).

In April 2016, a Planning Proposal (PP) was lodged concurrently with this DA to rezone the subject site from B5 Business Development to B4 Mixed Use zone and increase the maximum height of the building limit from 11m to 15m (refer Attachment 1 for full details). The planning proposal was approved and commenced on 6 October 2017 (Amendment No. 16 to SLEP 2014); however, the height limit was increased only to 14m for the majority of the site.

An 8.5m maximum building height associated with a 9m wide portion, as measured from the southern boundaries of Lot 1 and Lot 30 DP 25114, and south-eastern and south-western boundaries of Lot 29 DP 25114 was applied to the subject site.

Despite the PP coming into effect during the assessment of the subject DA, the design of the development was not amended to comply with the approved heights under the site specific PP.

Diagram, engineering drawing

Description automatically generated

Figure 8 - Height plane instructions relating to the 14.0m (N2) maximum building height -
south-eastern view from Kinghorne Street.

Diagram, engineering drawing

Description automatically generated

Figure 9 - Height Plane instructions relating to the 14.0m (N2) and 8.5m (I2) maximum building height - southwestern view from Albatross Street.

Development consent may, subject to clause 4.6, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. The application seeks a variation to clause 4.3 Height of Building (i.e., the heights approved under the site specific PP) in accordance with Clause 4.6 of SLEP 2014.

For the reasons detailed in the attached s4.15 Assessment Report (Attachment 1), it is not considered that the clause 4.6 variation request has satisfied:

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

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

In particular a key reason for the variable height control under the PP and transition from the low-density zone to the south and the higher density proposed on the subject site, was the mitigation of impacts to the character of the adjoining low density area, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to the existing neighbouring low density development. Cumulatively, the reduced side setback of the building of 6m setback (opposed to the required 9m setback) and exceedance of the height control in this location exacerbates the overshadowing of the adjoining residences (No. 6 Albatross Road and No. 175 Kinghorne Street) for the portion of the building along the Albatross road frontage.

The s4.15 Assessment Report provides a full assessment of the clause 4.6 variation against the relevant planning ‘tests’, and concludes that the applicant’s request to vary the development standard as it relates to the maximum building height should not be supported for the following reasons:

· The variation request does not demonstrate that compliance with the development standard would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this development.

· The variation request does not demonstrate there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention, which results in a better planning outcome than a strictly compliant development in the circumstances of this particular case.

· Does not demonstrate the development meets the objectives of the development standard.

· The proposed development is for the preceding reasons, not considered to be in the public interest; and

· The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will be better planning outcomes achieved through a variation to the height standard as it relates to the 8.5m height of building standard associated with a 9m setback to the southern boundary, as opposed to strict compliance with the development standard or amending the application to reduce the extent of the variation.

iv. Non-compliance with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65) and Apartment Design Guide (ADG)

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65) applies to the proposed development which consists of a new building, of at least 3 storeys and containing at least 4 or more dwellings.

In accordance with Clause 28(2) of the SEPP 65, In determining a development application for consent to carry out development to which this Policy applies, a consent authority is to take into consideration (in addition to any other matters that are required to be, or may be, taken into consideration):

(a) the advice (if any) obtained from the design review panel, and

(b) the design quality of the development when evaluated in accordance with the design quality principles, and

(c) the Apartment Design Guide.

A SEPP 65 Design Statement has been prepared by a Registered Architect (D20/6044) addressing the requirements of SEPP 65 and was submitted with the application in accordance with Clauses 50(1A) & 50(1AB) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation). The SEPP 65 Design Statement has address Schedule 1 of SEPP 65.

The development has been assessed against the ADG and a full assessment is provided within the s.4.15 Assessment Report (Appendix 1 of this Report).

It is considered that the design quality of the development, when evaluated against the nine design quality principles does not satisfactorily exhibit exceptional design excellence when assessed against the following principles:

· Principle 2: Built form and scale

· Principle 3: Density

· Principle 4: Sustainability

· Principle 5: Landscape

· Principle 6: Amenity

Additionally, Clause 30(2) of SEPP 65 requires residential apartment development to be designed in accordance with the ADG. Parts 3 and 4 of the ADG provide objectives, design criteria and design guidance for the siting, design, and amenity of apartment developments. In accordance with ADGs, development needs to demonstrate how it meets the objective and design criteria. The design criteria set a clear measurable benchmark for how the objective can be practically achieved. If it is not possible to satisfy the design criteria, applications must demonstrate what other design responses are used to achieve the objective and the design guidance can be used to assist in this.

The development is non-compliant with the following Objectives and Design Criteria in Part 3 and 4 of the ADG, including:

· 3E-1 Deep Soil Zones

15% of the site is to be provided as deep soil on sites greater than 1,500m² with a minimum dimension of 6m. The development provides only 13% of the site as deep soil area, or 9% when only areas of >6m dimension is calculated.

· 3F-1 Visual Privacy

The adjacent sites to the south of the development site are zoned R2 Low Density Residential and currently contain single dwelling houses per lot. Setback of the Kinghorne portion of the development to the adjoining southern property boundary requires a minimum setback of 9m. A setback of. 6m is proposed to the 3rd level in this location which does not comply.

· 3H-1 Vehicle Access

The proposal to access the development from the Regionally Classified Road (Albatross Road) is not supported and per SEPP (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, access should be via the unclassified local road (Kinghorne Street).

· 3J-2 Bicycle and Car Parking

Each resident has access to a secure storage cage which is large enough to accommodate a bicycle. It is proposed to provide residential visitor and customer bicycle spaces on the street in the form of post mounted bike rails attached to existing street does or signposts, should Council require them. A condition is recommended for the provision of on-street bicycle parking should the application be approved.

· 4A-1 Solar and Daylight Access

37 of 55 apartments (67%) receive at least 3 hours direct sunlight between 9.00am and 3.00pm in mid-winter. The ADG requires a minimum of 70%.

13 of 55 apartments (24%) of apartments receive no sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter. The ADG requires a maximum of 15%.

While the numerical compliance is an assessment of the overall development, it is noted that it is predominantly single aspect, and 1-bedroom apartments are generally not naturally ventilated and will therefore rely on mechanical ventilation. Of concern is that none of the proposed 1-bedroom apartments will be naturally ventilated.

· 4D-3 Apartment Size and Layout

1-bedroom apartment widths are 3.5m - this is marginally under minimum 3.6m required under the ADG. The non-compliance is considered to be marginal and does not impede the usable area of the living rooms and would not likely have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of the dwelling or resident use of the units if this was a singular issue . However, it is noted that the design of the single bedroom units is impacted by the proposed design and overall amenity of these units reduced.

· 4E-1 Private Open Space and Balconies

A number of the ground floor units do not provide at least 15sqm (G.04, G.08 and G.09) while other apartments do not provide a minimum depth of 3m (G0.2, G.03,G.04, G.08, G.10).

· 4F-1 Common Circulation and Spaces

The maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on a single level is eight (8). Lobby B services 11 apartments on levels 01, 02, and 10 apartments on Level 03. The corridors have been designed with light slots to capture natural light and ventilation to maintain a high level of amenity.

· 4K-2 Apartment Mix

The ADG requires the apartment mix to be distributed to suitable locations within the building. The mix of one-bedroom units is not considered to provide an appropriate distribution to suitable locations within the building.

The single bedroom units are limited to the southern elevation of the V-shaped building design which has resulted in units with severely compromised solar access, ventilation and private open space that will likely result in units with diminished amenity. The irregular floor plans will also result in odd shaped rooms and the potential loss of the use of usable space within these units.

It is considered that the single bedroom units should be spread more evenly throughout the development to enable these units a greater likelihood for increased amenity

Appendix A to the Section 4.15 Assessment Report (Attachment 1) provides a full assessment of the proposed development against each of the objectives of the ADG.

v. State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 (SEPP (BASIX))

The provisions of SEPP (BASIX) apply to the site. In accordance with the requirements of SEPP BASIX, Certification for each dwelling has been submitted with the development application.

Clause 55A of the EP&A Regulation 2000 allows for a development application to be amended provided a new BASIX certificate is submitted to account for those amendments. An amended BASIX Certificate, to reflect amended plans was not submitted with the amended application.

Council cannot issue development consent without the provision of a new BASIX Certificate that reflects the amended application i.e., 55 residential units.

Planning Assessment

The DA has been assessed under s4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Please refer to Attachment 1.

It is noted that on 1 March 2022, the thematic State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) commenced with 11 new SEPPs introduced which re-organised and repealed 45 former SEPPs. Former SEPPs which applied at the time of the lodgement of this DA, now exist as ‘Chapters’ within the new instruments.

There are no savings and transitional provisions contained in the new instruments. Rather, each instrument contains a ‘transferred provision’ clause which states that section 30A of the Interpretation Act 1987 is taken to apply. This means that the transfer of clauses to the new instruments will not affect their operation, and the clauses should be construed as if they had not been transferred.

Accordingly, the assessment within the section 4.15 Planning Report at Attachment 1 assesses the proposal under the former SEPPs, however as the former SEPPs no longer apply to existing development applications and consents, and the new SEPPs apply instead the new references to SEPPs have been updated in the recommended notice of determination. Planning Circular PS21-007 issued by the Department of Planning and Environment outlines the rollover of SEPPs and which of the former SEPPS have been incorporated and repealed by the new SEPPs.

Additionally, in relation to the EP&A Regulations, the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2021 was introduced on 1 March 2022. Per the Schedule 6 Savings, transitional and other provisions, the 2000 Regulation continues to apply instead of the 2021 Regulation to a development application made but not finally determined before 1 March 2022. Accordingly, the SEPP65 and BASIX assessments reference a now repealed Regulation.

Policy Implications

A key policy consideration is height.

Currently, there is an 8.5m and 14m height limit which applies to the site under SLEP 2014.

The development proposed exceeds the maximum building height as follows:

· 14m height limit by 480mm or 3.4%;

· 8.5m height limit 1.465m or 17.2%; and

· The percentage exceedance of the maximum building height ranges from 1.4% to 17.2% with the average height limit exceedance being 4.83%.

The variation has been addressed by the applicant via a formal clause 4.6 variation statement. The matter is discussed in the attached section 4.15 report in further detail (Attachment 1) and has been mentioned previously in this Report.

Consultation and Community Engagement:

Six (6) public submissions were received in relation to Council’s notification of the development. Six (6) were objections to the development. Nil (0) were in support of the development. The notification was made in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy. The application was notified for a period of 30 days and advertised in the local papers in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy.

Key issues raised as a result of the notification are provided below:

· Traffic impacts on the local road network.

· Impact of additional cars parking on the on-street car parking.

· Amenity impacts associated with overlooking and overshadowing.

· Insufficient justification and planning purpose to support the PP.

· The bulk and scale of the development is not consistent with the low scale development to the south of the site and the site would be better developed for multi-dwelling housing.

· The proposed setbacks of the development to the southern boundary are not appropriate.

· The pedestrian access point to the development on the Kinghorne Street frontage will result in safety and security issues.

The planning concerns raised by the submitters are addressed in the attached section 4.15 report in further detail (Attachment 1).

Financial Implications:

There are potential cost implications for Council in the event of a refusal of the application. Such costs would be associated with defending any appeal in the Land and Environment Court (LEC), should the applicant utilise appeal rights afforded under the EP&A Act.

Legal Implications

Pursuant to section 8.2 of the EP&A Act, a decision of the Council may be subject of a review by the applicant in the event of approval or refusal. If such a review is ultimately pursued (if the recommendation is not adopted), the matter would be put to Council for consideration.

Alternatively, an applicant may also appeal to the Court against the determination pursuant to section 8.7 of the EP&A Act.

Summary and Conclusion

This application has been reported to Council several times with a recommendation of refusal. Following the deferral of the application at Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 26 October 2021 the applicant has been unwilling to amend the proposal to meet Council’s concerns and the reasons and assessment recommending the refusal of the DA (as outlined at Attachments 1 and 2) remain the same.

Based upon the s4.15 Assessment Report (Attachment 1) it is recommended that Development Application No. DA16/1465 be refused for the following reasons.

1. The development has failed to satisfy Council of preconditions Section 2.118(2)(a) and (b) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (s4.15(1)(a)(i) of the EP&A Act).

In accordance with Section 2.118(2)(a) and (b) of the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP, Council must not grant consent to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that:

(a) where practicable and safe, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road, and

(b) the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development as a result of:

(i) the design of the vehicular access to the land, or

(ii) the emission of smoke or dust from the development, or

(iii) the nature, volume or frequency of vehicles using the classified road to gain access to the land.

2. Non-compliance with SEPP 65 in relation to the Apartment Design Guide (s4.15(1)(a)(i) of the EP&A Act);

The development fails to satisfy clause 30(2)(a) and (b) of SEPP 65, in that the development does not demonstrate that adequate regard has been given to:

(a) the design quality principles (Principle 2: Built form and scale; Principle 3: Density; Principle 4: Sustainability; Principle 5: Landscape; Principle 6: Amenity), and

(b) the objectives specified in the Apartment Design Guide for the relevant design criteria (3E-1 Deep Soil Zones, 3F-1 Visual Privacy, 3H-1 Vehicle Access, 3J-2 Bicycle and Car Parking, 4A-1 Solar and Daylight Access, 4D-3 Apartment Size and Layout, 4E-1 Private Open Space and Balconies, 4F-1 Common Circulation and Spaces, 4K-2 Apartment Mix).

3. The proposal exceeds the maximum building height development standard under clause 4.3 of SLEP 2014. The applicant’s written request to vary the maximum building height development standard has not adequately addressed matters required to be demonstrated by clause 4.6(3)(a) and (b) of SLEP 2014. The applicant’s clause 4.6 Variation Request does not provide sufficient environmental planning grounds to support the variation, nor that compliance is unnecessary or unreasonable. (s4.15(1)(a)(i) of the EP&A Act).

4. Clause 55A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 allows for a development application to be amended provided a new BASIX certificate is submitted to account for those amendments. An amended BASIX Certificate, to reflect amended plans was not submitted with the amended application.

5. The proposed development is inconsistent with the Objectives, Performance Criteria and Acceptable Solutions as they relate to the following provisions of Chapter G21: Car Parking and Traffic Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 (SDCP 2014) (s4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the EP&A Act):

(a) 5.2 Traffic.

(b) 5.4 Access.

6. The development is likely to have adverse impacts on the built environment (s4.15(1)(b) of the EP&A Act).

7. The site is not suitable for the development as proposed (s4.15(1)(c) of the EP&A Act).

8. The development is not in the public interest (s4.15(1)(e) of the EP&A Act).

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 06 June 2022

Page 0

CL22.253 Development Application - DA22/1281 - 13 The Bastion Manyana - Lot 871 DP 263106

DA. No: DA22/1281/4

HPERM Ref: D22/199718

Department: Development Services

Approver: James Ruprai, Director - City Development

Attachments: 1. Planning Report S4.15 Assessment (under separate cover) ⇨

2. Draft Determination (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Development Plans (under separate cover) ⇨

Description of Development: Attached Dual Occupancy

Owner: JFPG011 Pty Ltd

Applicant: Le Mottee Group Pty Ltd

Notification Dates: 18 March 2022 to 4 April 2022

No. of Submissions: 30 in objection and 1 in support

Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council

The application was called in for determination by the Council “due to the public interest and character of the area” by a Notice of Motion dated 26 April 2022 MIN22.309

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Development Application DA22/1281 to construct a two-storey attached dual occupancy at Lot 871 DP 263106, 13 The Bastion, Manyana be approved subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 2 of this report.

Options

1. Approve the development application (DA) in accordance with the recommendation of this report.

Implications: This would allow the applicant to pursue construction of the development.

2. Refuse the application.

Implications: Council would need to determine planning grounds on which the application is refused, having regard to section 4.15 “Evaluation”. A refusal enables the applicant to lodge a section 8.2 Review and / or appeal with the Land and Environment Court.

3. Alternative recommendation.

Implications: Council will need to specify an alternative recommendation and advise staff accordingly.

Location Map

Background

Proposed Development

The proposal is for an attached two storey dual occupancy development, each containing 3 bedrooms on the upper level. Each dwelling has a single garage facing the street. A recessed upper-level verandah is provided to the upper level facing the street.

Diagram, engineering drawing

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Site Plan

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 2: Front & Rear Perspectives

Diagram, engineering drawing

Description automatically generated

Figure 3: North & East Elevations

Diagram, engineering drawing

Description automatically generated

Figure 4: South & West Elevations

Subject Land

The development site is Lot 871 DP 263106, 13 The Bastion Manyana

Site & Context

The site is:

· Located on the south side of The Bastion Manyana.

· It has an area of 665.9m² with an 18m frontage to The Bastion with a depth of 37m,

· Zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (SLEP2014)

· Surrounded by low density development which is a mix of one and two storey dwellings.

· Reasonably flat with a slight slope from the west to east.

· Currently vacant.

· Approximately 860m west of Manyana Beach and 2 km south from the junction of Innyada Drive and Bendalong Road.

A picture containing building, building material

Description automatically generated

Figure 5 - Zoning Map – R2 Low Density Residential Land

History

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

§ No informal enquiries or formal pre lodgement discussions were held prior to lodgement.

§ The application was lodged on 9 March 2022.

§ The application was referred for technical comment on 21 March 2022.

§ No further information was requested from the applicant.

Planning Assessment

The Development Application has been assessed under s4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. (Attachment 1.)

The proposed application has been assessed against the relevant planning instruments and have been found to be satisfactory

Consultation and Community Engagement:

Thirty-one (31) public submissions were received in relation to Council’s notification of the development. Thirty (30) were objections to the development including two (2) submissions from the same objectors and two (2) from Red Head Village Association. One (1) was in support of the development. Notification was made in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy with letters being sent within a twenty-five metre (25m) buffer of the site. The notification was for a two (2) week period.

Key issues raised as a result of the notification are provided below.

Issue

That the proposed development would be used for holiday letting for a large number of people which impacts on the amenity of the neighbourhood

Comment

The potential for holiday letting is not a town planning consideration for a dual occupancy application.

Holiday letting is exempt development in dwellings, including dual occupancy dwellings, under SEPP (Housing) 2021 – Short Term Accommodation which applies to the entire State.

Issue

The proposal is of a bulk and scale that is inconsistent with the surrounding coastal character of the area.

Comment

To assist in controlling bulk and scale, Council has certain controls for development.

Council has adopted a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for this type of development. A FSR is a control used to define or control the size of a building and intensity of development on a parcel of land. The Council has adopted (in its Development Control Plan (DCP) Chapter G13 - Medium Density and Other Residential Development) 0.5:1 for sites less than 1,000m² in area. The development complies with the FSR control.

An 8.5m height limit (Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014) applies to the site. The development complies with the height, being 8.1m.

With regard to compatibility with existing development, some guidance can be taken from Land and Environment Court principles. The relevant principle is “compatibility with context” in Project Venture Developments V Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191. In order to test whether a proposal is compatible with its context, the following two questions can be asked:

i. Are the proposal’s physical impacts on surrounding development acceptable? The physical impacts include constraints on the development potential of surrounding sites.

The physical impacts on surrounding development have been assessed against the relevant provisions in Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 (DCP) and found to be compliant. The impacts on surrounding amenity, solar access and streetscape character are considered acceptable.

ii. Is the proposal’s appearance in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street?

Figure 6 – Subject site (Yellow border) Two storey construction (blue dots)

It is considered that the proposed two storey modern design is in harmony with surrounding development and is consistent with the character of the existing streetscape, which is a mix of one and two storey dwellings, which also use similar pitched roofs. Although the street predominantly has single storey dwellings, there are (10) two storey dwellings in The Bastion.

The proposed dual occupancy complies with the DCP building envelope, setbacks and FSR requirements. The design is sympathetic to the eclectic mix of one and two storey dwellings in the street.

Issue

Increasing the density of the area considering the recent bushfires by putting further responsibility on the neighbourhood and evacuation during bushfires, especially if it is used for holiday makers.

Comment

Dual occupancy development is permissible in the R2 zone under SLEP2014.

The lot is mapped as bushfire prone. A bushfire report from a Bpad qualified bushfire consultant was provided with the application and an assessment in accordance with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 (PBP2019) made. The assessment is satisfactory. The construction of the building must comply with a “Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) 12.5.

The application is for an attached dual occupancy. The occupancy of the building whether owner occupier, long term or short-term rental is not a planning consideration.

Issue

Allowing a dual occupancy development will set a precedent for more dual occupancies in the area.

Comment

Dual occupancy development is a legally permissible use under the current planning instrument and under 2(a1) zoning of the former Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 1985. The development of more dual occupancies will be contingent on land availability and the aspirations of owners as well as any market considerations.

Issue

Dual occupancy development is not consistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone which has as one of the objectives ‘to provide an environment primarily for detached housing and to ensure that other development is compatible with that environment’.

Comment

Detached and attached dual occupancies are a mandated land use type in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The objective of the R2 Zone states:

• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

• To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

• To provide an environment primarily for detached housing and to ensure that other development is compatible with that environment.

The objective says primarily for detached housing and not entirely. The attached dual occupancy is of a compatible bulk and scale to other two storey development in the area and complies with DCP requirements for bulk and scale, FSR, solar access and setbacks.

Issue

The adjoining neighbours have raised concerns regarding solar access and privacy impacts to their properties.

Comment

The applicant has provided shadow diagrams that indicate that the neighbouring properties will receive a minimum 3 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June which complies with the DCP and the Planning Principle of the Land and Environment Court for sunlight access. The main living areas and private open space are on the ground floor and fencing between properties will provide privacy to neighbours, which is compliant with the DCP. There is a small sitting room which adjoins the front balcony and overlooks the street frontage not any neighbouring dwellings.

Issue

Potential for dual occupancy development to increase the demand on local infrastructure.

Comment

The existing infrastructure is considered adequate for the proposed dual occupancy development which is a permissible use in the zone.

Issue

Noise from holiday makers using the dwellings

Comment

Whether the proposed dwellings are used for holiday letting, or the tenancy arrangements of the development generally, is not a planning consideration.

Issue

Inadequate car parking and increased traffic will impact on the surrounding amenity.

Comment

The application provides for two car parking spaces on site for each dwelling which complies with the DCP requirements. The traffic generated from two dwellings will not have a significant impact on the surrounding road network.

Issue

No adaptable unit has been provided.

Comment

In accordance with the DCP, adaptable units are not required in a dual occupancy development. This provision applies where 3 or more dwellings are proposed.

Issue

The proposal will impact on property values.

Comment

The potential for impacts on property values is not a consideration for the development application under section 4.15. Property values are determined by a number of factors such as overall location, quality and age of buildings, proximity to services etc.

Issue

Trees have been cleared from the property.

Comment

The land is zoned R2, it is possible that the trees were removed in accordance with Council’s DCP Chapter 4 exemption policy which allows removal of trees where a tree is closer than its own height from an approved building – these being the neighbouring dwellings to the east and west.

Issue

The ability to subdivide duplexes is effectively abandoning the minimum allotment control for the whole of Manyana.

Comment

The current application before council does not seek any subdivision.

It is however logical to permit development such as a dual occupancy or other housing types and allow for them to be subdivided to create land title for people to buy those homes.

Issue

That the survey ground level heights on the neighbouring dwelling are incorrect. As the RL is 29 and not 30.3 which is misleading.

Comment

The 30.3 reference is the level of the gutter of the dwelling not the ground level.

Financial Implications:

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

Legal Implications

A section 8.2 review and / or an appeal with the Land and Environment Court are possible if the application is refused.

Summary and Conclusion

The proposed development has satisfied the provisions of SLEP 2014, and the overall objectives and provisions contained within Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (SDCP) 2014.

This application has been assessed and found to be satisfactory. There are no planning reasons which warrant refusal of this development.

The application for the attached dual occupancy development is compliant with the relevant planning instruments and controls and is therefore recommended for determination by way of approval subject to conditions outlined in Attachment 2 of the draft determination.

Ordinary Meeting – 06 June 2022

Page 0

CL22.254 Pump Track Investigations - Potential Sites and Way Forward

HPERM Ref: D22/191767

Department: Community Planning & Projects

Approver: Kevin Norwood, Manager - Shoalhaven Swim Sport Fitness

Attachments: 1. Photographs - Existing BMX Circuits and Pump Tracks in the Shoalhaven (under separate cover) ⇨

2. Sussex Inlet Pump Track - Desktop Site Investigations and Analysis ⇩

3. Bomaderry Pump Track - Desktop Site Investigations and Analysis ⇩

4. Sanctuary Point Pump Track - Desktop Site Investigations and Analysis ⇩

Reason for Report

To update Council on outcomes of preliminary investigations and to determine a way forward for proposed pump tracks at:

· Sussex Inlet (MIN21.536)

· Bomaderry (MIN21.580)

· Sanctuary Point (MIN21.805)

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Receive this report as an update on:

a. Site criteria for provision of pump tracks in Shoalhaven

b. Locations and condition of existing BMX circuits and pump tracks in Shoalhaven

2. Recognise that proposed pump tracks at Sussex Inlet, Bomaderry and Sanctuary Point are currently unfunded projects.

3. Endorse the following Council owned / managed reserves as shortlisted sites for future investigation for the proposed Sussex Inlet pump track:

a. Thomson Street Sporting Complex

b. Crown Reserve R69668

4. Endorse Edwards Avenue Reserve, Bomaderry for future investigation as a potential suitable site for the proposed Bomaderry pump track

5. Endorse the following Community Land as shortlisted sites for future investigation for the proposed pump track at Sanctuary Point:

a. Sanctuary Point Public Reserve

b. Sanctuary Point Road Reserve

c. Yellow Bellied Glider Reserve

6. Further investigate potential for the shortlisted sites through community consultation at such a time at which the pump track projects can be allocated into the Community Planning and Projects Work Plan to:

a. Determine community support

b. Determine desired location

c. Determine potential funding options for the proposed pump tracks

7. Receive further reports on consultation outcomes, preferred sites, budget required and potential funding sources to plan and deliver the proposed pump tracks at Sussex Inlet, Bomaderry and Sanctuary Point.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation as written.

Implications: This is in accordance with Council’s resolutions (MIN.21.536, MIN21.580 and MIN21.805) as it identifies a number of suitable locations for proposed pump tracks in Sussex Inlet, Bomaderry and Sanctuary Point to present for community feedback. It allows Council to receive a further progress report at conclusion of community consultation and to identify required budget and potential sources of funding.

2. Adopt an alternate recommendation.

Implications: Council to provide direction on further actions and responsibilities in relation to the proposed pump tracks in Sussex Inlet, Bomaderry and Sanctuary Point.

Background

Council’s Provision of Local Area BMX Circuits Policy (POL16/109) provides criteria and guidelines to identify the need and provision of Bicycle Motocross (BMX) circuits to ensure that unauthorised bike initiatives, such as mounds or trails, do not cause conflict with users of public reserves. The identified purpose of Council’s Provision of Local Area BMX Circuits Policy is:

“To define Council’s requirements for the provision of a Local Area BMX Circuit.”

In 2021, a number of Notices of Motion (NoMs) were presented to Council in relation to investigations for pump tracks in Sussex Inlet, Bomaderry and Sanctuary Point localities.

Sussex Inlet

At Council’s Strategy and Assets Committee Meeting in July 2021, a Notice of Motion was reported to Council, where the following was adopted (MIN21.536):

That Council:

1. In consultation with the community, take action to identify a suitable location for a pump track at Sussex Inlet.

2. Apply for grant funding to fund the project.

3. Include the project in a future Operational Plan.

Bomaderry

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting in August 2021 MIN21.580 was adopted:

That Council:

1. Work with Bomaderry Inc, Bomaderry CCB, Pride of Bomaderry, sporting clubs and other interested parties to identify the most suitable location in the Bomaderry area for the establishment of a pump track.

2. Add the Bomaderry Pump Track to its list of unfunded projects and look for future funding opportunities to progress the project.

Sanctuary Point

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting in November 2021 MIN21.805 was adopted:

That Council produce a scoping study and estimate of costs to design and construct, in collaboration with the community, a BMX Pump Track on Community Land at a location to be determined through community consultation (such as Clifton Park Sanctuary Point adjacent to the existing learn-to-ride bicycle track). On completion of this phase, sources of funding would need to be identified.

Defining BMX Circuits and Pump Tracks

BMX circuits and pump tracks have similar qualities and provide a similar experience yet contain district features. Currently, the provision of both of these types of infrastructure is under Council’s Provision of Local Area BMX Circuits Policy with no distinction or acknowledgement between the two track types.

BMX circuits, historically, have a definitive start and finish, with the starting point generally on a high raised mound which drops into the main track, then requires the rider to pedal to reach the end point. Generally, various types of dirt jumps, rollers and large ‘bermed’ turns (corners) are provided for the rider to navigate prior to finishing the track as illustrated in Figure 1.

Pump tracks, however, are circuitous and made into a loop with riders of the track gaining and maintaining momentum by “pumping” with whole body movements rather than pedalling. The features of a pump track are more consistent with rollers and ‘berms’ which can be ridden with minimal pedalling as illustrated in Figure 2.

Provision of Local Area BMX Circuits Policy has, historically, been successful in defining the role of Council and community in providing BMX circuits on public land. The more recent works, to upgrade Kangaroo Valley BMX Circuit to a sealed pump track and new pump track at Shoalhaven Heads, were not subject to consideration of all aspects of the Policy. With BMX circuits and pump tracks being similar infrastructure, some criteria from the Policy can be applied to ensure environmental aspects are considered and community expectations are met.

A road with grass on the side

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Figure 1 BMX Track (Source: Bike Tracks Australia)

A picture containing grass, several

Description automatically generated

Figure 2 Pump Track (Source: Velosolutions)

Existing BMX Circuits and Pump Tracks

Council staff from Community Planning and Projects undertook desktop investigations and site visits of existing BMX circuits and pump tracks within Shoalhaven.

There are ten (10) known existing BMX circuits and pump tracks within Shoalhaven, illustrated in Figure 3, which are located on land under multiple ownership and management, including:

· Crown Land

· Council–owned land

· NSW State Forest

A pump track is being delivered as Stage 2 of Boongaree (previously Berry District Park), with construction to commence on 6 June 2022, and the works anticipated to be completed by the end of the year. Additionally, a pump track is included under the draft Ulladulla Sports Park Masterplan endorsed by Council to progress to public exhibition in May 2022.

While Council has been involved in funding, partially or in full, and maintenance of some of the tracks within Shoalhaven, other infrastructure has been constructed and may be maintained by community members. At some sites, there is evidence that the infrastructure has been upgraded and / or amended, i.e., shovels to indicate trail building, from its initial approved form. Some of the infrastructure in Table 3 may be considered informal due to Council not being involved in its planning or operation.

Council staff from Community Planning and Projects undertook site visits to provide a preliminary basic visual condition assessment for existing BMX Circuits and Pump Tracks. A more detailed analysis and condition assessment may be required by the Asset Custodian or another suitably qualified staff for a comprehensive asset assessment.

The existing BMX circuits and pump track infrastructure have been assessed against Council’s Conditions Rating Table – see Table 1 – with conditions assigned from a basic visual assessment on track condition, ride-ability and maintenance required.

Photographs of these BMX circuits and pump tracks are included in Attachment 1.

Figure 3 Locations of known BMX circuits and pump tracks in the Shoalhaven

Table 1 Conditions ratings for existing BMX tracks and pump tracks

Scale	Condition of asset
Very Poor Condition	· Structure has failed and is not operational · Maintenance is not viable · Unfit for purpose · Environmental/contamination/pollution issues exist
Poor Condition	· Structure is badly deteriorated · Potential structural problems · Inferior appearance · Major defects
Fair Condition	· Average condition · Significant defects are evident · Services are functional but maintenance is required · Deferred maintenance work exists
Good Condition	· Minor defects · Superficial deterioration · Major maintenance not required
Very Good Condition	· No defects · As new condition and appearance

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 06 June 2022

Page 0

Proposed Pump Track Investigations

Eligibility and Site Criteria for BMX Circuits and Pump Tracks

Clauses 3.1 and 3.2 of the Provision of Local Area BMX Circuits Policy (POL16/109) outline Eligibility and Site Selection Criteria for development of a proposed local area circuit. With BMX circuits and pump tracks being similar cycling infrastructure, some of the below criteria from the Policy can be applied to ensure environmental aspects are considered, and community expectations are met for the proposed pump tracks. As such, where circuit and BMX are referenced, these should be assessed in terms of a sealed pump track.

3.1 Eligibility

For a community to be eligible for a proposed local area circuit, it must first meet the following criteria:

· Demonstration of significant need by local BMX riders

· The proposed circuit location meets the site selection criteria

· All applications are to be considered and approved through the statutory legislative process prior to construction

· Interested community to create and evaluation criteria to weigh upon in successive years

· Interested community to create a five-year activation strategy

3.2 Site Selection Criteria

Sites proposed for the development of BMX circuits must first meet the following selection criteria:

· Council owned / managed reserve

· Consistent with the relevant Plan of Management for the reserve

· Relatively flat terrain

· Circuit size does not encroach on more than 1/3 of the reserve area

· Visual prominence affording casual supervision

· Suitable bike access to the reserve

· If circuit to be located within 40.0m from a watercourse, the proposal is to be discussed with the Department administering the Water Management Act

· Wherever possible, to be located within the area of other recreation facilities and amenities

· Close to transport route and local shops

The Policy outlines that the community is required to demonstrate eligibility prior to site selection, and to undertake community consultation to determine support for the pump track, along with identification of a suitable site which meets the Policy criteria.

Site Investigations

In response to the NoMs, Council staff undertook a detailed desktop analysis of each of the Sussex Inlet, Bomaderry and Sanctuary Point localities to identify potential sites suitable to situate the proposed pump track, with the scope limited to Council owned or managed Community Land.

The ability to situate a pump track is based on estimated size and dimensions based on existing pump tracks. The minimum dimensions required were calculated by averaging the dimensions of existing pump tracks on Council owned or managed land as outlined in Table 2, having dimensions of a minimum 59m x 32m and minimum area of 2,163m².

Council-owned or managed land was identified through Council’s GIS System and was considered against the below criteria to identify possible sites:

1. Council owned / managed reserve:

a. Classified as Community Land

b. Zoned for Public Recreation

2. Area of reserve is minimum 6,489m²

3. Reserve contains area of minimum 2,163m² with:

a. Dimensions of approximately 59m x 32m

b. Relatively flat terrain

c. Generally cleared of vegetation

Once the above criteria were met, further assessment was undertaken in accordance with the below to result in a shortlist of sites:

· Categorisation of land

· Actions identified in the Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan

· Criteria under the Provision of Local Area BMX Circuits Policy

· Site constraints

The identified shortlisted sites were sent to the Asset Custodian for feedback on forward planning and suitability for the proposed pump track for development on the sites. The shortlisted sites are provided below for each of the Sussex Inlet, Bomaderry and Sanctuary Point localities in order of suitability, if multiple sites were identified.

Sussex Inlet

1. Thomson Street Sporting Complex

2. Crown Reserve R69668

Detailed site analysis for the proposed pump track at Sussex Inlet is included as Attachment 2.

Bomaderry

Detailed investigation – included as Attachment 3 – provides assessment and analysis but concludes suitability of one identified parcel of land in accordance with the above criteria, being Edwards Avenue Reserve, Bomaderry as illustrated below in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Edwards Avenue Reserve, Bomaderry

Sanctuary Point

1. Sanctuary Point Public Reserve

2. Sanctuary Point Road Reserve

3. Yellow Bellied Glider Reserve

Detailed site analysis for the proposed pump track at Sanctuary Point is included as Attachment 4.

Connectivity to Other Bicycle Infrastructure

Council has a Pedestrian Access & Mobility Plan (PAMP) (D06/96520 - Stage 1 & D12/308835 – Stage 2). The Plan provides the strategy, ranking methodology and mapping to support expansion of paths, pedestrian crossings and bicycle infrastructure across the City. The Plan’s purpose is to:

· Identify priorities for pedestrians and cyclists

· Continuously improve the network of footpaths, shared user paths and pedestrian crossings across the City

· Assist Council in prioritising works

· Demonstrate an integrated approach to “active transport” planning across the City

· Assist Council and the community to obtain grant funding for priority improvements

Figure 5 to Figure 8 illustrate relevant excerpts from Council’s Pedestrian Access & Mobility Plan (PAMP) showing existing and proposed active transport networks for Sussex Inlet, Bomaderry, Sanctuary Point and Bay & Basin localities.

Figure 5 Bomaderry excerpt of Council’s PAMP

Figure 6 Sussex Inlet excerpt of Council’s PAMP

Figure 7 Sanctuary Point excerpt of Council’s PAMP

Figure 8 Bay and Basin Excerpt of Council’s PAMP showing the Bay to Basin Shared Path / Cycleway

Council also has a Bike Plan (D16/102085), adopted in 2013, which provides a similar purpose to the Pedestrian Access & Mobility Plan. Mapping and projects are integrated across both documents. Although the PAMP includes existing and proposed cycling infrastructure, it also includes all other forms of active transport. Accordingly, the Bike Plan was prepared to highlight the strategy for cyclists and cyclist safety specifically. It also contains separate criteria to rank cycling initiatives.

Figure 9 to Figure 11 illustrate relevant excerpts from Council’s Bike Plan showing existing and proposed active transport networks in the Sussex Inlet, Bomaderry and Sanctuary Point localities.

Figure 9 Excerpt of Map 016 from Council’s Bike Plan

Figure 10 Excerpt of Map 007 from Council’s Bike Plan

Figure 11 Excerpt of Map 014 from Council’s Bike Plan

Community Engagement

Pending the outcome of Council’s resolution, community engagement will be undertaken in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Policy.

Varying forms of engagement will be undertaken with key internal / external stakeholders and the Sussex Inlet, Bomaderry and Sanctuary Point communities in order to gather feedback which will inform each proposed pump track.

Cycling Groups

Council is aware that a number of community-led cycling clubs operate within the Shoalhaven, with a number of self-maintained, off-road cycling trail networks. Thorough engagement with these groups will occur to ensure any future proposed cycling infrastructure is integrated with, and complements, existing networks. Key groups identified include, but are not limited to:

· Milton Ulladulla Mountain Bikers

· Nowra Velo Club

· Shoalhaven Bicycle User Group

· South Coast United Mountain Bikers (SCUM)

Next Steps

Pending Council’s resolution, the next steps for these proposed pump tracks will be to commence community engagement as covered above to identify community support and the preferred sites. Figure 10 below provides a flow chart for the proposed pump tracks’ overall process.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 10 Flow chart of overall process

Policy Implications

Provision of Local Area BMX Circuits Policy (POL16/109)

The Policy was last reviewed in 2017, and is due for review before end of 2022, in line with NSW Local Government Election requirements.

Subsequent to the Policy’s last review, a number of strategic plans have been developed in response to an increase in cycling and mountain biking. NSW Government and Regional Strategies have been developed in response to the increased demand for cycling experiences and desire for more authorised cycling experiences, particularly off-road biking. A strategic approach should be adopted in the delivery of cycling infrastructure within Shoalhaven, inclusive of robust community consultation to ensure connectivity of existing and future cycling infrastructure.

Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan Review

Council’s CISP is the overarching strategic document to guide Council’s social and infrastructure planning. Council staff will shortly commence a thorough review of the CISP, involving the strategic review of all community and social infrastructure, including all recreational and park land within Shoalhaven.

Current community use and future needs for open space will be further investigated during community consultation for the CISP Review, which can be incorporated in the strategic development of a considered approach and an integrated infrastructure program.

Provision and potential update of existing / new BMX circuits and pump tracks, including their definition and classification, will be considered under the CISP review.

Financial Implications

Investigations on the proposed pump tracks to date have been ‘desktop’ based and funded through the City Lifestyles staff budget.

The pump track being delivered as Stage 2 of Boongaree (previously Berry District Park) has been funded and is due to commence construction in June 2022. The pump track included as part of the draft Ulladulla Sports Park Masterplan has been endorsed by Council to progress to public exhibition in May 2022, with no funding yet identified for detail design and delivery of individual features.

Council does not currently have an identified budget to plan, build or maintain the proposed pump tracks at Sussex Inlet, Bomaderry or Sanctuary Point. In addition, each project is in the initial planning stage and estimated costs of construction cannot yet be determined.

Should Council determine to undertake further and more detailed investigations once the preferred sites have been determined, and the scope clarified, funding will be required to progress this with development of preliminary concept designs. Further funding would be required, should Council determine to progress this project to a ‘shovel-ready’ / construction-ready detailed design.

Approximate costings for detailed design for a pump track is $9,000 to $25,000, inclusive of specialist documentation, with construction between approximately $300,000 to $500,000 dependent on track size and features and materials used. Costings for the pump track may be reduced if pump track project is community-led, or a combination of the below funding streams are utilised:

· Council funding;

· Funding or works in-kind, obtained or delivered by community groups; and/or

· Grant funding.

Risk Implications

Council has a responsibility to ensure that public space under its care, control and management continues to be operational and developed in a sustainable manner to provide for current / future community needs.

The identified sites would require further technical investigations to determine site suitability for location of the pump track. Increased outdoor recreation, greater numbers of cyclists and mountain bikers has resulted in informal trail-building and unauthorised jumps on Council land. Planning and delivery of formal cycling infrastructure with community collaboration allows enhancement of outdoor recreation in the Shoalhaven and mitigates additional unauthorised / unsafe infrastructure.

Council policies and plans must be in line with the relevant legislation, in particular, the Crown Lands Management Act 2016 and the relevant Plan of Management for its category, which governs care and management of Crown Land under Council control.

Ordinary Meeting – Monday 06 June 2022

Page 0

CL22.255 National Performance Reporting Score Card

HPERM Ref: D22/213478

Department: Water Business Services

Approver: Andrew McVey, Section Manager - Water Operations & Maintenance

Attachments: 1. National Performance Reporting - Action Plan ⇩

Reason for Report

The purpose of this Report is to inform Council of the performance outcomes for Shoalhaven Water following the National Performance Report (NPR) 2020-21 for Urban Water Utilities. The NPR is a comprehensive “report card” released in March 2022 covering the reporting period of 1 July 2020 - 30 June 2021. The Report provides benchmarking data against other Water Authorities/Utilities across Australia.

Recommendation

That Council receive the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology National Performance Report 2020-21 for Urban Water Utilities for information.

Options

1. As Recommended

2. Council could seek additional information on any of the indicator results.

Background

The NPR 2020-21 for Urban Water Utilities produced by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) benchmarks the performance of 86 urban water service providers, comprising 81 Water Utilities and five bulk water suppliers, against 166 indicators covering water resources, pricing, environment, finance, assets, health, and customer service. These indicators are calculated through the annual collection and submission of over 1,100 pieces of data.

Performance monitoring and benchmarking of Council’s Water Supply and Sewerage businesses is required under the terms of the National Water Initiative (NWI) and is facilitated by the BOM. The BOM specifies the criteria by which Water Utilities are monitored and the results are tabled publicly each year.

There are 166 indicators that form the full set of performance indicators. This Report provides a summary of key indicators. The full Report can be accessed through the BOM website http://www.bom.gov.au/water/npr/.

For the purpose of NPR, the contributing utilities are grouped by the number of connected properties. The utility groups used are:

Group	Number of Connected Properties
Major	100,000+
Large	50,000 to 100,000
Medium	20,000 to 50,000
Small	10,000 to 20,000

Shoalhaven Water under the methodology set out in the NPR, has 50,200 connected properties. Shoalhaven Water are therefore assessed in the Large Group. This is the first year Shoalhaven Water has moved into the Large Group and is the only NSW based Water Utility in this Group.

This Report is provided to Council following analysis of the results and as a summary of key indicators of interest for Shoalhaven Water performance against that of the 13 comparative sized utilities in the Large Group. This report has also provided a comparison with other neighbouring Local Water Utilities on the Typical Residential Bill.

Local Water Utilities Included in the Large Group Category:

Shoalhaven City Council

Coliban Region Water Corporation

Central Gippsland Region Water Corporation

North East Region Water Corporation

Goulburn Valley Region Water Corporation

Central Highlands Water

Toowoomba Regional Council

Redland City Council

Western Region Water Corporation

Water Corporation - Mandurah

Townsville City Council

Cairns Regional Council

Power and Water Corporation – Darwin

A selection of the 166 indicators have been detailed to show Shoalhaven Water’s performance which have been collated into four key sections. Each table includes Shoalhaven Water’s result, how the result ranks within the Large Group and the average score of the Group.

Section 1- Size and Scale of Infrastructure

Indicator	Shoalhaven Water	Ranking in group	Group average
Number of water treatment plants providing full treatment (plants)	4	4th	9.9
Number of wastewater treatment plants (plants)	13	8th	11.6
Length of Water Mains (km)	1,587	4th	1,929
Length of sewer Mains	1,251	4th	1,363
Number of properties served per km of water main (properties/km)	32	12th	36.4
Number of properties served per km of sewer main (properties/km)	34	13th	45.48

These indicators demonstrate the number of Council’s water and wastewater plants and the kilometres of main required to service the community across the wide geographic area of the Shoalhaven. The low number of properties that are serviced per kilometre for both water and sewer mains, highlights the constraint faced when apportioning the cost of maintaining and operating this infrastructure. Shoalhaven Water ranked 12^th and 13^th respectively for properties served per kilometre of water and wastewater main, the lowest and second lowest number in the group.

Section 2 – Asset Performance

Indicator	Shoalhaven Water	Ranking in group	Group average
Number of water main breaks, bursts, and leaks, per 100 km of water mains (mains breaks/100 km)	6.5	3^rd	13
Number of sewer mains breaks and chokes per 100 km (breaks and chokes/100 km)	3	2^nd	15.3
Number of property connection sewer breaks and chokes per 1,000 properties (breaks and chokes/1,000 properties)	2.2	6^th	2.9
Number of unplanned interruptions per 1,000 properties: water supply (interruptions/1,000 properties)	38	4^th	81.5

A targeted program of works to replace high risk pipelines has been progressing over the past few years and it is expected the results will further improve over time. The success of Council’s ongoing investment, based on a risk management and risk mitigation approach to maintain the water and wastewater network, underpins Shoalhaven Water’s performance in all of the above indicators.

Importantly, it is recognised that whilst Shoalhaven Water’s performance continues to be strong, the continued reinvestment in assets is required to maintain this level of performance and further improvement. A maturity assessment of Council’s asset management was conducted at the end of 2021. Work has begun on the implementation of the recommendations identified by this assessment, to further strengthen the asset management and operations of Council’s infrastructure.

Section 3 – Customer Service

Indicator	Shoalhaven Water	Ranking in group	Group average
Number of water service complaints per 1,000 properties (complaints/1,000 properties)	0.2	5^th	4.6
Number of sewerage service complaints per 1,000 properties (complaints/1,000 properties)	0.1	4^th	0.5
Average duration of an unplanned interruption: water supply (minutes)	74	4^th	94.4

Shoalhaven Water has a strong customer focus with systems well established to identify problems early within the network, through a telemetry monitoring system. Shoalhaven Water have built effective and efficient workflows to quickly respond when customers identify interruptions in the water and sewer network.

Currently, Shoalhaven Water is supporting the Council wide project to implement a Request Management System. The project will provide a centralised system for customers to advise when they find a problem, utilising a number of communication channels including the Customer Experience team and self-service options through the Shoalhaven Water website.

This project will continue to capture and manage complaints to respond efficiently to further reduce both the number and length of time of unplanned interruptions to Council’s networks.

Section 4 – Customer Cost of Service and Customer Usage of Services

Indicator	Shoalhaven Water	Ranking in group out of 13	Group average
Fixed charge: water supply ($)	83.00	1^st	299.60
Usage charge: step 1 ($/kL)	1.75	4^th	2.94
Annual residential bill based on 200 kL per annum: water supply ($)	433.00	2^nd	688.58
Annual residential bill based on 200 kL per annum: wastewater ($)	876.00	12^th	690.68
Total typical residential bill: water supply and wastewater ($)	1,231	5^th	1,370.92
Average volume of residential water supplied per property (KL/property)	155	3rd	215
Average volume of wastewater collected per property (KL/property)	277	11^th	242

The Shoalhaven is fortunate to have access to high quality raw water, coupled with the low volume of water supplied on average to residential customers, the cost of water to customers is comparably low. The complexity of managing wastewater across Council’s geographically dispersed population, sensitive environments and the high volume of average wastewater collected per property, all contribute to the higher wastewater costs.

The investment in significant wastewater treatment plants, particularly the Nowra Treatment Plant and Reclaimed Water Management Scheme (REMS) has provided increased capacity in the wastewater schemes to cater for current and future forecasted population growth in the Shoalhaven.

Comparison with Neighbouring Local Water Utilities

Indicator	Total Typical residential Bill
Shoalhaven Water	$1,231
Sydney Water Corporation	$1,022
Goulburn Mulwaree Council	$1,362
Wingecarribee Shire Council	$1,376
Eurobodalla Shire Council	$1,770
Bega Shire Council	$1,952

A summary action plan is attached to this report that identifies key actions planned for the next two years to support the ongoing performance of Shoalhaven Water in the National Performance Reporting.

The long-term financial planning will continue to balance the cost to Shoalhaven customers and the revenue required to fund the asset management planning and ongoing operational costs. The fees and charges proposed for the 2022-23 financial year have an increase in water usage charges but has maintained the fixed charge. This pricing methodology is in line with the Best Practice Management of Water Supply and Sewerage with most of the revenue collected through water usage. This continues to encourage residents to be conservative with their water consumption.

Dividend Paid

On the 26 April 2022 Council adopted to approve the payment of a dividend from the 2020-21 financial year from both the Water and Sewer funds. The NPR data reveals that Shoalhaven Water was one of only four Local Water Utilities out of the thirteen in the large group to pay a dividend for the 2020-21 year. A review of the neighbouring Local Council areas, confirmed that only Eurobodalla Shire Council paid a divided in this reporting period.

Review of Indicators

It should be noted that a review of the performance indicators set out in the NPR has been underway since October 2020. The outcome of the review is anticipated to establish a suite of indicators and themes that are relevant to the current urban water sector and adaptable to changes in the sector in the future. The publication of the new NPR indicators and definitions handbook was anticipated to be released in March 2022, at the time of this Report, this has not been released. The indicators will take effect for the reporting period starting 1 July 2022. Once released, the collection of data required to meet the new NPR indicators will be reviewed to ensure systems are updated for future reporting.

Community Engagement

A copy of the full BOM performance report in a similar format is available from the BOM website. A full dataset of the results from the 166 indicators are also available.

A summary along with links of Shoalhaven’s performance have been promulgated for customers on the Shoalhaven Water website and segments will be contained within the Customer Service Plan for benchmarking against the targets specified in that strategic document. An update of the Customer Service Plan can be found at the Shoalhaven Water website.

Full analysis of the entire suite of indicators is being undertaken to address any issues including future considerations for inclusion into the Shoalhaven Water Strategic Business Plan.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications for Council resulting from this report that have not been addressed separately.

Location	Lot DP	Reserve Name	Approximate Reserve Area	Track Type	Approximate Track Dimensions	Approximate Track Size	Land Owner / Manager	Formal / Informal	Condition
Kangaroo Valley	Lot 16 DP 773481	Moss Vale Road Reserve	7,146m²	Sealed Pump Track	65m x 23m	1,727m²	Council	Formal	Very Good
Shoalhaven Heads	Lot 7009 DP 1002414	Jerry Bailey Oval	40,799m²	Sealed Pump Track	92m x 20m	1,971m²	Crown Lands / Council	Formal	Very Good
Worrigee	Lot 41 DP 807159, Lot 16 DP 806491	Andrew Crescent Reserve	7,663m²	Dirt BMX Circuit	62m x 40m	2,618m²	Council	Formal	Poor
South Nowra/ Comberton	N/A	Nowra State Forest	N/A	Dirt Pump Track	39m x 17m	480m²	State Forestry NSW	Informal	Good
Greenwell Point	Lot A DP 400413	Gordon Ravell Oval	20,300m²	Dirt BMX Circuit	48m x 22m	1,033m²	Council	Formal	Very Poor
Culburra Beach	Lot 1414 DP 12278	Curleys Bay Reserve	29,700m²	Dirt BMX Circuit	39m x 34m	1,042m²	Council	Formal	Poor
Erowal Bay	Lot 3 DP 874324	Pam Weiss Village Green	5,261m²	Dirt BMX Circuit	42m x 23m	1,004m²	Council	Informal	Fair
Fishermans Paradise	Lot 295 DP 26974	Hazel Rowbotham Reserve	29,900m²	Dirt BMX Circuit	47m x 27m	1,112m²	Council	Formal	Fair
Basin View	Lot 7020 DP 1056381	Malcolm Moore Reserve	22,403m²	Dirt BMX Circuit	73m x 60m	6,403m²	Crown Lands / Council	Formal	Good
Ulladulla	Lot 7020 DP 1056381	Parson St Reserve	5,258m²	Dirt BMX Circuit	62m x 42m	2,558m²	Council	Formal	Fair